|
Objection 1: It would seem that it has been sometimes lawful to have
a concubine. For just as the natural law requires a man to have but
one wife, so does it forbid him to have a concubine. Yet at times it
has been lawful to have several wives. Therefore it has also been
lawful to have a concubine.
Objection 2: Further, a woman cannot be at the same time a slave
and a wife; wherefore according to the Law (Dt. 21:11,
seqq.) a bondswoman gained her freedom by the very fact of being taken
in marriage. Now we read that certain men who were most beloved of
God, for instance Abraham and Jacob, had intercourse with their
bondswomen. Therefore these were not wives, and consequently it was
sometime lawful to have a concubine.
Objection 3: Further, a woman who is taken in marriage cannot be
cast out, and her son should have a share in the inheritance. Yet
Abraham sent Agar away, and her son was not his heir (Gn.
21:14). Therefore she was not Abraham's wife.
On the contrary, Things opposed to the precepts of the decalogue were
never lawful. Now to have a concubine is against a precept of the
decalogue, namely, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Therefore it
was never lawful.
Further, Ambrose says in his book on the patriarchs (De Abraham
i, 4): "What is unlawful to a wife is unlawful to a husband."
But it is never lawful for a wife to put aside her own husband and have
intercourse with another man. Therefore it was never lawful for a
husband to have a concubine.
I answer that, Rabbi Moses says (Doc. Perp. iii, 49) that
before the time of the Law fornication was not a sin; and he proved
his assertion from the fact that Juda had intercourse with Thamar.
But this argument is not conclusive. For there is no need to excuse
Jacob's sons from mortal sin, since they were accused to their father
of a most wicked crime (Gn. 37:2), and consented kill Joseph
and to sell him. Wherefore we must say that since it is against the
natural law to have a concubine outside wedlock, as stated above
(Article 3), it was never lawful either in itself or by
dispensation. For as we have shown (Doc. Perp. iii, 49)
intercourse with a woman outside wedlock is an action improportionate to
the good of the offspring which is the principal end of marriage: and
consequently it is against the first precepts of the natural law which
admit of no dispensation. Hence wherever in the Old Testament we
read of concubines being taken by such men as we ought to excuse from
mortal sin, we must needs understand them to have been taken in
marriage, and yet to have been called concubines, because they had
something of the character of a wife and something of the character of a
concubine. In so far as marriage is directed to its principal end,
which is the good of the offspring, the union of wife and husband is
indissoluble or at least of a lasting nature, as shown above (Article
1), and in regard to this there is no dispensation. But in regard
to the secondary end, which is the management of the household and
community of works, the wife is united to the husband as his mate: and
this was lacking in those who were known as concubines. For in this
respect a dispensation was possible, since it is the secondary end of
marriage. And from this point of view they bore some resemblance to
concubines, and for this reason they were known as such.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Article 1, ad 7,8)
to have several wives is not against the first precepts of the natural
law, as it is to have a concubine; wherefore the argument does not
prove.
Reply to Objection 2: The patriarchs of old by virtue of the
dispensation which allowed them several wives, approached their
bondswomen with the disposition of a husband towards his wife. For
these women were wives as to the principal and first end of marriage,
but not as to the other union which regards the secondary end, to which
bondage is opposed since a woman cannot be at once mate and slave.
Reply to Objection 3: As in the Mosaic law it was allowable by
dispensation to grant a bill of divorce in order to avoid wife-murder
(as we shall state further on, Question 67, Article 6), so by
the same dispensation Abraham was allowed to send Agar away, in order
to signify the mystery which the Apostle explains (Gal. 4:22,
seqq.). Again, that this son did not inherit belongs to the
mystery, as explained in the same place. Even so Esau, the son of a
free woman, did not inherit (Rm. 9:13, seqq.). In like
manner on account of the mystery it came about that the sons of Jacob
born of bond and free women inherited, as Augustine says (Tract. xi
in Joan.) because "sons and heirs are born to Christ both of good
ministers denoted by the free woman and of evil ministers denoted by the
bondswoman."
|
|