|
Objection 1: It would seem that to have a concubine is not against
the natural law. For the ceremonies of the Law are not of the natural
law. But fornication is forbidden (Acts 15:29) in conjunction
with ceremonies of the law which for the time were being imposed on
those who were brought to the faith from among the heathens. Therefore
simple fornication which is intercourse with a concubine is not against
the natural law.
Objection 2: Further, positive law is an outcome of the natural
law, as Tully says (De Invent. ii). Now fornication was not
forbidden by positive law; indeed according to the ancient laws women
used to be sentenced to be taken to brothels. Therefore it is not
against the natural law to have a concubine.
Objection 3: Further, the natural law does not forbid that which is
given simply, to be given for a time or under certain restrictions.
Now one unmarried woman may give the power of her body for ever to an
unmarried man, so that he may use her when he will. Therefore it is
not against the law of nature, if she give him power of her body for a
time.
Objection 4: Further, whoever uses his own property as he will,
injures no one. But a bondswoman is her master's property.
Therefore if her master use her as he will, he injures no one: and
consequently it is not against the natural law to have a concubine.
Objection 5: Further, everyone may give his own property to
another. Now the wife has power of her husband's body (1 Cor.
7:4). Therefore if his wife be willing, the husband can have
intercourse with another woman without sin.
On the contrary, According to all laws the children born of a
concubine are children of shame. But this would not be so unless the
union of which they are born were naturally shameful.
Further, as stated above (Question 41, Article 1), marriage
is natural. But this would not be so if without prejudice to the
natural law a man could be united to a woman otherwise than by
marriage. Therefore it is against the natural law to have a
concubine.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), an action is said to
be against the natural law, if it is not in keeping with the due end
intended by nature, whether through not being directed thereto by the
action of the agent, or through being directed thereto by the action of
the agent, or through being in itself improportionate to that end.
Now the end which nature intends in sexual union is the begetting and
rearing of the offspring. and that this good might be sought after, it
attached pleasure to the union; as Augustine says (De Nup. et
Concup. i, 8). Accordingly to make use of sexual intercourse on
account of its inherent pleasure, without reference to the end for
which nature intended it, is to act against nature, as also is it if
the intercourse be not such as may fittingly be directed to that end.
And since, for the most part, things are denominated from their end,
as being that which is of most consequence to them, just as the
marriage union took its name from the good of the offspring [Question
44, Article 2], which is the end chiefly sought after in
marriage, so the name of concubine is expressive of that union where
sexual intercourse is sought after for its own sake. Moreover even
though sometimes a man may seek to have offspring of such an
intercourse, this is not befitting to the good of the offspring, which
signifies not only the begetting of children from which they take their
being, but also their rearing and instruction, by which means they
receive nourishment and learning from their parents, in respect of
which three things the parents are bound to their children, according
to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 11,12). Now since the
rearing and teaching of the children remain a duty of the parents during
a long period of time, the law of nature requires the father and mother
to dwell together for a long time, in order that together they may be
of assistance to their children. Hence birds that unite together in
rearing their young do not sever their mutual fellowship from the time
when they first come together until the young are fully fledged. Now
this obligation which binds the female and her mate to remain together
constitutes matrimony. Consequently it is evident that it is contrary
to the natural law for a man to have intercourse with a woman who is not
married to him, which is the signification of a concubine.
Reply to Objection 1: Among the Gentiles the natural law was
obscured in many points: and consequently they did not think it wrong
to have intercourse with a concubine, and in many cases practiced
fornication as though it were lawful, as also other things contrary to
the ceremonial laws of the Jews, though not contrary to the law of
nature. Wherefore the apostles inserted the prohibition of fornication
among that of other ceremonial observances, because in both cases there
was a difference of opinion between Jews and Gentiles.
Reply to Objection 2: This law was the result of the darkness just
mentioned, into which the Gentiles had fallen, by not giving due
honor to God as stated in Rm. 1:21, and did not proceed from the
instinct of the natural law. Hence, when the Christian religion
prevailed, this law was abolished.
Reply to Objection 3: In certain cases no evil results ensue if a
person surrenders his right to a thing whether absolutely or for a
time, so that in neither case is the surrender against the natural
law. But that does not apply to the case in point, wherefore the
argument does not prove.
Reply to Objection 4: Injury is opposed to justice. Now the
natural law forbids not only injustice, but also whatever is opposed to
any of the virtues: for instance it is contrary to the natural law to
eat immoderately, although by doing so a man uses his own property
without injury to anyone. Moreover although a bondswoman is her
master's property that she may serve him, she is not his that she may
be his concubine. And again it depends how a person makes use of his
property. For such a man does an injury to the offspring he begets,
since such a union is not directed to its good, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 5: The wife has power of her husband's body,
not simply and in all respects, but only in relation to marriage, and
consequently she cannot transfer her husband's body to another to the
detriment of the good of marriage.
|
|