|
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.
|
|