|
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 Mt. 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.
|
|