|
Objection 1: It would seem that it can never have been lawful to
have several wives. For, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v,
7), "The natural law has the same power at all times and places."
Now plurality of wives is forbidden by the natural law, as stated
above (Article 1). Therefore as it is unlawful now, it was
unlawful at all times.
Objection 2: Further, if it was ever lawful, this could only be
because it was lawful either in itself, or by dispensation. If the
former, it would also be lawful now; if the latter, this is
impossible, for according to Augustine (Contra Faust. xxvi,
3), "as God is the founder of nature, He does nothing contrary to
the principles which He has planted in nature." Since then God has
planted in our nature the principle that one man should be united to one
wife, it would seem that He has never dispensed man from this.
Objection 3: Further, if a thing be lawful by dispensation, it is
only lawful for those who receive the dispensation. Now we do not read
in the Law of a general dispensation having been granted to all.
Since then in the Old Testament all who wished to do so, without any
distinction, took to themselves several wives, nor were reproached on
that account, either by the law or by the prophets, it would seem that
it was not made lawful by dispensation.
Objection 4: Further, where there is the same reason for
dispensation, the same dispensation should be given. Now we cannot
assign any other reason for dispensation than the multiplying of the
offspring for the worship of God, and this is necessary also now.
Therefore this dispensation would be still in force, especially as we
read nowhere of its having been recalled.
Objection 5: Further, in granting a dispensation the greater good
should not be overlooked for the sake of a lesser good. Now fidelity
and the sacrament, which it would seem impossible to safeguard in a
marriage where one man is joined to several wives, are greater goods
than the multiplication of the offspring. Therefore this dispensation
ought not to have been granted with a view to this multiplication.
On the contrary, It is stated (Gal. 3:19) that the Law "was
set because of transgressors," namely in order to prohibit them. Now
the Old Law mentions plurality of wives without any prohibition
thereof, as appears from Dt. 21:15, "If a man have two
wives," etc. Therefore they were not transgressors through having
two wives; and so it was lawful.
Further, this is confirmed by the example of the holy patriarchs, who
are stated to have had several wives, and yet were most pleasing to
God, for instance Jacob, David, and several others. Therefore at
one time it was lawful.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1, ad 7,8),
plurality of wives is said to be against the natural law, not as
regards its first precepts, but as regards the secondary precepts,
which like conclusions are drawn from its first precepts. Since,
however, human acts must needs vary according to the various conditions
of persons, times, and other circumstances, the aforesaid conclusions
do not proceed from the first precepts of the natural law, so as to be
binding in all cases, but only in the majority. for such is the entire
matter of Ethics according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i,
3,7). Hence, when they cease to be binding, it is lawful to
disregard them. But because it is not easy to determine the above
variations, it belongs exclusively to him from whose authority he
derives its binding force to permit the non-observance of the law in
those cases to which the force of the law ought not to extend, and this
permission is called a dispensation. Now the law prescribing the one
wife was framed not by man but by God, nor was it ever given by word
or in writing, but was imprinted on the heart, like other things
belonging in any way to the natural law. Consequently a dispensation
in this matter could be granted by God alone through an inward
inspiration, vouchsafed originally to the holy patriarchs, and by
their example continued to others, at a time when it behooved the
aforesaid precept not to be observed, in order to ensure the
multiplication of the offspring to be brought up in the worship of
God. For the principal end is ever to be borne in mind before the
secondary end. Wherefore, since the good of the offspring is the
principal end of marriage, it behooved to disregard for a time the
impediment that might arise to the secondary ends, when it was
necessary for the offspring to be multiplied; because it was for the
removal of this impediment that the precept forbidding a plurality of
wives was framed, as stated above (Article 1).
Reply to Objection 1: The natural law, considered in itself, has
the same force at all times and places; but accidentally on account of
some impediment it may vary at certain times and places, as the
Philosopher (Ethic. i, 3,7) instances in the case of other
natural things. For at all times and places the right hand is better
than the left according to nature, but it may happen accidentally that
a person is ambidextrous, because our nature is variable; and the same
applies to the natural, just as the Philosopher states (Ethic. i,
3,7).
Reply to Objection 2: In a Decretal (De divortiis, cap.
Gaudemus) it is asserted that is was never lawful to have several
wives without having a dispensation received through Divine
inspiration. Nor is the dispensation thus granted a contradiction to
the principles which God has implanted in nature, but an exception to
them, because those principles are not intended to apply to all cases
but to the majority, as stated. Even so it is not contrary to nature
when certain occurrences take place in natural things miraculously, by
way of exception to more frequent occurrences.
Reply to Objection 3: Dispensation from a law should follow the
quality of the law. Wherefore, since the law of nature is imprinted
on the heart, it was not necessary for a dispensation from things
pertaining to the natural law to be given under the form of a written
law but by internal inspiration.
Reply to Objection 4: When Christ came it was the time of the
fulness of the grace of Christ, whereby the worship of God was spread
abroad among all nations by a spiritual propagation. Hence there is
not the same reason for a dispensation as before Christ's coming,
when the worship of God was spread and safeguarded by a carnal
propagation.
Reply to Objection 5: The offspring, considered as one of the
marriage goods, includes the keeping of faith with God, because the
reason why it is reckoned a marriage good is because it is awaited with
a view to its being brought up in the worship of God. Now the faith
to be kept with God is of greater import than the faith to be kept with
a wife, which is reckoned a marriage good, and than the signification
which pertains to the sacrament, since the signification is subordinate
to the knowledge of faith. Hence it is not unfitting if something is
taken from the two other goods for the sake of the good of the
offspring. Nor are they entirely done away, since there remains faith
towards several wives; and the sacrament remains after a fashion, for
though it did not signify the union of Christ with the Church as one,
nevertheless the plurality of wives signified the distinction of degrees
in the Church, which distinction is not only in the Church militant
but also in the Church triumphant. Consequently their marriages
signified somewhat the union of Christ not only with the Church
militant, as some say, but also with the Church triumphant where
there are "many mansions" [Jn. 19:2].
|
|