But marriage cannot be dissolved even as to the act on
account of other sins, unless perchance the husband wish to cease from
intercourse with his wife in order to punish her by depriving her of
the comfort of his presence.
account of other sins, unless perchance the husband wish to cease from
intercourse with his wife in order to punish her by depriving her of
the comfort of his presence.
Summa Theologica
For matrimony is a sacrament of the Church.
Now Baptism is
the door of the sacraments. Therefore unbelievers, since they are not
baptized, cannot marry any more than they can receive other sacraments.
Objection 2: Further, two evils are a greater impediment to good than
one. But the unbelief of only one party is an impediment to marriage.
Much more, therefore, is the unbelief of both, and consequently there
can be no marriage between unbelievers.
Objection 3: Further, just as there is disparity of worship between
believer and unbeliever, so can there be between two unbelievers, for
instance if one be a heathen and the other a Jew. Now disparity of
worship is an impediment to marriage, as stated above [4992](A[1]).
Therefore there can be no valid marriage at least between unbelievers
of different worship.
Objection 4: Further, in marriage there is real chastity. But according
to Augustine (De Adult. Conjug. i, 18) there is no real chastity
between an unbeliever and his wife, and these words are quoted in the
Decretals (XXVIII, qu. i, can. Sic enim. ). Neither therefore is there a
true marriage.
Objection 5: Further, true marriage excuses carnal intercourse from
sin. But marriage contracted between unbelievers cannot do this, since
"the whole life of unbelievers is a sin," as a gloss observes on Rom.
14:23, "All that is not of faith is sin. " Therefore there is no true
marriage between unbelievers.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 7:12): "If any brother hath a
wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not
put her away. " But she is not called his wife except by reason of
marriage. Therefore marriage between unbelievers is a true marriage.
Further, the removal of what comes after does not imply the removal of
what comes first. Now marriage belongs to an office of nature, which
precedes the state of grace, the principle of which is faith. Therefore
unbelief does not prevent the existence of marriage between
unbelievers.
I answer that, Marriage was instituted chiefly for the good of the
offspring, not only as to its begetting---since this can be effected
even without marriage---but also as to its advancement to a perfect
state, because everything intends naturally to bring its effect to
perfection. Now a twofold perfection is to be considered in the
offspring. one is the perfection of nature, not only as regards the
body but also as regards the soul, by those means which are of the
natural law. The other is the perfection of grace: and the former
perfection is material and imperfect in relation to the latter.
Consequently, since those things which are for the sake of the end are
proportionate to the end, the marriage that tends to the first
perfection is imperfect and material in comparison with that which
tends to the second perfection. And since the first perfection can be
common to unbelievers and believers, while the second belongs only to
believers, it follows that between unbelievers there is marriage
indeed, but not perfected by its ultimate perfection as there is
between believers.
Reply to Objection 1: Marriage was instituted not only as a sacrament,
but also as an office of nature. And therefore, although marriage is
not competent to unbelievers, as a sacrament dependent on the
dispensation of the Church's ministers, it is nevertheless competent to
them as fulfilling an office of nature. And yet even a marriage of this
kind is a sacrament after the manner of a habit, although it is not
actually since they do not marry actually in the faith of the Church.
Reply to Objection 2: Disparity of worship is an impediment to
marriage, not by reason of unbelief, but on account of the difference
of faith. For disparity of worship hinders not only the second
perfection of the offspring, but also the first, since the parents
endeavor to draw their children in different directions, which is not
the case when both are unbelievers.
Reply to Objection 3: As already stated (ad 1) there is marriage
between unbelievers, in so far as marriage fulfills an office of
nature. Now those things that pertain to the natural law are
determinable by positive law: and therefore if any law among
unbelievers forbid the contracting of marriage with unbelievers of a
different rite, the disparity of worship will be an impediment to their
intermarrying. They are not, however, forbidden by Divine law, because
before God, however much one may stray from the faith, this makes no
difference to one's being removed from grace: nor is it forbidden by
any law of the Church who has not to judge of those who are without.
Reply to Objection 4: The chastity and other virtues of unbelievers are
said not to be real, because they cannot attain the end of real virtue,
which is real happiness. Thus we say it is not a real wine if it has
not the effect of wine.
Reply to Objection 5: An unbeliever does not sin in having intercourse
with his wife, if he pays her the marriage debt, for the good of the
offspring, or for the troth whereby he is bound to her: since this is
an act of justice and of temperance which observes the due circumstance
in pleasure of touch; even as neither does he sin in performing acts of
other civic virtues. Again, the reason why the whole life of
unbelievers is said to be a sin is not that they sin in every act, but
because they cannot be delivered from the bondage of sin by that which
they do.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the husband, being converted to the faith, may remain with his wife
is she be unwilling to be converted?
Objection 1: It would seem that when a husband is converted to the
faith he cannot remain with his wife who is an unbeliever and is
unwilling to be converted, and whom he had married while he was yet an
unbeliever. For where the danger is the same one should take the same
precautions. Now a believer is forbidden to marry an unbeliever for
fear of being turned away from the faith. Since then if the believer
remain with the unbeliever whom he had married previously, the danger
is the same, in fact greater, for neophytes are more easily perverted
than those who have been brought up in the faith, it would seem that a
believer, after being converted, cannot remain with an unbeliever.
Objection 2: Further, "An unbeliever cannot remain united to her who
has been received into the Christian faith" (Decretals, XXVIII, qu. 1,
can. Judaei). Therefore a believer is bound to put away a wife who does
not believe.
Objection 3: Further, a marriage contracted between believers is more
perfect than one contracted between unbelievers. Now, if believers
marry within the degrees forbidden by the Church, their marriage is
void. Therefore the same applies to unbelievers, and thus a believing
husband cannot remain with an unbelieving wife, at any rate, if as an
unbeliever he married her within the forbidden degrees.
Objection 4: Further, sometimes an unbeliever has several wives
recognized by his law. If, then, he can remain with those whom he
married while yet an unbeliever, it would seem that even after his
conversion he can retain several wives.
Objection 5: Further, it may happen that after divorcing his first wife
he has married a second, and that he is converted during this latter
marriage. It would seem therefore that at least in this case he cannot
remain with this second wife.
On the contrary, The Apostle counsels him to remain (1 Cor. 7:12).
Further, no impediment that supervenes upon a true marriage dissolves
it. Now it was a true marriage when they were both unbelievers.
Therefore when one of them is converted, the marriage is not annulled
on that account; and thus it would seem that they may lawfully remain
together.
I answer that, The faith of a married person does not dissolve but
perfects the marriage. Wherefore, since there is true marriage between
unbelievers, as stated above (A[2], ad 1), the marriage tie is not
broken by the fact that one of them is converted to the faith, but
sometimes while the marriage tie remains, the marriage is dissolved as
to cohabitation and marital intercourse, wherein unbelief and adultery
are on a par, since both are against the good of the offspring.
Consequently, the husband has the same power to put away an unbelieving
wife or to remain with her, as he has to put away an adulterous wife or
to remain with her. For an innocent husband is free to remain with an
adulterous wife in the hope of her amendment, but not if she be
obstinate in her sin of adultery, lest he seem to approve of her
disgrace; although even if there be hope of her amendment he is free to
put her away. In like manner the believer after his conversion may
remain with the unbeliever in the hope of her conversion, if he see
that she is not obstinate in her unbelief, and he does well in
remaining with her, though not bound to do so: and this is what the
Apostle counsels (1 Cor. 7:12).
Reply to Objection 1: It is easier to prevent a thing being done than
to undo what is rightly done. Hence there are many things that impede
the contracting of marriage if they precede it, which nevertheless
cannot dissolve it if they follow it. Such is the case with affinity
([4993]Q[55], A[6]): and it is the same with disparity of worship.
Reply to Objection 2: In the early Church at the time of the apostles,
both Jews and Gentiles were everywhere converted to the faith: and
consequently the believing husband could then have a reasonable hope
for his wife's conversion, even though she did not promise to be
converted. Afterwards, however, as time went on the Jews became more
obstinate than the Gentiles, because the Gentiles still continued to
come to the faith, for instance, at the time of the martyrs, and at the
time of Constantine and thereabouts. Wherefore it was not safe then for
a believer to cohabit with an unbelieving Jewish wife, nor was there
hope for her conversion as for that of a Gentile wife. Consequently,
then, the believer could, after his conversion, cohabit with his wife
if she were a Gentile, but not if she were a Jewess, unless she
promised to be converted. This is the sense of that decree. Now,
however, they are on a par, namely Gentiles and Jews, because both are
obstinate; and therefore unless the unbelieving wife be willing to be
converted, he is not allowed to cohabit with her, be she Gentile or
Jew.
Reply to Objection 3: Non-baptized unbelievers are not bound by the
laws of the Church, but they are bound by the ordinances of the Divine
law. Hence unbelievers who have married within the degrees forbidden by
the Divine law, whether both or one of them be converted to the faith,
cannot continue in a like marriage. But if they have married within the
degrees forbidden by a commandment of the Church, they can remain
together if both be converted, or if one be converted and there be hope
of the other's conversion.
Reply to Objection 4: To have several wives is contrary to the natural
law by which even unbelievers are bound. Wherefore an unbeliever is not
truly married save to her whom he married first. Consequently if he be
converted with all his wives, he may remain with the first, and must
put the others away. If, however, the first refuse to be converted, and
one of the others be converted, he has the same right to marry her
again as he would have to marry another. We shall treat of this matter
further on [4994](A[5]).
Reply to Objection 5: To divorce a wife is contrary to the law of
nature, wherefore it is not lawful for an unbeliever to divorce his
wife. Hence if he be converted after divorcing one and marrying
another, the same judgment is to be pronounced in this case as in the
case of a man who had several wives, because if he wish to be converted
he is bound to take the first whom he had divorced and to put the other
away.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a believer can, after his conversion, put away his unbelieving wife
if she be willing to cohabit with him without insult to the Creator?
Objection 1: It would seem that a believer, after his conversion,
cannot put away his unbelieving wife if she be willing to cohabit with
him without insult to the Creator. For the husband is more bound to his
wife than a slave to his master. But a converted slave is not freed
from the bond of slavery, as appears from 1 Cor. 7:21; 1 Tim. 6:1.
Therefore neither can a believing husband put away his unbelieving
wife.
Objection 2: Further, no one may act to another's prejudice without the
latter's consent. Now the unbelieving wife had a right in the body of
her unbelieving husband. If, then, her husband's conversion to the
faith could be prejudicial to the wife, so that he would be free to put
her away, the husband could not be converted to the faith without his
wife's consent, even as he cannot receive orders or vow continence
without her consent.
Objection 3: Further, if a man, whether slave or free, knowingly marry
a bondwoman, he cannot put her away on account of her different
condition. Since, then, the husband, when he married an unbeliever,
knew that she was an unbeliever, it would seem that in like manner he
cannot put her away on account of her unbelief.
Objection 4: Further, a father is in duty bound to work for the
salvation of his children. But if he were to leave his unbelieving
wife, the children of their union would remain with the mother, because
"the offspring follows the womb," and thus their salvation would be
imperiled. Therefore he cannot lawfully put away his unbelieving wife.
Objection 5: Further, an adulterous husband cannot put away an
adulterous wife, even after he has done penance for his adultery.
Therefore if an adulterous and an unbelieving husband are to be judged
alike, neither can the believer put aside the unbeliever, even after
his conversion to the faith.
On the contrary, are the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 7:15,16).
Further, spiritual adultery is more grievous than carnal. But a man can
put his wife away, as to cohabitation, on account of carnal adultery.
Much more, therefore, can he do so on account of unbelief, which is
spiritual adultery.
I answer that, Different things are competent and expedient to man
according as his life is of one kind or of another. Wherefore he who
dies to his former life is not bound to those things to which he was
bound in his former life. Hence it is that he who vowed certain things
while living in the world is not bound to fulfill them when he dies to
the world by adopting the religious life. Now he who is baptized is
regenerated in Christ and dies to his former life, since the generation
of one thing is the corruption of another, and consequently he is freed
from the obligation whereby he was bound to pay his wife the marriage
debt, and is not bound to cohabit with her when she is unwilling to be
converted, although in a certain case he is free to do so, as stated
above [4995](A[3]), just as a religious is free to fulfill the vows he
took in the world, if they be not contrary to his religious profession,
although he is not bound to do so.
Reply to Objection 1: Bondage is not inconsistent with the perfection
of the Christian religion, which makes a very special profession of
humility. But the obligation to a wife, or the conjugal bond, is
somewhat derogatory to the perfection of Christian life, the highest
state of which is in the possession of the continent: hence the
comparison fails. Moreover one married party is not bound to the other
as the latter's possession, as a slave to his master, but by way of a
kind of partnership, which is unfitting between unbeliever and believer
as appears from 2 Cor. 6:15; hence there is no comparison between a
slave and a married person.
Reply to Objection 2: The wife had a right in the body of her husband
only as long as he remained in the life wherein he had married, since
also when the husband dies the wife "is delivered from the law of her
husband" (Rom. 7:3). Wherefore if the husband leave her after he has
changed his life by dying to his former life, this is nowise
prejudicial to her. Now he who goes over to the religious life dies but
a spiritual death and not a bodily death. Wherefore if the marriage be
consummated, the husband cannot enter religion without his wife's
consent, whereas he can before carnal connection when there is only a
spiritual connection. On the other hand, he who is baptized is even
corporeally buried together with Christ unto death; and therefore he is
freed from paying the marriage debt even after the marriage has been
consummated.
We may also reply that it is through her own fault in refusing to be
converted that the wife suffers prejudice.
Reply to Objection 3: Disparity of worship makes a person simply unfit
for lawful marriage, whereas the condition of bondage does not, but
only where it is unknown. Hence there is no comparison between an
unbeliever and a bondswoman.
Reply to Objection 4: Either the child has reached a perfect age, and
then it is free to follow either the believing father or the
unbelieving mother, or else it is under age, and then it should be
given to the believer notwithstanding that it needs the mother's care
for its education.
Reply to Objection 5: By doing penance the adulterer does not enter
another life as an unbeliever by being baptized. Hence the comparison
fails.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the believer who leaves his unbelieving wife can take another wife?
Objection 1: It would seem that the believer who leaves his unbelieving
wife cannot take another wife. For indissolubility is of the nature of
marriage, since it is contrary to the natural law to divorce one's
wife. Now there was true marriage between them as unbelievers.
Therefore their marriage can nowise be dissolved. But as long as a man
is bound by marriage to one woman he cannot marry another. Therefore a
believer who leaves his unbelieving wife cannot take another wife.
Objection 2: Further, a crime subsequent to marriage does not dissolve
the marriage. Now, if the wife be willing to cohabit without insult to
the Creator, the marriage tie is not dissolved, since the husband
cannot marry another. Therefore the sin of the wife who refuses to
cohabit without insult to the Creator does not dissolve the marriage so
that her husband be free to take another wife.
Objection 3: Further, husband and wife are equal in the marriage tie.
Since, then, it is unlawful for the unbelieving wife to marry again
while her husband lives, it would seem that neither can the believing
husband do so.
Objection 4: Further, the vow of continence is more favorable than the
marriage contract. Now seemingly it is not lawful for the believing
husband to take a vow of continence without the consent of his
unbelieving wife, since then the latter would be deprived of marriage
if she were afterwards converted. Much less therefore is it lawful for
him to take another wife.
Objection 5: Further, the son who persists in unbelief after his
father's conversion loses the right to inherit from his father: and yet
if he be afterwards converted, the inheritance is restored to him even
though another should have entered into possession thereof. Therefore
it would seem that in like manner, if the unbelieving wife be
converted, her husband ought to be restored to her even though he
should have married another wife: yet this would be impossible if the
second marriage were valid. Therefore he cannot take another wife.
On the contrary, Matrimony is not ratified without the sacrament of
Baptism. Now what is not ratified can be annulled. Therefore marriage
contracted in unbelief can be annulled, and consequently, the marriage
tie being dissolved, it is lawful for the husband to take another wife.
Further, a husband ought not to cohabit with an unbelieving wife who
refuses to cohabit without insult to the Creator. If therefore it were
unlawful for him to take another wife he would be forced to remain
continent, which would seem unreasonable, since then he would be at a
disadvantage through his conversion.
I answer that, When either husband or wife is converted to the faith
the other remaining in unbelief, a distinction must be made. For if the
unbeliever be willing to cohabit without insult to the Creator---that
is without drawing the other to unbelief---the believer is free to part
from the other, but by parting is not permitted to marry again. But if
the unbeliever refuse to cohabit without insult to the Creator, by
making use of blasphemous words and refusing to hear Christ's name,
then if she strive to draw him to unbelief, the believing husband after
parting from her may be united to another in marriage.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above [4996](A[2]), the marriage of
unbelievers is imperfect, whereas the marriage of believers is perfect
and consequently binds more firmly. Now the firmer tie always looses
the weaker if it is contrary to it, and therefore the subsequent
marriage contracted in the faith of Christ dissolves the marriage
previously contracted in unbelief. Therefore the marriage of
unbelievers is not altogether firm and ratified, but is ratified
afterwards by Christ's faith.
Reply to Objection 2: The sin of the wife who refuses to cohabit
without insult to the Creator frees the husband from the tie whereby he
was bound to his wife so as to be unable to marry again during her
lifetime. It does not however dissolve the marriage at once, since if
she were converted from her blasphemy before he married again, her
husband would be restored to her. But the marriage is dissolved by the
second marriage which the believing husband would be unable to
accomplish unless he were freed from his obligation to his wife by her
own fault.
Reply to Objection 3: After the believer has married, the marriage tie
is dissolved on either side, because the marriage is not imperfect as
to the bond, although it is sometimes imperfect as to its effect. Hence
it is in punishment of the unbelieving wife rather than by virtue of
the previous marriage that she is forbidden to marry again. If however
she be afterwards converted, she may be allowed by dispensation to take
another husband, should her husband have taken another wife.
Reply to Objection 4: The husband ought not to take a vow of continence
nor enter into a second marriage, if after his conversion there be a
reasonable hope of the conversion of his wife, because the wife's
conversion would be more difficult if she knew she was deprived of her
husband. If however there be no hope of her conversion, he can take
Holy orders or enter religion, having first besought his wife to be
converted. And then if the wife be converted after her husband has
received Holy orders, her husband must not be restored to her, but she
must take it as a punishment of her tardy conversion that she is
deprived of her husband.
Reply to Objection 5: The bond of fatherhood is not dissolved by
disparity of worship, as the marriage bond is: wherefore there is no
comparison between an inheritance and a wife.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether other sins dissolve marriage?
Objection 1: It would seem that other sins besides unbelief dissolve
marriage. For adultery is seemingly more directly opposed to marriage
than unbelief is. But unbelief dissolves marriage in a certain case so
that it is lawful to marry again. Therefore adultery has the same
effect.
Objection 2: Further, just as unbelief is spiritual fornication, so is
any kind of sin. If, then unbelief dissolves marriage because it is
spiritual fornication, for the same reason any kind of sin will
dissolve marriage.
Objection 3: Further, it is said (Mat. 5:30): "If thy right hand
scandalize thee, pluck it off and cast it from thee," and a gloss of
Jerome says that "by the hand and the right eye we may understand our
brother, wife, relatives and children. " Now these become obstacles to
us by any kind of sin. Therefore marriage can be dissolved on account
of any kind of sin.
Objection 4: Further, covetousness is idolatry according to Eph. 5:5.
Now a wife may be put away on account of idolatry. Therefore in like
manner she can be put away on account of covetousness, as also on
account of other sins graver than covetousness.
Objection 5: Further, the Master says this expressly (Sent. iv, D, 30).
On the contrary, It is said (Mat. 5:32): "Whosoever shall put away his
wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit
adultery. "
Further, if this were true, divorces would be made all day long, since
it is rare to find a marriage wherein one of the parties does not fall
into sin.
I answer that, Bodily fornication and unbelief have a special
contrariety to the goods of marriage, as stated above [4997](A[3]).
Hence they are specially effective in dissolving marriages.
Nevertheless it must be observed that marriage is dissolved in two
ways. In one way as to the marriage tie, and thus marriage cannot be
dissolved after it is ratified, neither by unbelief nor by adultery.
But if it be not ratified, the tie is dissolved, if the one party
remain in unbelief, and the other being converted to the faith has
married again. On the other hand the aforesaid tie is not dissolved by
adultery, else the unbeliever would be free to give a bill of divorce
to his adulterous wife, and having put her away, could take another
wife, which is false. In another way marriage is dissolved as to the
act, and thus it can be dissolved on account of either unbelief or
fornication.
But marriage cannot be dissolved even as to the act on
account of other sins, unless perchance the husband wish to cease from
intercourse with his wife in order to punish her by depriving her of
the comfort of his presence.
Reply to Objection 1: Although adultery is opposed to marriage as
fulfilling an office of nature, more directly than unbelief, it is the
other way about if we consider marriage as a sacrament of the Church,
from which source it derives perfect stability, inasmuch as it
signifies the indissoluble union of Christ with the Church. Wherefore
the marriage that is not ratified can be dissolved as to the marriage
tie on account of unbelief rather than on account of adultery.
Reply to Objection 2: The primal union of the soul to God is by faith,
and consequently the soul is thereby espoused to God as it were,
according to Osee 2:20, "I will espouse thee to Me in faith. " Hence in
Holy Writ idolatry and unbelief are specially designated by the name of
fornication: whereas other sins are called spiritual fornications by a
more remote signification.
Reply to Objection 3: This applies to the case when the wife proves a
notable occasion of sin to her husband, so that he has reason to fear
his being in danger: for then the husband can withdraw from living with
her, as stated above [4998](A[5]).
Reply to Objection 4: Covetousness is said to be idolatry on account of
a certain likeness of bondage, because both the covetous and the
idolater serve the creature rather than the Creator; but not on account
of likeness of unbelief, since unbelief corrupts the intellect whereas
covetousness corrupts the affections.
Reply to Objection 5: The words of the Master refer to betrothal,
because a betrothal can be rescinded on account of a subsequent crime.
Or, if he is speaking of marriage, they must be referred to the
severing of mutual companionship for a time, as stated above, or to the
case when the wife is unwilling to cohabit except on the condition of
sinning, for instance, if she were to say: "I will not remain your wife
unless you amass wealth for me by theft," for then he ought to leave
her rather than thieve.
__________________________________________________________________
OF WIFE-MURDER (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider wife-murder, under which head there are two points
of inquiry:
(1) Whether in a certain case it is lawful to kill one's wife?
(2) Whether wife-murder is an impediment to marriage?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for a man to kill his wife if she be discovered in the
act of adultery?
Objection 1: It would seem lawful for a man to kill his wife if she be
discovered in the act of adultery. For the Divine law commanded
adulterous wives to be stoned. Now it is not a sin to fulfill the
Divine law. Neither therefore is it a sin to kill one's own wife if she
be an adulteress.
Objection 2: Further, that which the law can rightly do, can be rightly
done by one whom the law has commissioned to do it. But the law can
rightly kill an adulterous wife or any other person deserving of death.
Since then the law has commissioned the husband to kill his wife if she
be discovered in the act of adultery, it would seem that he can rightly
do so.
Objection 3: Further, the husband has greater power over his adulterous
wife than over the man who committed adultery with her. Now if the
husband strike a cleric whom he found with his wife he is not
excommunicated. Therefore it would seem lawful for him even to kill his
own wife if she be discovered in adultery.
Objection 4: Further, the husband is bound to correct his wife. But
correction is given by inflicting a just punishment. Since then the
just punishment of adultery is death, because it is a capital sin, it
would seem lawful for a husband to kill his adulterous wife.
On the contrary, It is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 37) that "the
Church of God is never bound by the laws of this world, for she has
none but a spiritual sword. " Therefore it would seem that he who wishes
to belong to the Church cannot rightly take advantage of the law which
permits a man to kill his wife.
Further, husband and wife are judged on a par. But it is not lawful for
a wife to kill her husband if he be discovered in adultery. Neither
therefore may a husband kill his wife.
I answer that, It happens in two ways that a husband kills his wife.
First, by a civil judgment; and thus there is no doubt that a husband,
moved by zeal for justice and not by vindictive anger or hatred can,
without sin, bring a criminal accusation of adultery upon his wife
before a secular court, and demand that she receive capital punishment
as appointed by the law; just as it is lawful to accuse a person of
murder or any other crime. Such an accusation however cannot be made in
an ecclesiastical court, because, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D,
37), the Church does not wield a material sword. Secondly, a husband
can kill his wife himself without her being convicted in court, and
thus to kill her outside of the act of adultery is not lawful, neither
according to civil law nor according to the law of conscience, whatever
evidence he may have of her adultery. The civil law however considers
it, as though it were lawful, that he should kill her in the very act,
not by commanding him to do so, but by not inflicting on him the
punishment for murder, on account of the very great provocation which
the husband receives by such a deed to kill his wife. But the Church is
not bound in this matter by human laws, neither does she acquit him of
the debt of eternal punishment, nor of such punishment as may be
awarded him by an ecclesiastical tribunal for the reason that he is
quit of any punishment to be inflicted by a secular court. Therefore in
no case is it lawful for a husband to kill his wife on his own
authority.
Reply to Objection 1: The law has committed the infliction of this
punishment not to private individuals, but to public persons, who are
deputed to this by their office. Now the husband is not his wife's
judge: wherefore he may not kill her, but may accuse her in the judge's
presence.
Reply to Objection 2: The civil law has not commissioned the husband to
kill his wife by commanding him to do so, for thus he would not sin,
just as the judge's deputy does not sin by killing the thief condemned
to death: but it has permitted this by not punishing it. For which
reason it has raised certain obstacles to prevent the husband from
killing his wife.
Reply to Objection 3: This does not prove that it is lawful simply, but
that it is lawful as regards immunity from a particular kind of
punishment, since excommunication is also a kind of punishment.
Reply to Objection 4: There are two kinds of community: the household,
such as a family; and the civil community, such as a city or kingdom.
Accordingly, he who presides over the latter kind of community, a king
for instance, can punish an individual both by correcting and by
exterminating him, for the betterment of the community with whose care
he is charged. But he who presides over a community of the first kind,
can inflict only corrective punishment, which does not extend beyond
the limits of amendment, and these are exceeded by the punishment of
death. Wherefore the husband who exercises this kind of control over
his wife may not kill her, but he may accuse or chastise her in some
other way.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether wife-murder is an impediment to marriage?
Objection 1: It would seem that wife-murder is not an impediment to
marriage. For adultery is more directly opposed to marriage than murder
is. Now adultery is not an impediment to marriage. Neither therefore is
wife-murder.
Objection 2: Further, it is a more grievous sin to kill one's mother
than one's wife, for it is never lawful to strike one's mother, whereas
it is sometimes lawful to strike one's wife. But matricide is not an
impediment to marriage. Neither therefore is wife-murder.
Objection 3: Further, it is a greater sin for a man to kill another
man's wife on account of adultery than to kill his own wife, inasmuch
as he has less motive and is less concerned with her correction. But he
who kills another man's wife is not hindered from marrying. Neither
therefore is he who kills his own wife.
Objection 4: Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed.
But the sin of murder can be removed by repentance. Therefore the
consequent impediment to marriage can be removed also: and consequently
it would seem that after he has done penance he is not forbidden to
marry.
On the contrary, A canon (caus. xxxiii, qu. ii, can. Interfectores)
says: "The slayers of their own wives must be brought back to penance,
and they are absolutely forbidden to marry. " Further, in whatsoever a
man sins, in that same must he be punished. But he who kills his wife
sins against marriage. Therefore he must be punished by being deprived
of marriage.
I answer that, By the Church's decree wife-murder is an impediment to
marriage. Sometimes however it forbids the contracting of marriage
without voiding the contract, when to wit the husband kills his wife on
account of adultery or even through hatred; nevertheless if there be
fear lest he should prove incontinent, he may be dispensed by the
Church so as to marry lawfully. Sometimes it also voids the contract,
as when a man kills his wife in order to marry her with whom he has
committed adultery, for then the law declares him simply unfit to marry
her, so that if he actually marry her his marriage is void. He is not
however hereby rendered simply unfit by law in relation to other women:
wherefore if he should have married another, although he sin by
disobeying the Church's ordinance, the marriage is nevertheless not
voided for this reason.
Reply to Objection 1: Murder and adultery in certain cases forbid the
contracting of marriage and void the contract, as we say here in regard
to wife-murder, and shall say further on (Sent. iv[4999], Q[62], A[2])
in regard to adultery. We may also reply that wife-murder is contrary
to the substance of wedlock, whereas adultery is contrary to the good
of fidelity due to marriage. Hence adultery is not more opposed to
marriage than wife-murder, and the argument is based on a false
premiss.
Reply to Objection 2: Simply speaking it is a more grievous sin to kill
one's mother than one's wife, as also more opposed to nature, since a
man reveres his mother naturally. Consequently he is less inclined to
matricide and more prone to wife-murder; and it is to repress this
proneness that the Church has forbidden marriage to the man who has
murdered his wife.
Reply to Objection 3: Such a man does not sin against marriage as he
does who kills his own wife; wherefore the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 4: It does not follow that because guilt has been
remitted therefore the entire punishment is remitted, as evidenced by
irregularity. For repentance does not restore a man to his former
dignity, although it can restore him to his former state of grace, as
stated above ([5000]Q[38], A[1], ad 3).
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE IMPEDIMENT TO MARRIAGE, ARISING FROM A SOLEMN VOW (THREE ARTICLES)
We must next consider the impediments which supervene to marriage. We
shall consider (1) the impediment which affects an unconsummated
marriage, namely a solemn vow: (2) the impediment which affects a
consummated marriage, namely fornication. Under the first head there
are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether either party after the marriage has been consummated can
enter religion without the other's consent?
(2) Whether they can enter religion before the consummation of the
marriage?
(3) Whether the wife can take another husband if her former husband has
entered religion before the consummation of the marriage?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether one party after the marriage has been consummated can enter religion
without the other's consent?
Objection 1: It would seem that even after the marriage has been
consummated one consort can enter religion without the other's consent.
For the Divine law ought to be more favorable to spiritual things than
human law. Now human law has allowed this. Therefore much more should
the Divine law permit it.
Objection 2: Further, the lesser good does not hinder the greater. But
the married state is a lesser good than the religious state, according
to 1 Cor. 7:38. Therefore marriage ought not to hinder a man from being
able to enter religion.
Objection 3: Further, in every form of religious life there is a kind
of spiritual marriage. Now it is lawful to pass from a less strict
religious order to one that is stricter. Therefore it is also allowable
to pass from a less strict---namely a carnal---marriage to a stricter
marriage, namely that of the religious life, even without the wife's
consent.
On the contrary, Married persons are forbidden (1 Cor. 7:5) to abstain
from the use of marriage even for a time without one another's consent,
in order to have time for prayer.
Further, no one can lawfully do that which is prejudicial to another
without the latter's consent. Now the religious vow taken by one
consort is prejudicial to the other, since the one has power over the
other's body. Therefore one of them cannot take a religious vow without
the other's consent.
I answer that, No one can make an offering to God of what belongs to
another. Wherefore since by a consummated marriage the husband's body
already belongs to his wife, he cannot by a vow of continence offer it
to God without her consent.
Reply to Objection 1: Human law considers marriage merely as fulfilling
an office of nature: whereas the Divine law considers it as a
sacrament, by reason of which it is altogether indissoluble. Hence the
comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: It is not unreasonable that a greater good be
hindered by a lesser which is contrary to it, just as good is hindered
by evil.
Reply to Objection 3: In every form of religious life marriage is
contracted with one person, namely Christ; to Whom, however, a person
contracts more obligations in one religious order than in another. But
in carnal marriage and religious marriage the contract is not with the
same person: wherefore that comparison fails.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether before the marriage has been consummated one consort can enter
religion without the other's consent?
Objection 1: It would seem that even before the marriage has been
consummated one consort cannot enter religion without the other's
consent. For the indissolubility of marriage belongs to the sacrament
of matrimony, inasmuch, namely, as it signifies the union of Christ
with the Church. Now marriage is a true sacrament before its
consummation, and after consent has been expressed in words of the
present. Therefore it cannot be dissolved by one of them entering
religion.
Objection 2: Further, by virtue of the consent expressed in words of
the present, the one consort has given power over his body to the
other. Therefore the one can forthwith ask for the marriage debt, and
the other is bound to pay: and so the one cannot enter religion without
the other's consent.
Objection 3: Further, it is said (Mat. 19:6): "What God hath joined
together let no man put asunder. " But the union which precedes marital
intercourse was made by God. Therefore it cannot be dissolved by the
will of man.
On the contrary, According to Jerome [*Prolog. in Joan. ] our Lord
called John from his wedding.
I answer that, Before marital intercourse there is only a spiritual
bond between husband and wife, but afterwards there is a carnal bond
between them. Wherefore, just as after marital intercourse marriage is
dissolved by carnal death, so by entering religion the bond which
exists before the consummation of the marriage is dissolved, because
religious life is a kind of spiritual death, whereby a man dies to the
world and lives to God.
Reply to Objection 1: Before consummation marriage signifies the union
of Christ with the soul by grace, which is dissolved by a contrary
spiritual disposition, namely mortal sin. But after consummation it
signifies the union of Christ with the Church, as regards the
assumption of human nature into the unity of person, which union is
altogether indissoluble.
Reply to Objection 2: Before consummation the body of one consort is
not absolutely delivered into the power of the other, but
conditionally, provided neither consort meanwhile seek the fruit of a
better life. But by marital intercourse the aforesaid delivery is
completed, because then each of them enters into bodily possession of
the power transferred to him. Wherefore also before consummation they
are not bound to pay the marriage debt forthwith after contracting
marriage by words of the present, but a space of two months is allowed
them for three reasons. First that they may deliberate meanwhile about
entering religion; secondly, to prepare what is necessary for the
solemnization of the wedding. thirdly, lest the husband think little of
a gift he has not longed to possess (cap. Institutum, caus. xxvi, qu.
ii).
Reply to Objection 3: The marriage union, before consummation, is
indeed perfect as to its primary being, but is not finally perfect as
to its second act which is operation. It is like bodily possession and
consequently is not altogether indissoluble.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the wife may take another husband if her husband has entered
religion before the consummation of the marriage?
Objection 1: It would seem that the wife may not take another husband,
if her husband has entered religion before the consummation of the
marriage. For that which is consistent with marriage does not dissolve
the marriage tie. Now the marriage tie still remains between those who
equally take religious vows. Therefore by the fact that one enters
religion, the other is not freed from the marriage tie. But as long as
she remains tied to one by marriage, she cannot marry another.
Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, after entering religion and before making his
profession the husband can return to the world. If then the wife can
marry again when her husband enters religion, he also can marry again
when he returns to the world: which is absurd.
Objection 3: Further, by a new decree (cap. Non solum, de regular. et
transeunt. ) a profession, if made before the expiry of a year, is
accounted void. Therefore if he return to his wife after making such a
profession, she is bound to receive him. Therefore neither by her
husband's entry into religion, nor by his taking a vow, does the wife
receive the power to marry again.
On the contrary, No one can bind another to those things which belong
to perfection. Now continence is of those things that belong to
perfection. Therefore a wife is not bound to continence on account of
her husband entering religion, and consequently she can marry.
I answer that, Just as bodily death of the husband dissolves the
marriage tie in such a way that the wife may marry whom she will,
according to the statement of the Apostle (1 Cor. 7:39); so too after
the husband's spiritual death by entering religion, she can marry whom
she will.
Reply to Objection 1: When both consorts take a like vow of continence,
neither renounces the marriage tie, wherefore it still remains: but
when only one takes the vow, then for his own part he renounces the
marriage tie, wherefore the other is freed therefrom.
Reply to Objection 2: A person is not accounted dead to the world by
entering religion until he makes his profession, and consequently his
wife is bound to wait for him until that time.
Reply to Objection 3: We must judge of a profession thus made before
the time fixed by law, as of a simple vow. Wherefore just as when the
husband has taken a simple vow his wife is not bound to pay him the
marriage debt, and yet has not the power to marry again, so is it in
this case.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE IMPEDIMENT THAT SUPERVENES TO MARRIAGE AFTER ITS CONSUMMATION, NAMELY
FORNICATION (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the impediment that supervenes upon marriage after
its consummation, namely fornication, which is an impediment to a
previous marriage as regards the act, although the marriage tie
remains. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is lawful for a husband to put his wife away on account
of fornication?
(2) Whether he is bound to do so?
(3) Whether he may put her away at his own judgment?
(4) Whether in this matter husband and wife are of equal condition?
(5) Whether, after being divorced, they must remain unmarried?
(6) Whether they can be reconciled after being divorced?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for a husband to put away his wife on account of
fornication?
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for a husband to put away his wife
on account of fornication. For we must not return evil for evil. But
the husband, by putting away his wife on account of fornication,
seemingly returns evil for evil. Therefore this is not lawful.
Objection 2: Further, the sin is greater if both commit fornication,
than if one only commits it. But if both commit fornication, they
cannot be divorced on that account. Neither therefore can they be, if
only one commits fornication.
Objection 3: Further, spiritual fornication and certain other sins are
more grievous than carnal fornication. But separation from bed cannot
be motived by those sins. Neither therefore can it be done on account
of fornication.
Objection 4: Further, the unnatural vice is further removed from the
marriage goods than fornication is, the manner of which is natural.
Therefore it ought to have been a cause of separation rather than
fornication.
On the contrary, are the words of Mat. 5:32.
Further, one is not bound to keep faith with one who breaks his faith.
But a spouse by fornication breaks the faith due to the other spouse.
Therefore one can put the other away on account of fornication.
I answer that, Our Lord permitted a man to put away his wife on account
of fornication, in punishment of the unfaithful party and in favor of
the faithful party, so that the latter is not bound to marital
intercourse with the unfaithful one. There are however seven cases to
be excepted in which it is not lawful to put away a wife who has
committed fornication, when either the wife is not to be blamed, or
both parties are equally blameworthy. The first is if the husband also
has committed fornication; the second is if he has prostituted his
wife; the third is if the wife, believing her husband dead on account
of his long absence, has married again; the fourth is if another man
has fraudulently impersonated her husband in the marriage-bed; the
fifth is if she be overcome by force; the sixth is if he has been
reconciled to her by having carnal intercourse with her after she has
committed adultery; the seventh is if both having been married in the
state of unbelief, the husband has given his wife a bill of divorce and
she has married again; for then if both be converted the husband is
bound to receive her back again.
Reply to Objection 1: A husband sins if through vindictive anger he
puts away his wife who has committed fornication, but he does not sin
if he does so in order to avoid losing his good name, lest he seem to
share in her guilt, or in order to correct his wife's sin, or in order
to avoid the uncertainty of her offspring.
Reply to Objection 2: Divorce on account of fornication is effected by
the one accusing the other. And since no one can accuse who is guilty
of the same crime, a divorce cannot be pronounced when both have
committed fornication, although marriage is more sinned against when
both are guilty of fornication that when only one is.
Reply to Objection 3: Fornication is directly opposed to the good of
marriage, since by it the certainty of offspring is destroyed, faith is
broken, and marriage ceases to have its signification when the body of
one spouse is given to several others. Wherefore other sins, though
perhaps they be more grievous than fornication, are not motives for a
divorce. Since, however, unbelief which is called spiritual
fornication, is also opposed to the good of marriage consisting in the
rearing of the offspring to the worship of God, it is also a motive for
divorce, yet not in the same way as bodily fornication. Because one may
take steps for procuring a divorce on account of one act of carnal
fornication, not, however, on account of one act of unbelief, but on
account of inveterate unbelief which is a proof of obstinacy wherein
unbelief is perfected.
Reply to Objection 4: Steps may be taken to procure a divorce on
account also of the unnatural vice: but this is not mentioned in the
same way, both because it is an unmentionable passion, and because it
does not so affect the certainty of offspring.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the husband is bound by precept to put away his wife when she is
guilty of fornication?
Objection 1: It would seem that the husband is bound by precept to put
away his wife who is guilty of fornication.
the door of the sacraments. Therefore unbelievers, since they are not
baptized, cannot marry any more than they can receive other sacraments.
Objection 2: Further, two evils are a greater impediment to good than
one. But the unbelief of only one party is an impediment to marriage.
Much more, therefore, is the unbelief of both, and consequently there
can be no marriage between unbelievers.
Objection 3: Further, just as there is disparity of worship between
believer and unbeliever, so can there be between two unbelievers, for
instance if one be a heathen and the other a Jew. Now disparity of
worship is an impediment to marriage, as stated above [4992](A[1]).
Therefore there can be no valid marriage at least between unbelievers
of different worship.
Objection 4: Further, in marriage there is real chastity. But according
to Augustine (De Adult. Conjug. i, 18) there is no real chastity
between an unbeliever and his wife, and these words are quoted in the
Decretals (XXVIII, qu. i, can. Sic enim. ). Neither therefore is there a
true marriage.
Objection 5: Further, true marriage excuses carnal intercourse from
sin. But marriage contracted between unbelievers cannot do this, since
"the whole life of unbelievers is a sin," as a gloss observes on Rom.
14:23, "All that is not of faith is sin. " Therefore there is no true
marriage between unbelievers.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 7:12): "If any brother hath a
wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not
put her away. " But she is not called his wife except by reason of
marriage. Therefore marriage between unbelievers is a true marriage.
Further, the removal of what comes after does not imply the removal of
what comes first. Now marriage belongs to an office of nature, which
precedes the state of grace, the principle of which is faith. Therefore
unbelief does not prevent the existence of marriage between
unbelievers.
I answer that, Marriage was instituted chiefly for the good of the
offspring, not only as to its begetting---since this can be effected
even without marriage---but also as to its advancement to a perfect
state, because everything intends naturally to bring its effect to
perfection. Now a twofold perfection is to be considered in the
offspring. one is the perfection of nature, not only as regards the
body but also as regards the soul, by those means which are of the
natural law. The other is the perfection of grace: and the former
perfection is material and imperfect in relation to the latter.
Consequently, since those things which are for the sake of the end are
proportionate to the end, the marriage that tends to the first
perfection is imperfect and material in comparison with that which
tends to the second perfection. And since the first perfection can be
common to unbelievers and believers, while the second belongs only to
believers, it follows that between unbelievers there is marriage
indeed, but not perfected by its ultimate perfection as there is
between believers.
Reply to Objection 1: Marriage was instituted not only as a sacrament,
but also as an office of nature. And therefore, although marriage is
not competent to unbelievers, as a sacrament dependent on the
dispensation of the Church's ministers, it is nevertheless competent to
them as fulfilling an office of nature. And yet even a marriage of this
kind is a sacrament after the manner of a habit, although it is not
actually since they do not marry actually in the faith of the Church.
Reply to Objection 2: Disparity of worship is an impediment to
marriage, not by reason of unbelief, but on account of the difference
of faith. For disparity of worship hinders not only the second
perfection of the offspring, but also the first, since the parents
endeavor to draw their children in different directions, which is not
the case when both are unbelievers.
Reply to Objection 3: As already stated (ad 1) there is marriage
between unbelievers, in so far as marriage fulfills an office of
nature. Now those things that pertain to the natural law are
determinable by positive law: and therefore if any law among
unbelievers forbid the contracting of marriage with unbelievers of a
different rite, the disparity of worship will be an impediment to their
intermarrying. They are not, however, forbidden by Divine law, because
before God, however much one may stray from the faith, this makes no
difference to one's being removed from grace: nor is it forbidden by
any law of the Church who has not to judge of those who are without.
Reply to Objection 4: The chastity and other virtues of unbelievers are
said not to be real, because they cannot attain the end of real virtue,
which is real happiness. Thus we say it is not a real wine if it has
not the effect of wine.
Reply to Objection 5: An unbeliever does not sin in having intercourse
with his wife, if he pays her the marriage debt, for the good of the
offspring, or for the troth whereby he is bound to her: since this is
an act of justice and of temperance which observes the due circumstance
in pleasure of touch; even as neither does he sin in performing acts of
other civic virtues. Again, the reason why the whole life of
unbelievers is said to be a sin is not that they sin in every act, but
because they cannot be delivered from the bondage of sin by that which
they do.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the husband, being converted to the faith, may remain with his wife
is she be unwilling to be converted?
Objection 1: It would seem that when a husband is converted to the
faith he cannot remain with his wife who is an unbeliever and is
unwilling to be converted, and whom he had married while he was yet an
unbeliever. For where the danger is the same one should take the same
precautions. Now a believer is forbidden to marry an unbeliever for
fear of being turned away from the faith. Since then if the believer
remain with the unbeliever whom he had married previously, the danger
is the same, in fact greater, for neophytes are more easily perverted
than those who have been brought up in the faith, it would seem that a
believer, after being converted, cannot remain with an unbeliever.
Objection 2: Further, "An unbeliever cannot remain united to her who
has been received into the Christian faith" (Decretals, XXVIII, qu. 1,
can. Judaei). Therefore a believer is bound to put away a wife who does
not believe.
Objection 3: Further, a marriage contracted between believers is more
perfect than one contracted between unbelievers. Now, if believers
marry within the degrees forbidden by the Church, their marriage is
void. Therefore the same applies to unbelievers, and thus a believing
husband cannot remain with an unbelieving wife, at any rate, if as an
unbeliever he married her within the forbidden degrees.
Objection 4: Further, sometimes an unbeliever has several wives
recognized by his law. If, then, he can remain with those whom he
married while yet an unbeliever, it would seem that even after his
conversion he can retain several wives.
Objection 5: Further, it may happen that after divorcing his first wife
he has married a second, and that he is converted during this latter
marriage. It would seem therefore that at least in this case he cannot
remain with this second wife.
On the contrary, The Apostle counsels him to remain (1 Cor. 7:12).
Further, no impediment that supervenes upon a true marriage dissolves
it. Now it was a true marriage when they were both unbelievers.
Therefore when one of them is converted, the marriage is not annulled
on that account; and thus it would seem that they may lawfully remain
together.
I answer that, The faith of a married person does not dissolve but
perfects the marriage. Wherefore, since there is true marriage between
unbelievers, as stated above (A[2], ad 1), the marriage tie is not
broken by the fact that one of them is converted to the faith, but
sometimes while the marriage tie remains, the marriage is dissolved as
to cohabitation and marital intercourse, wherein unbelief and adultery
are on a par, since both are against the good of the offspring.
Consequently, the husband has the same power to put away an unbelieving
wife or to remain with her, as he has to put away an adulterous wife or
to remain with her. For an innocent husband is free to remain with an
adulterous wife in the hope of her amendment, but not if she be
obstinate in her sin of adultery, lest he seem to approve of her
disgrace; although even if there be hope of her amendment he is free to
put her away. In like manner the believer after his conversion may
remain with the unbeliever in the hope of her conversion, if he see
that she is not obstinate in her unbelief, and he does well in
remaining with her, though not bound to do so: and this is what the
Apostle counsels (1 Cor. 7:12).
Reply to Objection 1: It is easier to prevent a thing being done than
to undo what is rightly done. Hence there are many things that impede
the contracting of marriage if they precede it, which nevertheless
cannot dissolve it if they follow it. Such is the case with affinity
([4993]Q[55], A[6]): and it is the same with disparity of worship.
Reply to Objection 2: In the early Church at the time of the apostles,
both Jews and Gentiles were everywhere converted to the faith: and
consequently the believing husband could then have a reasonable hope
for his wife's conversion, even though she did not promise to be
converted. Afterwards, however, as time went on the Jews became more
obstinate than the Gentiles, because the Gentiles still continued to
come to the faith, for instance, at the time of the martyrs, and at the
time of Constantine and thereabouts. Wherefore it was not safe then for
a believer to cohabit with an unbelieving Jewish wife, nor was there
hope for her conversion as for that of a Gentile wife. Consequently,
then, the believer could, after his conversion, cohabit with his wife
if she were a Gentile, but not if she were a Jewess, unless she
promised to be converted. This is the sense of that decree. Now,
however, they are on a par, namely Gentiles and Jews, because both are
obstinate; and therefore unless the unbelieving wife be willing to be
converted, he is not allowed to cohabit with her, be she Gentile or
Jew.
Reply to Objection 3: Non-baptized unbelievers are not bound by the
laws of the Church, but they are bound by the ordinances of the Divine
law. Hence unbelievers who have married within the degrees forbidden by
the Divine law, whether both or one of them be converted to the faith,
cannot continue in a like marriage. But if they have married within the
degrees forbidden by a commandment of the Church, they can remain
together if both be converted, or if one be converted and there be hope
of the other's conversion.
Reply to Objection 4: To have several wives is contrary to the natural
law by which even unbelievers are bound. Wherefore an unbeliever is not
truly married save to her whom he married first. Consequently if he be
converted with all his wives, he may remain with the first, and must
put the others away. If, however, the first refuse to be converted, and
one of the others be converted, he has the same right to marry her
again as he would have to marry another. We shall treat of this matter
further on [4994](A[5]).
Reply to Objection 5: To divorce a wife is contrary to the law of
nature, wherefore it is not lawful for an unbeliever to divorce his
wife. Hence if he be converted after divorcing one and marrying
another, the same judgment is to be pronounced in this case as in the
case of a man who had several wives, because if he wish to be converted
he is bound to take the first whom he had divorced and to put the other
away.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a believer can, after his conversion, put away his unbelieving wife
if she be willing to cohabit with him without insult to the Creator?
Objection 1: It would seem that a believer, after his conversion,
cannot put away his unbelieving wife if she be willing to cohabit with
him without insult to the Creator. For the husband is more bound to his
wife than a slave to his master. But a converted slave is not freed
from the bond of slavery, as appears from 1 Cor. 7:21; 1 Tim. 6:1.
Therefore neither can a believing husband put away his unbelieving
wife.
Objection 2: Further, no one may act to another's prejudice without the
latter's consent. Now the unbelieving wife had a right in the body of
her unbelieving husband. If, then, her husband's conversion to the
faith could be prejudicial to the wife, so that he would be free to put
her away, the husband could not be converted to the faith without his
wife's consent, even as he cannot receive orders or vow continence
without her consent.
Objection 3: Further, if a man, whether slave or free, knowingly marry
a bondwoman, he cannot put her away on account of her different
condition. Since, then, the husband, when he married an unbeliever,
knew that she was an unbeliever, it would seem that in like manner he
cannot put her away on account of her unbelief.
Objection 4: Further, a father is in duty bound to work for the
salvation of his children. But if he were to leave his unbelieving
wife, the children of their union would remain with the mother, because
"the offspring follows the womb," and thus their salvation would be
imperiled. Therefore he cannot lawfully put away his unbelieving wife.
Objection 5: Further, an adulterous husband cannot put away an
adulterous wife, even after he has done penance for his adultery.
Therefore if an adulterous and an unbelieving husband are to be judged
alike, neither can the believer put aside the unbeliever, even after
his conversion to the faith.
On the contrary, are the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 7:15,16).
Further, spiritual adultery is more grievous than carnal. But a man can
put his wife away, as to cohabitation, on account of carnal adultery.
Much more, therefore, can he do so on account of unbelief, which is
spiritual adultery.
I answer that, Different things are competent and expedient to man
according as his life is of one kind or of another. Wherefore he who
dies to his former life is not bound to those things to which he was
bound in his former life. Hence it is that he who vowed certain things
while living in the world is not bound to fulfill them when he dies to
the world by adopting the religious life. Now he who is baptized is
regenerated in Christ and dies to his former life, since the generation
of one thing is the corruption of another, and consequently he is freed
from the obligation whereby he was bound to pay his wife the marriage
debt, and is not bound to cohabit with her when she is unwilling to be
converted, although in a certain case he is free to do so, as stated
above [4995](A[3]), just as a religious is free to fulfill the vows he
took in the world, if they be not contrary to his religious profession,
although he is not bound to do so.
Reply to Objection 1: Bondage is not inconsistent with the perfection
of the Christian religion, which makes a very special profession of
humility. But the obligation to a wife, or the conjugal bond, is
somewhat derogatory to the perfection of Christian life, the highest
state of which is in the possession of the continent: hence the
comparison fails. Moreover one married party is not bound to the other
as the latter's possession, as a slave to his master, but by way of a
kind of partnership, which is unfitting between unbeliever and believer
as appears from 2 Cor. 6:15; hence there is no comparison between a
slave and a married person.
Reply to Objection 2: The wife had a right in the body of her husband
only as long as he remained in the life wherein he had married, since
also when the husband dies the wife "is delivered from the law of her
husband" (Rom. 7:3). Wherefore if the husband leave her after he has
changed his life by dying to his former life, this is nowise
prejudicial to her. Now he who goes over to the religious life dies but
a spiritual death and not a bodily death. Wherefore if the marriage be
consummated, the husband cannot enter religion without his wife's
consent, whereas he can before carnal connection when there is only a
spiritual connection. On the other hand, he who is baptized is even
corporeally buried together with Christ unto death; and therefore he is
freed from paying the marriage debt even after the marriage has been
consummated.
We may also reply that it is through her own fault in refusing to be
converted that the wife suffers prejudice.
Reply to Objection 3: Disparity of worship makes a person simply unfit
for lawful marriage, whereas the condition of bondage does not, but
only where it is unknown. Hence there is no comparison between an
unbeliever and a bondswoman.
Reply to Objection 4: Either the child has reached a perfect age, and
then it is free to follow either the believing father or the
unbelieving mother, or else it is under age, and then it should be
given to the believer notwithstanding that it needs the mother's care
for its education.
Reply to Objection 5: By doing penance the adulterer does not enter
another life as an unbeliever by being baptized. Hence the comparison
fails.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the believer who leaves his unbelieving wife can take another wife?
Objection 1: It would seem that the believer who leaves his unbelieving
wife cannot take another wife. For indissolubility is of the nature of
marriage, since it is contrary to the natural law to divorce one's
wife. Now there was true marriage between them as unbelievers.
Therefore their marriage can nowise be dissolved. But as long as a man
is bound by marriage to one woman he cannot marry another. Therefore a
believer who leaves his unbelieving wife cannot take another wife.
Objection 2: Further, a crime subsequent to marriage does not dissolve
the marriage. Now, if the wife be willing to cohabit without insult to
the Creator, the marriage tie is not dissolved, since the husband
cannot marry another. Therefore the sin of the wife who refuses to
cohabit without insult to the Creator does not dissolve the marriage so
that her husband be free to take another wife.
Objection 3: Further, husband and wife are equal in the marriage tie.
Since, then, it is unlawful for the unbelieving wife to marry again
while her husband lives, it would seem that neither can the believing
husband do so.
Objection 4: Further, the vow of continence is more favorable than the
marriage contract. Now seemingly it is not lawful for the believing
husband to take a vow of continence without the consent of his
unbelieving wife, since then the latter would be deprived of marriage
if she were afterwards converted. Much less therefore is it lawful for
him to take another wife.
Objection 5: Further, the son who persists in unbelief after his
father's conversion loses the right to inherit from his father: and yet
if he be afterwards converted, the inheritance is restored to him even
though another should have entered into possession thereof. Therefore
it would seem that in like manner, if the unbelieving wife be
converted, her husband ought to be restored to her even though he
should have married another wife: yet this would be impossible if the
second marriage were valid. Therefore he cannot take another wife.
On the contrary, Matrimony is not ratified without the sacrament of
Baptism. Now what is not ratified can be annulled. Therefore marriage
contracted in unbelief can be annulled, and consequently, the marriage
tie being dissolved, it is lawful for the husband to take another wife.
Further, a husband ought not to cohabit with an unbelieving wife who
refuses to cohabit without insult to the Creator. If therefore it were
unlawful for him to take another wife he would be forced to remain
continent, which would seem unreasonable, since then he would be at a
disadvantage through his conversion.
I answer that, When either husband or wife is converted to the faith
the other remaining in unbelief, a distinction must be made. For if the
unbeliever be willing to cohabit without insult to the Creator---that
is without drawing the other to unbelief---the believer is free to part
from the other, but by parting is not permitted to marry again. But if
the unbeliever refuse to cohabit without insult to the Creator, by
making use of blasphemous words and refusing to hear Christ's name,
then if she strive to draw him to unbelief, the believing husband after
parting from her may be united to another in marriage.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above [4996](A[2]), the marriage of
unbelievers is imperfect, whereas the marriage of believers is perfect
and consequently binds more firmly. Now the firmer tie always looses
the weaker if it is contrary to it, and therefore the subsequent
marriage contracted in the faith of Christ dissolves the marriage
previously contracted in unbelief. Therefore the marriage of
unbelievers is not altogether firm and ratified, but is ratified
afterwards by Christ's faith.
Reply to Objection 2: The sin of the wife who refuses to cohabit
without insult to the Creator frees the husband from the tie whereby he
was bound to his wife so as to be unable to marry again during her
lifetime. It does not however dissolve the marriage at once, since if
she were converted from her blasphemy before he married again, her
husband would be restored to her. But the marriage is dissolved by the
second marriage which the believing husband would be unable to
accomplish unless he were freed from his obligation to his wife by her
own fault.
Reply to Objection 3: After the believer has married, the marriage tie
is dissolved on either side, because the marriage is not imperfect as
to the bond, although it is sometimes imperfect as to its effect. Hence
it is in punishment of the unbelieving wife rather than by virtue of
the previous marriage that she is forbidden to marry again. If however
she be afterwards converted, she may be allowed by dispensation to take
another husband, should her husband have taken another wife.
Reply to Objection 4: The husband ought not to take a vow of continence
nor enter into a second marriage, if after his conversion there be a
reasonable hope of the conversion of his wife, because the wife's
conversion would be more difficult if she knew she was deprived of her
husband. If however there be no hope of her conversion, he can take
Holy orders or enter religion, having first besought his wife to be
converted. And then if the wife be converted after her husband has
received Holy orders, her husband must not be restored to her, but she
must take it as a punishment of her tardy conversion that she is
deprived of her husband.
Reply to Objection 5: The bond of fatherhood is not dissolved by
disparity of worship, as the marriage bond is: wherefore there is no
comparison between an inheritance and a wife.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether other sins dissolve marriage?
Objection 1: It would seem that other sins besides unbelief dissolve
marriage. For adultery is seemingly more directly opposed to marriage
than unbelief is. But unbelief dissolves marriage in a certain case so
that it is lawful to marry again. Therefore adultery has the same
effect.
Objection 2: Further, just as unbelief is spiritual fornication, so is
any kind of sin. If, then unbelief dissolves marriage because it is
spiritual fornication, for the same reason any kind of sin will
dissolve marriage.
Objection 3: Further, it is said (Mat. 5:30): "If thy right hand
scandalize thee, pluck it off and cast it from thee," and a gloss of
Jerome says that "by the hand and the right eye we may understand our
brother, wife, relatives and children. " Now these become obstacles to
us by any kind of sin. Therefore marriage can be dissolved on account
of any kind of sin.
Objection 4: Further, covetousness is idolatry according to Eph. 5:5.
Now a wife may be put away on account of idolatry. Therefore in like
manner she can be put away on account of covetousness, as also on
account of other sins graver than covetousness.
Objection 5: Further, the Master says this expressly (Sent. iv, D, 30).
On the contrary, It is said (Mat. 5:32): "Whosoever shall put away his
wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit
adultery. "
Further, if this were true, divorces would be made all day long, since
it is rare to find a marriage wherein one of the parties does not fall
into sin.
I answer that, Bodily fornication and unbelief have a special
contrariety to the goods of marriage, as stated above [4997](A[3]).
Hence they are specially effective in dissolving marriages.
Nevertheless it must be observed that marriage is dissolved in two
ways. In one way as to the marriage tie, and thus marriage cannot be
dissolved after it is ratified, neither by unbelief nor by adultery.
But if it be not ratified, the tie is dissolved, if the one party
remain in unbelief, and the other being converted to the faith has
married again. On the other hand the aforesaid tie is not dissolved by
adultery, else the unbeliever would be free to give a bill of divorce
to his adulterous wife, and having put her away, could take another
wife, which is false. In another way marriage is dissolved as to the
act, and thus it can be dissolved on account of either unbelief or
fornication.
But marriage cannot be dissolved even as to the act on
account of other sins, unless perchance the husband wish to cease from
intercourse with his wife in order to punish her by depriving her of
the comfort of his presence.
Reply to Objection 1: Although adultery is opposed to marriage as
fulfilling an office of nature, more directly than unbelief, it is the
other way about if we consider marriage as a sacrament of the Church,
from which source it derives perfect stability, inasmuch as it
signifies the indissoluble union of Christ with the Church. Wherefore
the marriage that is not ratified can be dissolved as to the marriage
tie on account of unbelief rather than on account of adultery.
Reply to Objection 2: The primal union of the soul to God is by faith,
and consequently the soul is thereby espoused to God as it were,
according to Osee 2:20, "I will espouse thee to Me in faith. " Hence in
Holy Writ idolatry and unbelief are specially designated by the name of
fornication: whereas other sins are called spiritual fornications by a
more remote signification.
Reply to Objection 3: This applies to the case when the wife proves a
notable occasion of sin to her husband, so that he has reason to fear
his being in danger: for then the husband can withdraw from living with
her, as stated above [4998](A[5]).
Reply to Objection 4: Covetousness is said to be idolatry on account of
a certain likeness of bondage, because both the covetous and the
idolater serve the creature rather than the Creator; but not on account
of likeness of unbelief, since unbelief corrupts the intellect whereas
covetousness corrupts the affections.
Reply to Objection 5: The words of the Master refer to betrothal,
because a betrothal can be rescinded on account of a subsequent crime.
Or, if he is speaking of marriage, they must be referred to the
severing of mutual companionship for a time, as stated above, or to the
case when the wife is unwilling to cohabit except on the condition of
sinning, for instance, if she were to say: "I will not remain your wife
unless you amass wealth for me by theft," for then he ought to leave
her rather than thieve.
__________________________________________________________________
OF WIFE-MURDER (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider wife-murder, under which head there are two points
of inquiry:
(1) Whether in a certain case it is lawful to kill one's wife?
(2) Whether wife-murder is an impediment to marriage?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for a man to kill his wife if she be discovered in the
act of adultery?
Objection 1: It would seem lawful for a man to kill his wife if she be
discovered in the act of adultery. For the Divine law commanded
adulterous wives to be stoned. Now it is not a sin to fulfill the
Divine law. Neither therefore is it a sin to kill one's own wife if she
be an adulteress.
Objection 2: Further, that which the law can rightly do, can be rightly
done by one whom the law has commissioned to do it. But the law can
rightly kill an adulterous wife or any other person deserving of death.
Since then the law has commissioned the husband to kill his wife if she
be discovered in the act of adultery, it would seem that he can rightly
do so.
Objection 3: Further, the husband has greater power over his adulterous
wife than over the man who committed adultery with her. Now if the
husband strike a cleric whom he found with his wife he is not
excommunicated. Therefore it would seem lawful for him even to kill his
own wife if she be discovered in adultery.
Objection 4: Further, the husband is bound to correct his wife. But
correction is given by inflicting a just punishment. Since then the
just punishment of adultery is death, because it is a capital sin, it
would seem lawful for a husband to kill his adulterous wife.
On the contrary, It is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 37) that "the
Church of God is never bound by the laws of this world, for she has
none but a spiritual sword. " Therefore it would seem that he who wishes
to belong to the Church cannot rightly take advantage of the law which
permits a man to kill his wife.
Further, husband and wife are judged on a par. But it is not lawful for
a wife to kill her husband if he be discovered in adultery. Neither
therefore may a husband kill his wife.
I answer that, It happens in two ways that a husband kills his wife.
First, by a civil judgment; and thus there is no doubt that a husband,
moved by zeal for justice and not by vindictive anger or hatred can,
without sin, bring a criminal accusation of adultery upon his wife
before a secular court, and demand that she receive capital punishment
as appointed by the law; just as it is lawful to accuse a person of
murder or any other crime. Such an accusation however cannot be made in
an ecclesiastical court, because, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D,
37), the Church does not wield a material sword. Secondly, a husband
can kill his wife himself without her being convicted in court, and
thus to kill her outside of the act of adultery is not lawful, neither
according to civil law nor according to the law of conscience, whatever
evidence he may have of her adultery. The civil law however considers
it, as though it were lawful, that he should kill her in the very act,
not by commanding him to do so, but by not inflicting on him the
punishment for murder, on account of the very great provocation which
the husband receives by such a deed to kill his wife. But the Church is
not bound in this matter by human laws, neither does she acquit him of
the debt of eternal punishment, nor of such punishment as may be
awarded him by an ecclesiastical tribunal for the reason that he is
quit of any punishment to be inflicted by a secular court. Therefore in
no case is it lawful for a husband to kill his wife on his own
authority.
Reply to Objection 1: The law has committed the infliction of this
punishment not to private individuals, but to public persons, who are
deputed to this by their office. Now the husband is not his wife's
judge: wherefore he may not kill her, but may accuse her in the judge's
presence.
Reply to Objection 2: The civil law has not commissioned the husband to
kill his wife by commanding him to do so, for thus he would not sin,
just as the judge's deputy does not sin by killing the thief condemned
to death: but it has permitted this by not punishing it. For which
reason it has raised certain obstacles to prevent the husband from
killing his wife.
Reply to Objection 3: This does not prove that it is lawful simply, but
that it is lawful as regards immunity from a particular kind of
punishment, since excommunication is also a kind of punishment.
Reply to Objection 4: There are two kinds of community: the household,
such as a family; and the civil community, such as a city or kingdom.
Accordingly, he who presides over the latter kind of community, a king
for instance, can punish an individual both by correcting and by
exterminating him, for the betterment of the community with whose care
he is charged. But he who presides over a community of the first kind,
can inflict only corrective punishment, which does not extend beyond
the limits of amendment, and these are exceeded by the punishment of
death. Wherefore the husband who exercises this kind of control over
his wife may not kill her, but he may accuse or chastise her in some
other way.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether wife-murder is an impediment to marriage?
Objection 1: It would seem that wife-murder is not an impediment to
marriage. For adultery is more directly opposed to marriage than murder
is. Now adultery is not an impediment to marriage. Neither therefore is
wife-murder.
Objection 2: Further, it is a more grievous sin to kill one's mother
than one's wife, for it is never lawful to strike one's mother, whereas
it is sometimes lawful to strike one's wife. But matricide is not an
impediment to marriage. Neither therefore is wife-murder.
Objection 3: Further, it is a greater sin for a man to kill another
man's wife on account of adultery than to kill his own wife, inasmuch
as he has less motive and is less concerned with her correction. But he
who kills another man's wife is not hindered from marrying. Neither
therefore is he who kills his own wife.
Objection 4: Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed.
But the sin of murder can be removed by repentance. Therefore the
consequent impediment to marriage can be removed also: and consequently
it would seem that after he has done penance he is not forbidden to
marry.
On the contrary, A canon (caus. xxxiii, qu. ii, can. Interfectores)
says: "The slayers of their own wives must be brought back to penance,
and they are absolutely forbidden to marry. " Further, in whatsoever a
man sins, in that same must he be punished. But he who kills his wife
sins against marriage. Therefore he must be punished by being deprived
of marriage.
I answer that, By the Church's decree wife-murder is an impediment to
marriage. Sometimes however it forbids the contracting of marriage
without voiding the contract, when to wit the husband kills his wife on
account of adultery or even through hatred; nevertheless if there be
fear lest he should prove incontinent, he may be dispensed by the
Church so as to marry lawfully. Sometimes it also voids the contract,
as when a man kills his wife in order to marry her with whom he has
committed adultery, for then the law declares him simply unfit to marry
her, so that if he actually marry her his marriage is void. He is not
however hereby rendered simply unfit by law in relation to other women:
wherefore if he should have married another, although he sin by
disobeying the Church's ordinance, the marriage is nevertheless not
voided for this reason.
Reply to Objection 1: Murder and adultery in certain cases forbid the
contracting of marriage and void the contract, as we say here in regard
to wife-murder, and shall say further on (Sent. iv[4999], Q[62], A[2])
in regard to adultery. We may also reply that wife-murder is contrary
to the substance of wedlock, whereas adultery is contrary to the good
of fidelity due to marriage. Hence adultery is not more opposed to
marriage than wife-murder, and the argument is based on a false
premiss.
Reply to Objection 2: Simply speaking it is a more grievous sin to kill
one's mother than one's wife, as also more opposed to nature, since a
man reveres his mother naturally. Consequently he is less inclined to
matricide and more prone to wife-murder; and it is to repress this
proneness that the Church has forbidden marriage to the man who has
murdered his wife.
Reply to Objection 3: Such a man does not sin against marriage as he
does who kills his own wife; wherefore the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 4: It does not follow that because guilt has been
remitted therefore the entire punishment is remitted, as evidenced by
irregularity. For repentance does not restore a man to his former
dignity, although it can restore him to his former state of grace, as
stated above ([5000]Q[38], A[1], ad 3).
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE IMPEDIMENT TO MARRIAGE, ARISING FROM A SOLEMN VOW (THREE ARTICLES)
We must next consider the impediments which supervene to marriage. We
shall consider (1) the impediment which affects an unconsummated
marriage, namely a solemn vow: (2) the impediment which affects a
consummated marriage, namely fornication. Under the first head there
are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether either party after the marriage has been consummated can
enter religion without the other's consent?
(2) Whether they can enter religion before the consummation of the
marriage?
(3) Whether the wife can take another husband if her former husband has
entered religion before the consummation of the marriage?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether one party after the marriage has been consummated can enter religion
without the other's consent?
Objection 1: It would seem that even after the marriage has been
consummated one consort can enter religion without the other's consent.
For the Divine law ought to be more favorable to spiritual things than
human law. Now human law has allowed this. Therefore much more should
the Divine law permit it.
Objection 2: Further, the lesser good does not hinder the greater. But
the married state is a lesser good than the religious state, according
to 1 Cor. 7:38. Therefore marriage ought not to hinder a man from being
able to enter religion.
Objection 3: Further, in every form of religious life there is a kind
of spiritual marriage. Now it is lawful to pass from a less strict
religious order to one that is stricter. Therefore it is also allowable
to pass from a less strict---namely a carnal---marriage to a stricter
marriage, namely that of the religious life, even without the wife's
consent.
On the contrary, Married persons are forbidden (1 Cor. 7:5) to abstain
from the use of marriage even for a time without one another's consent,
in order to have time for prayer.
Further, no one can lawfully do that which is prejudicial to another
without the latter's consent. Now the religious vow taken by one
consort is prejudicial to the other, since the one has power over the
other's body. Therefore one of them cannot take a religious vow without
the other's consent.
I answer that, No one can make an offering to God of what belongs to
another. Wherefore since by a consummated marriage the husband's body
already belongs to his wife, he cannot by a vow of continence offer it
to God without her consent.
Reply to Objection 1: Human law considers marriage merely as fulfilling
an office of nature: whereas the Divine law considers it as a
sacrament, by reason of which it is altogether indissoluble. Hence the
comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: It is not unreasonable that a greater good be
hindered by a lesser which is contrary to it, just as good is hindered
by evil.
Reply to Objection 3: In every form of religious life marriage is
contracted with one person, namely Christ; to Whom, however, a person
contracts more obligations in one religious order than in another. But
in carnal marriage and religious marriage the contract is not with the
same person: wherefore that comparison fails.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether before the marriage has been consummated one consort can enter
religion without the other's consent?
Objection 1: It would seem that even before the marriage has been
consummated one consort cannot enter religion without the other's
consent. For the indissolubility of marriage belongs to the sacrament
of matrimony, inasmuch, namely, as it signifies the union of Christ
with the Church. Now marriage is a true sacrament before its
consummation, and after consent has been expressed in words of the
present. Therefore it cannot be dissolved by one of them entering
religion.
Objection 2: Further, by virtue of the consent expressed in words of
the present, the one consort has given power over his body to the
other. Therefore the one can forthwith ask for the marriage debt, and
the other is bound to pay: and so the one cannot enter religion without
the other's consent.
Objection 3: Further, it is said (Mat. 19:6): "What God hath joined
together let no man put asunder. " But the union which precedes marital
intercourse was made by God. Therefore it cannot be dissolved by the
will of man.
On the contrary, According to Jerome [*Prolog. in Joan. ] our Lord
called John from his wedding.
I answer that, Before marital intercourse there is only a spiritual
bond between husband and wife, but afterwards there is a carnal bond
between them. Wherefore, just as after marital intercourse marriage is
dissolved by carnal death, so by entering religion the bond which
exists before the consummation of the marriage is dissolved, because
religious life is a kind of spiritual death, whereby a man dies to the
world and lives to God.
Reply to Objection 1: Before consummation marriage signifies the union
of Christ with the soul by grace, which is dissolved by a contrary
spiritual disposition, namely mortal sin. But after consummation it
signifies the union of Christ with the Church, as regards the
assumption of human nature into the unity of person, which union is
altogether indissoluble.
Reply to Objection 2: Before consummation the body of one consort is
not absolutely delivered into the power of the other, but
conditionally, provided neither consort meanwhile seek the fruit of a
better life. But by marital intercourse the aforesaid delivery is
completed, because then each of them enters into bodily possession of
the power transferred to him. Wherefore also before consummation they
are not bound to pay the marriage debt forthwith after contracting
marriage by words of the present, but a space of two months is allowed
them for three reasons. First that they may deliberate meanwhile about
entering religion; secondly, to prepare what is necessary for the
solemnization of the wedding. thirdly, lest the husband think little of
a gift he has not longed to possess (cap. Institutum, caus. xxvi, qu.
ii).
Reply to Objection 3: The marriage union, before consummation, is
indeed perfect as to its primary being, but is not finally perfect as
to its second act which is operation. It is like bodily possession and
consequently is not altogether indissoluble.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the wife may take another husband if her husband has entered
religion before the consummation of the marriage?
Objection 1: It would seem that the wife may not take another husband,
if her husband has entered religion before the consummation of the
marriage. For that which is consistent with marriage does not dissolve
the marriage tie. Now the marriage tie still remains between those who
equally take religious vows. Therefore by the fact that one enters
religion, the other is not freed from the marriage tie. But as long as
she remains tied to one by marriage, she cannot marry another.
Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, after entering religion and before making his
profession the husband can return to the world. If then the wife can
marry again when her husband enters religion, he also can marry again
when he returns to the world: which is absurd.
Objection 3: Further, by a new decree (cap. Non solum, de regular. et
transeunt. ) a profession, if made before the expiry of a year, is
accounted void. Therefore if he return to his wife after making such a
profession, she is bound to receive him. Therefore neither by her
husband's entry into religion, nor by his taking a vow, does the wife
receive the power to marry again.
On the contrary, No one can bind another to those things which belong
to perfection. Now continence is of those things that belong to
perfection. Therefore a wife is not bound to continence on account of
her husband entering religion, and consequently she can marry.
I answer that, Just as bodily death of the husband dissolves the
marriage tie in such a way that the wife may marry whom she will,
according to the statement of the Apostle (1 Cor. 7:39); so too after
the husband's spiritual death by entering religion, she can marry whom
she will.
Reply to Objection 1: When both consorts take a like vow of continence,
neither renounces the marriage tie, wherefore it still remains: but
when only one takes the vow, then for his own part he renounces the
marriage tie, wherefore the other is freed therefrom.
Reply to Objection 2: A person is not accounted dead to the world by
entering religion until he makes his profession, and consequently his
wife is bound to wait for him until that time.
Reply to Objection 3: We must judge of a profession thus made before
the time fixed by law, as of a simple vow. Wherefore just as when the
husband has taken a simple vow his wife is not bound to pay him the
marriage debt, and yet has not the power to marry again, so is it in
this case.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE IMPEDIMENT THAT SUPERVENES TO MARRIAGE AFTER ITS CONSUMMATION, NAMELY
FORNICATION (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the impediment that supervenes upon marriage after
its consummation, namely fornication, which is an impediment to a
previous marriage as regards the act, although the marriage tie
remains. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is lawful for a husband to put his wife away on account
of fornication?
(2) Whether he is bound to do so?
(3) Whether he may put her away at his own judgment?
(4) Whether in this matter husband and wife are of equal condition?
(5) Whether, after being divorced, they must remain unmarried?
(6) Whether they can be reconciled after being divorced?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for a husband to put away his wife on account of
fornication?
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for a husband to put away his wife
on account of fornication. For we must not return evil for evil. But
the husband, by putting away his wife on account of fornication,
seemingly returns evil for evil. Therefore this is not lawful.
Objection 2: Further, the sin is greater if both commit fornication,
than if one only commits it. But if both commit fornication, they
cannot be divorced on that account. Neither therefore can they be, if
only one commits fornication.
Objection 3: Further, spiritual fornication and certain other sins are
more grievous than carnal fornication. But separation from bed cannot
be motived by those sins. Neither therefore can it be done on account
of fornication.
Objection 4: Further, the unnatural vice is further removed from the
marriage goods than fornication is, the manner of which is natural.
Therefore it ought to have been a cause of separation rather than
fornication.
On the contrary, are the words of Mat. 5:32.
Further, one is not bound to keep faith with one who breaks his faith.
But a spouse by fornication breaks the faith due to the other spouse.
Therefore one can put the other away on account of fornication.
I answer that, Our Lord permitted a man to put away his wife on account
of fornication, in punishment of the unfaithful party and in favor of
the faithful party, so that the latter is not bound to marital
intercourse with the unfaithful one. There are however seven cases to
be excepted in which it is not lawful to put away a wife who has
committed fornication, when either the wife is not to be blamed, or
both parties are equally blameworthy. The first is if the husband also
has committed fornication; the second is if he has prostituted his
wife; the third is if the wife, believing her husband dead on account
of his long absence, has married again; the fourth is if another man
has fraudulently impersonated her husband in the marriage-bed; the
fifth is if she be overcome by force; the sixth is if he has been
reconciled to her by having carnal intercourse with her after she has
committed adultery; the seventh is if both having been married in the
state of unbelief, the husband has given his wife a bill of divorce and
she has married again; for then if both be converted the husband is
bound to receive her back again.
Reply to Objection 1: A husband sins if through vindictive anger he
puts away his wife who has committed fornication, but he does not sin
if he does so in order to avoid losing his good name, lest he seem to
share in her guilt, or in order to correct his wife's sin, or in order
to avoid the uncertainty of her offspring.
Reply to Objection 2: Divorce on account of fornication is effected by
the one accusing the other. And since no one can accuse who is guilty
of the same crime, a divorce cannot be pronounced when both have
committed fornication, although marriage is more sinned against when
both are guilty of fornication that when only one is.
Reply to Objection 3: Fornication is directly opposed to the good of
marriage, since by it the certainty of offspring is destroyed, faith is
broken, and marriage ceases to have its signification when the body of
one spouse is given to several others. Wherefore other sins, though
perhaps they be more grievous than fornication, are not motives for a
divorce. Since, however, unbelief which is called spiritual
fornication, is also opposed to the good of marriage consisting in the
rearing of the offspring to the worship of God, it is also a motive for
divorce, yet not in the same way as bodily fornication. Because one may
take steps for procuring a divorce on account of one act of carnal
fornication, not, however, on account of one act of unbelief, but on
account of inveterate unbelief which is a proof of obstinacy wherein
unbelief is perfected.
Reply to Objection 4: Steps may be taken to procure a divorce on
account also of the unnatural vice: but this is not mentioned in the
same way, both because it is an unmentionable passion, and because it
does not so affect the certainty of offspring.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the husband is bound by precept to put away his wife when she is
guilty of fornication?
Objection 1: It would seem that the husband is bound by precept to put
away his wife who is guilty of fornication.
