|
Objection 1: It would seem that husband and wife may take a vow
contrary to the marriage debt without their mutual consent. For
husband and wife are equally bound to pay the debt, as stated above
(Article 5). Now it is lawful for the husband, even if his wife
be unwilling, to take the cross in defense of the Holy Land: and
consequently this is also lawful to the wife. Therefore, since this
prevents the payment of the debt, either husband or wife may without
the other's consent take the aforesaid vow.
Objection 2: Further, in taking a vow one should not await the
consent of another who cannot dissent without sin. Now the husband or
wife cannot, without sin, refuse their consent to the other's taking
a vow of continence whether absolutely or for a time; because to
prevent a person's spiritual progress is a sin against the Holy
Ghost. Therefore the one can take a vow of continence either
absolutely or for a time, without the other's consent.
Objection 3: Further, in the marriage act, the debt has to be
demanded just as it has to be paid. Now the one can, without the
other's consent, vow not to demand the debt, since in this he is
within his own rights. Therefore he can equally take a vow not to pay
the debt.
Objection 4: Further, no one can be bound by the command of a
superior to do what he cannot lawfully vow or do simply, since one must
not obey in what is unlawful. Now the superior authority might command
the husband not to pay the debt to his wife for a time, by occupying
him in some service. Therefore he might, of his own accord, do or
vow that which would hinder him from paying the debt.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 7:5): "Defraud not
one another, except . . . by consent, for a time, that you may
give yourselves to prayer."
Further, no one can vow that which belongs to another. Now "the
husband . . . hath not power of his own body, but the wife" (1
Cor. 7:4). Therefore, without her consent, the husband cannot
take a vow of continence whether absolutely or for a time.
I answer that, A vow is a voluntary act, as its very name implies:
and consequently a vow can only be about those goods which are subject
to our will, and those in which one person is bound to another do not
come under this head. Therefore in matters of this kind one person
cannot take a vow without the consent of the one to whom he is bound.
Consequently, since husband and wife are mutually bound as regards the
payment of the debt which is an obstacle to continence, the one cannot
vow continence without the other's consent; and if he take the vow he
sins, and must not keep the vow, but must do penance for an ill-taken
vow [Question 53, Articles 1,4; Question 61, Article
1].
Reply to Objection 1: It is sufficiently probable that the wife
ought to be willing to remain continent for a time, in order to succor
the need of the universal Church. Hence in favor of the business for
which the cross is given to him, it is laid down that the husband may
take the cross without his wife's consent, even as he might go
fighting without the consent of his landlord whose land he has leased.
And yet the wife is not entirely deprived of her right, since she can
follow him. Nor is there a parallel between wife and husband:
because, since the husband has to rule the wife and not "vice
versa," the wife is bound to follow her husband rather than the
husband the wife. Moreover there would be more danger to the wife's
chastity as a result of wandering from country to country, than to the
husband's, and less profit to the Church. Wherefore the wife cannot
take this vow without her husband's consent.
Reply to Objection 2: The one spouse, by refusing to consent to
the other's vow of continence, does not sin, because the object of
his dissent is to hinder not the other's good, but the harm to
himself.
Reply to Objection 3: There are two opinions on this point. For
some say that one can without the other's consent vow not to demand the
debt, not however not to pay it, because in the former case they are
both within their own rights, but not in the second. Seeing,
however, that if one were never to ask for the debt, marriage would
become too burdensome to the other who would always have to undergo the
shame of asking for the debt, others assert with greater probability
that neither vow can be lawfully taken by one spouse without the
other's consent.
Reply to Objection 4: Just as the wife receives power over her
husband's body, without prejudice to the husband's duty to his own
body, so also is it without prejudice to his duty to his master.
Hence just as a wife cannot ask her husband for the debt to the
detriment of his bodily health, so neither can she do this so as to
hinder him in his duty to his master. And yet the master cannot for
this reason prevent her from paying the debt.
|
|