|
Objection 1: It would seem that other sins besides unbelief dissolve
marriage. For adultery is seemingly more directly opposed to marriage
than unbelief is. But unbelief dissolves marriage in a certain case so
that it is lawful to marry again. Therefore adultery has the same
effect.
Objection 2: Further, just as unbelief is spiritual fornication,
so is any kind of sin. If, then unbelief dissolves marriage because
it is spiritual fornication, for the same reason any kind of sin will
dissolve marriage.
Objection 3: Further, it is said (Mt. 5:30): "If thy
right hand scandalize thee, pluck it off and cast it from thee," and
a gloss of Jerome says that "by the hand and the right eye we may
understand our brother, wife, relatives and children." Now these
become obstacles to us by any kind of sin. Therefore marriage can be
dissolved on account of any kind of sin.
Objection 4: Further, covetousness is idolatry according to Eph.
5:5. Now a wife may be put away on account of idolatry. Therefore
in like manner she can be put away on account of covetousness, as also
on account of other sins graver than covetousness.
Objection 5: Further, the Master says this expressly (Sent.
iv, D, 30).
On the contrary, It is said (Mt. 5:32): "Whosoever shall
put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her
to commit adultery."
Further, if this were true, divorces would be made all day long,
since it is rare to find a marriage wherein one of the parties does not
fall into sin.
I answer that, Bodily fornication and unbelief have a special
contrariety to the goods of marriage, as stated above (Article 3).
Hence they are specially effective in dissolving marriages.
Nevertheless it must be observed that marriage is dissolved in two
ways. In one way as to the marriage tie, and thus marriage cannot be
dissolved after it is ratified, neither by unbelief nor by adultery.
But if it be not ratified, the tie is dissolved, if the one party
remain in unbelief, and the other being converted to the faith has
married again. On the other hand the aforesaid tie is not dissolved by
adultery, else the unbeliever would be free to give a bill of divorce
to his adulterous wife, and having put her away, could take another
wife, which is false. In another way marriage is dissolved as to the
act, and thus it can be dissolved on account of either unbelief or
fornication. But marriage cannot be dissolved even as to the act on
account of other sins, unless perchance the husband wish to cease from
intercourse with his wife in order to punish her by depriving her of the
comfort of his presence.
Reply to Objection 1: Although adultery is opposed to marriage as
fulfilling an office of nature, more directly than unbelief, it is the
other way about if we consider marriage as a sacrament of the Church,
from which source it derives perfect stability, inasmuch as it
signifies the indissoluble union of Christ with the Church.
Wherefore the marriage that is not ratified can be dissolved as to the
marriage tie on account of unbelief rather than on account of adultery.
Reply to Objection 2: The primal union of the soul to God is by
faith, and consequently the soul is thereby espoused to God as it
were, according to Osee 2:20, "I will espouse thee to Me in
faith." Hence in Holy Writ idolatry and unbelief are specially
designated by the name of fornication: whereas other sins are called
spiritual fornications by a more remote signification.
Reply to Objection 3: This applies to the case when the wife proves
a notable occasion of sin to her husband, so that he has reason to fear
his being in danger: for then the husband can withdraw from living with
her, as stated above (Article 5).
Reply to Objection 4: Covetousness is said to be idolatry on
account of a certain likeness of bondage, because both the covetous and
the idolater serve the creature rather than the Creator; but not on
account of likeness of unbelief, since unbelief corrupts the intellect
whereas covetousness corrupts the affections.
Reply to Objection 5: The words of the Master refer to betrothal,
because a betrothal can be rescinded on account of a subsequent crime.
Or, if he is speaking of marriage, they must be referred to the
severing of mutual companionship for a time, as stated above, or to
the case when the wife is unwilling to cohabit except on the condition
of sinning, for instance, if she were to say: "I will not remain
your wife unless you amass wealth for me by theft," for then he ought
to leave her rather than thieve.
|
|