|
Objection 1: It would seem that a slave cannot marry without his
master's consent. For no one can give a person that which is
another's without the latter's consent. Now a slave is his master's
chattel. Therefore he cannot give his wife power over his body by
marrying without his master's consent.
Objection 2: Further, a slave is bound to obey his master. But
his master may command him not to consent to marry. Therefore he
cannot marry without his consent.
Objection 3: Further, after marriage, a slave is bound even by a
precept of the Divine law to pay the debt to his wife. But at the
time that his wife asks for the debt his master may demand of him a
service which he will be unable to perform if he wish to occupy himself
in carnal intercourse. Therefore if a slave can marry without his
master's consent, the latter would be deprived of a service due to him
without any fault of his; and this ought not to be.
Objection 4: Further, a master may sell his slave into a foreign
country, where the latter's wife is unable to follow him, through
either bodily weakness, or imminent danger to her faith; for instance
if he be sold to unbelievers, or if her master be unwilling, supposing
her to be a bondswoman; and thus the marriage will be dissolved, which
is unfitting. Therefore a slave cannot marry without his master's
consent.
Objection 5: Further, the burden under which a man binds himself to
the Divine service is more advantageous than that whereby a man
subjects himself to his wife. But a slave cannot enter religion or
receive orders without his master's consent. Much less therefore can
he be married without his consent.
On the contrary, "In Christ Jesus . . . there is neither bond
nor free" (Gal. 3:26,28). Therefore both freeman and
bondsman enjoy the same liberty to marry in the faith of Christ
Jesus.
Further, slavery is of positive law; whereas marriage is of natural
and Divine law. Since then positive law is not prejudicial to the
natural or the Divine law, it would seem that a slave can marry
without his master's consent.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1, ad 3), the positive
law arises out of the natural law, and consequently slavery, which is
of positive law, cannot be prejudicious to those things that are of
natural law. Now just as nature seeks the preservation of the
individual, so does it seek the preservation of the species by means of
procreation; wherefore even as a slave is not so subject to his master
as not to be at liberty to eat, sleep, and do such things as pertain
to the needs of his body, and without which nature cannot be
preserved, so he is not subject to him to the extent of being unable to
marry freely, even without his master's knowledge or consent.
Reply to Objection 1: A slave is his master's chattel in matters
superadded to nature, but in natural things all are equal.
Wherefore, in things pertaining to natural acts, a slave can by
marrying give another person power over his body without his master's
consent.
Reply to Objection 2: A slave is bound to obey his master in those
things which his master can command lawfully; and just as his master
cannot lawfully command him not to eat or sleep, so neither can he
lawfully command him to refrain from marrying. For it is the concern
of the lawgiver how each one uses his own, and consequently if the
master command his slave not to marry, the slave is not bound to obey
his master.
Reply to Objection 3: If a slave has married with his master's
consent, he should omit the service commanded by his master and pay the
debt to his wife; because the master, by consenting to his slave's
marriage, implicitly consented to all that marriage requires. If,
however, the marriage was contracted without the master's knowledge or
consent, he is not bound to pay the debt, but in preference to obey
his master, if the two things are incompatible. Nevertheless in such
matters there are many particulars to be considered, as in all human
acts, namely the danger to which his wife's chastity is exposed, and
the obstacle which the payment of the debt places in the way of the
service commanded, and other like considerations, all of which being
duly weighed it will be possible to judge which of the two in preference
the slave is bound to obey, his master or his wife.
Reply to Objection 4: In such a case it is said that the master
should be compelled not to sell the slave in such a way as to increase
the weight of the marriage burden, especially since he is able to
obtain anywhere a just price for his slave.
Reply to Objection 5: By entering religion or receiving orders a
man is bound to the Divine service for all time; whereas a husband is
bound to pay the debt to his wife not always, but at a fitting time;
hence the comparison fails. Moreover, he who enters religion or
receives orders binds himself to works that are superadded to natural
works, and in which his master has power over him, but not in natural
works to which a man binds himself by marriage. Hence he cannot vow
continence without his master's consent.
|
|