|
Objection 1: It would seem that a believer, after his conversion,
cannot put away his unbelieving wife if she be willing to cohabit with
him without insult to the Creator. For the husband is more bound to
his wife than a slave to his master. But a converted slave is not
freed from the bond of slavery, as appears from 1 Cor. 7:21; 1
Tim. 6:1. Therefore neither can a believing husband put away his
unbelieving wife.
Objection 2: Further, no one may act to another's prejudice
without the latter's consent. Now the unbelieving wife had a right in
the body of her unbelieving husband. If, then, her husband's
conversion to the faith could be prejudicial to the wife, so that he
would be free to put her away, the husband could not be converted to
the faith without his wife's consent, even as he cannot receive orders
or vow continence without her consent.
Objection 3: Further, if a man, whether slave or free, knowingly
marry a bondwoman, he cannot put her away on account of her different
condition. Since, then, the husband, when he married an
unbeliever, knew that she was an unbeliever, it would seem that in
like manner he cannot put her away on account of her unbelief.
Objection 4: Further, a father is in duty bound to work for the
salvation of his children. But if he were to leave his unbelieving
wife, the children of their union would remain with the mother,
because "the offspring follows the womb," and thus their salvation
would be imperiled. Therefore he cannot lawfully put away his
unbelieving wife.
Objection 5: Further, an adulterous husband cannot put away an
adulterous wife, even after he has done penance for his adultery.
Therefore if an adulterous and an unbelieving husband are to be judged
alike, neither can the believer put aside the unbeliever, even after
his conversion to the faith.
On the contrary, are the words of the Apostle (1 Cor.
7:15,16).
Further, spiritual adultery is more grievous than carnal. But a man
can put his wife away, as to cohabitation, on account of carnal
adultery. Much more, therefore, can he do so on account of
unbelief, which is spiritual adultery.
I answer that, Different things are competent and expedient to man
according as his life is of one kind or of another. Wherefore he who
dies to his former life is not bound to those things to which he was
bound in his former life. Hence it is that he who vowed certain things
while living in the world is not bound to fulfill them when he dies to
the world by adopting the religious life. Now he who is baptized is
regenerated in Christ and dies to his former life, since the
generation of one thing is the corruption of another, and consequently
he is freed from the obligation whereby he was bound to pay his wife the
marriage debt, and is not bound to cohabit with her when she is
unwilling to be converted, although in a certain case he is free to do
so, as stated above (Article 3), just as a religious is free to
fulfill the vows he took in the world, if they be not contrary to his
religious profession, although he is not bound to do so.
Reply to Objection 1: Bondage is not inconsistent with the
perfection of the Christian religion, which makes a very special
profession of humility. But the obligation to a wife, or the conjugal
bond, is somewhat derogatory to the perfection of Christian life, the
highest state of which is in the possession of the continent: hence the
comparison fails. Moreover one married party is not bound to the other
as the latter's possession, as a slave to his master, but by way of a
kind of partnership, which is unfitting between unbeliever and believer
as appears from 2 Cor. 6:15; hence there is no comparison
between a slave and a married person.
Reply to Objection 2: The wife had a right in the body of her
husband only as long as he remained in the life wherein he had married,
since also when the husband dies the wife "is delivered from the law of
her husband" (Rm. 7:3). Wherefore if the husband leave her
after he has changed his life by dying to his former life, this is
nowise prejudicial to her. Now he who goes over to the religious life
dies but a spiritual death and not a bodily death. Wherefore if the
marriage be consummated, the husband cannot enter religion without his
wife's consent, whereas he can before carnal connection when there is
only a spiritual connection. On the other hand, he who is baptized is
even corporeally buried together with Christ unto death; and therefore
he is freed from paying the marriage debt even after the marriage has
been consummated.
We may also reply that it is through her own fault in refusing to be
converted that the wife suffers prejudice.
Reply to Objection 3: Disparity of worship makes a person simply
unfit for lawful marriage, whereas the condition of bondage does not,
but only where it is unknown. Hence there is no comparison between an
unbeliever and a bondswoman.
Reply to Objection 4: Either the child has reached a perfect age,
and then it is free to follow either the believing father or the
unbelieving mother, or else it is under age, and then it should be
given to the believer notwithstanding that it needs the mother's care
for its education.
Reply to Objection 5: By doing penance the adulterer does not enter
another life as an unbeliever by being baptized. Hence the comparison
fails.
|
|