|
Objection 1: It would seem that it was lawful for a divorced wife to
have another husband. For in divorce the husband did a greater wrong
by divorcing his wife than the wife by being divorced. But the husband
could, without sin, marry another wife. Therefore the wife could
without sin, marry another husband.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine, speaking about bigamy, says
(De Bono Conjug. xv, xviii) that "when it was the manner it was
no sin." Now at the time of the Old Law it was the custom for a
wife after divorce to marry another husband: "When she is departed
and marrieth another husband," etc. Therefore the wife sinned not by
marrying another husband.
Objection 3: Further, our Lord showed that the justice of the New
Testament is superabundant in comparison with the justice of the Old
Testament (Mt. 5). Now He said that it belongs to the
superabundant justice of the New Testament that the divorced wife
marry not another husband (Mt. 5:32). Therefore it was lawful
in the Old Law.
Objection 4: On the contrary, are the words of Mt. 5:32,
"He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery." Now
adultery was never permitted in the Old Law. Therefore it was not
lawful for the divorced wife to have another husband.
Objection 5: Further, it is written (Dt. 24:3) that a
divorced woman who marries another husband "is defiled, and is become
abominable before the Lord." Therefore she sinned by marrying
another husband.
I answer that, According to the first above mentioned opinion
(Article 3), she sinned by marrying another husband after being
divorced, because her first marriage still held good. For "the woman
. . . whilst her husband liveth, is bound to the law of her
husband" (Rm. 7:2): and she could not have several husbands at
one time. But according to the second opinion, just as it was lawful
by virtue of the Divine dispensation for a husband to divorce his
wife, so could the wife marry another husband, because the
indissolubility of marriage was removed by reason of the divine
dispensation: and as long as that indissolubility remains the saying of
the Apostle holds.
Accordingly to reply to the arguments on either side:
Reply to Objection 1: It was lawful for a husband to have several
wives at one time by virtue of the divine dispensation: wherefore
having put one away he could marry another even though the former
marriage were not dissolved. But it was never lawful for a wife to
have several husbands. Wherefore the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: In this saying of Augustine manner [mos]
does not signify custom but good manners; in the same sense a person is
said to have manners [morigeratus] because he has good manners; and
"moral" philosophy takes its name from the same source.
Reply to Objection 3: Our Lord shows the superabundance of the
New Law over the Old in respect of the counsels, not only as regards
those things which the Old Law permitted, but also as regards those
things which were forbidden in the Old Law, and yet were thought by
many to be permitted on account of the precepts being incorrectly
explained---for instance that of the hatred towards our enemies. and
so is it in the matter of divorce.
Reply to Objection 4: The saying of our Lord refers to the time of
the New Law, when the aforesaid permission was recalled. In the
same way we are to understand the statement of Chrysostom [Hom. xii
in Opus Imperfectum], who says that "a man who divorces his wife
according to the law is guilty of four crimes: for in God's sight he
is a murderer," in so far as he has the purpose of killing his wife
unless he divorce her; "and because he divorces her without her having
committed fornication," in which case alone the law of the Gospel
allows a man to put away his wife; "and again, because he makes her
an adulteress, and the man whom she marries an adulterer."
Reply to Objection 5: A gloss observes here: "She is defiled and
abominable, namely in the judgment of him who first put her away as
being defiled," and consequently it does not follow that she is
defiled absolutely speaking; or she is said to be defiled just as a
person who had touched a dead or leprous body was said to be unclean
with the uncleanness, not of sin, but of a certain legal
irregularity. Wherefore a priest could not marry a widow or a divorced
woman.
|
|