|
Objection 1: It would seem that the husband is bound by precept to
put away his wife who is guilty of fornication. For since the husband
is the head of his wife, he is bound to correct his wife. Now
separation from bed is prescribed as a correction of the wife who is
guilty of fornication. Therefore he is bound to separate from her.
Objection 2: Further, he who consents with one who sins mortally,
is also guilty of mortal sin. Now the husband who retains a wife
guilty of fornication would seem to consent with her, as stated in the
text (Sent. iv, D, 35). Therefore he sins unless he puts her
away.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 6:16): "He
who is joined to a harlot is made one body." Now a man cannot at once
be a member of a harlot and a member of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15).
Therefore the husband who is joined to a wife guilty of fornication
ceases to be a member of Christ, and therefore sins mortally.
Objection 4: Further, just as relationship voids the marriage tie,
so does fornication dissolve the marriage-bed. Now after the husband
becomes cognizant of his consanguinity with his wife, he sins mortally
if he has carnal intercourse with her. Therefore he also sins mortally
if he does so after knowing her to be guilty of fornication.
Objection 5: On the contrary, A gloss on 1 Cor. 7:11,
"Let not the husband put away his wife" says that "Our Lord
permitted a wife to be put away on account of fornication." Therefore
it is not a matter of precept.
Objection 6: Further, one can always pardon the sin that another
has committed against oneself. Now the wife, by committing
fornication, sinned against her husband. Therefore the husband may
spare her by not putting her away.
I answer that, The putting away of a wife guilty of fornication was
prescribed in order that the wife might be corrected by means of that
punishment. Now a corrective punishment is not required when amendment
has already taken place. Wherefore, if the wife repent of her sin,
her husband is not bound to put her away: whereas if she repent not,
he is bound to do so, lest he seem to consent to her sin, by not
having recourse to her due correction.
Reply to Objection 1: The wife can be corrected for her sin of
fornication not only by this punishment but also by words and blows;
wherefore if she be ready to be corrected otherwise, her husband is not
bound to have recourse to the aforesaid punishment in order to correct
her.
Reply to Objection 2: The husband seems to consent with her when he
retains her, notwithstanding that she persists in her past sin: if,
however, she has mended her ways, he does not consent with her.
Reply to Objection 3: She can no longer be called a harlot since
she has repented of her sin. Wherefore her husband, by being joined
to her, does not become a member of a harlot. We might also reply
that he is joined to her not as a harlot but as his wife.
Reply to Objection 4: There is no parallel, because the effect of
consanguinity is that there is no marriage tie between them, so that
carnal intercourse between them becomes unlawful. Whereas fornication
does not remove the said tie, so that the act remains, in itself,
lawful, unless it become accidentally unlawful, in so far as the
husband seems to consent to his wife's lewdness.
Reply to Objection 5: This permission is to be understood as an
absence of prohibition: and thus it is not in contradistinction with a
precept, for that which is a matter of precept is also not forbidden.
Reply to Objection 6: The wife sins not only against her husband,
but also against herself and against God, wherefore her husband cannot
entirely remit the punishment, unless amendment has followed.
|
|