|
Objection 1: It would seem lawful for a menstruous wife to ask for
the marriage debt. For in the Law a man who had an issue of seed was
unclean, even as a menstruous woman. Yet a man who has an issue of
seed may ask for the debt. Therefore a menstruous wife may also.
Objection 2: Further, leprosy is a worse complaint than suffering
from monthly periods, and would seem to cause a greater corruption in
the offspring. Yet a leper can ask for the debt. Therefore, etc.
Objection 3: Further, if a menstruous wife is not allowed to ask
for the debt, this can only be because it is feared this may be
detrimental to the offspring. Yet if the wife be unfruitful there is
no such fear. Therefore, seemingly, at least an unfruitful wife may
ask for the debt during her menses.
On the contrary, "Thou shalt not approach to a woman having her
flowers" (Lev. 18:19) where Augustine observes: "Although
he has already sufficiently forbidden this he repeats the prohibition
here lest he seem to have spoken figuratively."
Further, "All our justices" are become "as the rag of a menstruous
woman" (Is. 64:6) where Jerome observes: "Men ought then to
keep away from their wives because thus is a deformed blind lame leprous
offspring conceived: so that those parents who are not ashamed to come
together in sexual intercourse have their sin made obvious to all":
and thus the same conclusion follows.
I answer that, It was forbidden in the Law to approach to a
menstruous woman, for two reasons both on account of her uncleanness,
and on account of the harm that frequently resulted to the offspring
from such intercourse. With regard to the first reason, it was a
ceremonial precept, but with regard to the second it was a moral
precept. For since marriage is chiefly directed to the good of the
offspring, all use of marriage which is intended for the good of the
offspring is in order. Consequently this precept is binding even in
the New Law on account of the second reason, although not on account
of the first. Now, the menstrual issue may be natural or unnatural.
The natural issue is that to which women are subject at stated periods
when they are in good health; and it is unnatural when they suffer from
an issue of blood through some disorder resulting from sickness.
Accordingly if the menstrual flow be unnatural it is not forbidden in
the New Law to approach to a menstruous woman both on account of her
infirmity since a woman in that state cannot conceive, and because an
issue of this kind is lasting and continuous, so that the husband would
have to abstain for always. When however the woman is subject to a
natural issue of the menstruum, she can conceive; moreover, the said
issue lasts only a short time, wherefore it is forbidden to approach to
her. In like manner a woman is forbidden to ask for the debt during
the period of that issue.
Reply to Objection 1: The issue of seed in a man is the result of
infirmity, nor is the seed in this case apt for generation. Moreover
a complaint of this kind is continual or lasting like leprosy:
wherefore the comparison falls.
This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.
Reply to Objection 3: As long as a woman is subject to the menses
it cannot be certain that she is sterile. For some are sterile in
youth, and in course of time become fruitful, and "vice versa," as
the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Anim. xvi).
|
|