|
Objection 1: It would seem that the believer who leaves his
unbelieving wife cannot take another wife. For indissolubility is of
the nature of marriage, since it is contrary to the natural law to
divorce one's wife. Now there was true marriage between them as
unbelievers. Therefore their marriage can nowise be dissolved. But
as long as a man is bound by marriage to one woman he cannot marry
another. Therefore a believer who leaves his unbelieving wife cannot
take another wife.
Objection 2: Further, a crime subsequent to marriage does not
dissolve the marriage. Now, if the wife be willing to cohabit without
insult to the Creator, the marriage tie is not dissolved, since the
husband cannot marry another. Therefore the sin of the wife who
refuses to cohabit without insult to the Creator does not dissolve the
marriage so that her husband be free to take another wife.
Objection 3: Further, husband and wife are equal in the marriage
tie. Since, then, it is unlawful for the unbelieving wife to marry
again while her husband lives, it would seem that neither can the
believing husband do so.
Objection 4: Further, the vow of continence is more favorable than
the marriage contract. Now seemingly it is not lawful for the
believing husband to take a vow of continence without the consent of his
unbelieving wife, since then the latter would be deprived of marriage
if she were afterwards converted. Much less therefore is it lawful for
him to take another wife.
Objection 5: Further, the son who persists in unbelief after his
father's conversion loses the right to inherit from his father: and
yet if he be afterwards converted, the inheritance is restored to him
even though another should have entered into possession thereof.
Therefore it would seem that in like manner, if the unbelieving wife
be converted, her husband ought to be restored to her even though he
should have married another wife: yet this would be impossible if the
second marriage were valid. Therefore he cannot take another wife.
On the contrary, Matrimony is not ratified without the sacrament of
Baptism. Now what is not ratified can be annulled. Therefore
marriage contracted in unbelief can be annulled, and consequently, the
marriage tie being dissolved, it is lawful for the husband to take
another wife.
Further, a husband ought not to cohabit with an unbelieving wife who
refuses to cohabit without insult to the Creator. If therefore it
were unlawful for him to take another wife he would be forced to remain
continent, which would seem unreasonable, since then he would be at a
disadvantage through his conversion.
I answer that, When either husband or wife is converted to the faith
the other remaining in unbelief, a distinction must be made. For if
the unbeliever be willing to cohabit without insult to the
Creator---that is without drawing the other to unbelief---the
believer is free to part from the other, but by parting is not
permitted to marry again. But if the unbeliever refuse to cohabit
without insult to the Creator, by making use of blasphemous words and
refusing to hear Christ's name, then if she strive to draw him to
unbelief, the believing husband after parting from her may be united to
another in marriage.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Article 2), the
marriage of unbelievers is imperfect, whereas the marriage of believers
is perfect and consequently binds more firmly. Now the firmer tie
always looses the weaker if it is contrary to it, and therefore the
subsequent marriage contracted in the faith of Christ dissolves the
marriage previously contracted in unbelief. Therefore the marriage of
unbelievers is not altogether firm and ratified, but is ratified
afterwards by Christ's faith.
Reply to Objection 2: The sin of the wife who refuses to cohabit
without insult to the Creator frees the husband from the tie whereby he
was bound to his wife so as to be unable to marry again during her
lifetime. It does not however dissolve the marriage at once, since if
she were converted from her blasphemy before he married again, her
husband would be restored to her. But the marriage is dissolved by the
second marriage which the believing husband would be unable to
accomplish unless he were freed from his obligation to his wife by her
own fault.
Reply to Objection 3: After the believer has married, the marriage
tie is dissolved on either side, because the marriage is not imperfect
as to the bond, although it is sometimes imperfect as to its effect.
Hence it is in punishment of the unbelieving wife rather than by virtue
of the previous marriage that she is forbidden to marry again. If
however she be afterwards converted, she may be allowed by dispensation
to take another husband, should her husband have taken another wife.
Reply to Objection 4: The husband ought not to take a vow of
continence nor enter into a second marriage, if after his conversion
there be a reasonable hope of the conversion of his wife, because the
wife's conversion would be more difficult if she knew she was deprived
of her husband. If however there be no hope of her conversion, he can
take Holy orders or enter religion, having first besought his wife to
be converted. And then if the wife be converted after her husband has
received Holy orders, her husband must not be restored to her, but
she must take it as a punishment of her tardy conversion that she is
deprived of her husband.
Reply to Objection 5: The bond of fatherhood is not dissolved by
disparity of worship, as the marriage bond is: wherefore there is no
comparison between an inheritance and a wife.
|
|