|
Objection 1: It would seem that inseparableness of the wife is not
of natural law. For the natural law is the same for all. But no law
save Christ's has forbidden the divorcing of a wife. Therefore
inseparableness of a wife is not of natural law.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments are not of the natural law.
But the indissolubility of marriage is one of the marriage goods.
Therefore it is not of the natural law.
Objection 3: Further, the union of man and woman in marriage is
chiefly directed to the begetting, rearing, and instruction of the
offspring. But all things are complete by a certain time. Therefore
after that time it is lawful to put away a wife without prejudice to the
natural law.
Objection 4: Further, the good of the offspring is the principal
end of marriage. But the indissolubility of marriage is opposed to the
good of the offspring, because, according to philosophers, a certain
man cannot beget offspring of a certain woman, and yet he might beget
of another, even though she may have had intercourse with another man.
Therefore the indissolubility of marriage is against rather than
according to the natural law.
On the contrary, Those things which were assigned to nature when it
was well established in its beginning belong especially to the law of
nature. Now the indissolubility of marriage is one of these things
according to Mt. 19:4,6. Therefore it is of natural law.
Further, it is of natural law that man should not oppose himself to
God. Yet man would, in a way, oppose himself to God if he were to
sunder "what God hath joined together." Since then the
indissolubility of marriage is gathered from this passage (Mt.
19:6) it would seem that it is of natural law.
I answer that, By the intention of nature marriage is directed to the
rearing of the offspring, not merely for a time, but throughout its
whole life. Hence it is of natural law that parents should lay up for
their children, and that children should be their parents' heirs (2
Cor. 12:14). Therefore, since the offspring is the common
good of husband and wife, the dictate of the natural law requires the
latter to live together for ever inseparably: and so the
indissolubility of marriage is of natural law.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ's law alone brought mankind "to
perfection" [Heb. 7:19] by bringing man back to the state of
the newness of nature. Wherefore neither Mosaic nor human laws could
remove all that was contrary to the law of nature, for this was
reserved exclusively to "the law of the spirit of life" [Rm.
8:2].
Reply to Objection 2: Indissolubility belongs to marriage in so far
as the latter is a sign of the perpetual union of Christ with the
Church, and in so far as it fulfills an office of nature that is
directed to the good of the offspring, as stated above. But since
divorce is more directly incompatible with the signification of the
sacrament than with the good of the offspring, with which it is
incompatible consequently, as stated above (Question 65, Article
2, ad 5), the indissolubility of marriage is implied in the good of
the sacrament rather than in the good of the offspring, although it may
be connected with both. And in so far as it is connected with the good
of the offspring, it is of the natural law, but not as connected with
the good of the sacrament.
The Reply to the Third Objection may be gathered from what has been
said.
Reply to Objection 4: Marriage is chiefly directed to the common
good in respect of its principal end, which is the good of the
offspring; although in respect of its secondary end it is directed to
the good of the contracting party, in so far as it is by its very
nature a remedy for concupiscence. Hence marriage laws consider what
is expedient for all rather than what may be suitable for one.
Therefore although the indissolubility of marriage hinder the good of
the offspring with regard to some individual, it is proportionate with
the good of the offspring absolutely speaking: and for this reason the
argument does not prove.
|
|