|
Objection 1: It would seem that a husband can marry again after
having a divorce. For no one is bound to perpetual continence. Now
in some cases the husband is bound to put away his wife forever on
account of fornication, as stated above (Article 2). Therefore
seemingly at least in this case he can marry again.
Objection 2: Further, a sinner should not be given a greater
occasion of sin. But if she who is put away on account of the sin of
fornication is not allowed to seek another marriage, she is given a
greater occasion of sin: for it is improbable that one who was not
continent during marriage will be able to be continent afterwards.
Therefore it would seem lawful for her to marry again.
Objection 3: Further, the wife is not bound to the husband save as
regards the payment of the marriage debt and cohabitation. But she is
freed from both obligations by divorce. Therefore "she is loosed from
the law of her husband" [Rm. 7:2]. Therefore she can marry
again; and the same applies to her husband.
Objection 4: Further, it is said (Mt. 19:9): "Whosoever
shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another committeth adultery." Therefore seemingly he does not commit
adultery if he marry again after putting away his wife on account of
fornication, and consequently this will be a true marriage.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 7:10,11): "Not
I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not from her
husband. and, if she depart, that she remain unmarried."
Further, no one should gain advantage from sin. But the adulteress
would if she were allowed to contract another and more desired
marriage; and an occasion of adultery would be afforded those who wish
to marry again. Therefore it is unlawful both to the wife and to the
husband to contract a second marriage.
I answer that, Nothing supervenient to marriage can dissolve it:
wherefore adultery does not make a marriage cease to be valid. For,
according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup. i, 10), "as long
as they live they are bound by the marriage tie, which neither divorce
nor union with another can destroy." Therefore it is unlawful for
one, while the other lives, to marry again.
Reply to Objection 1: Although no one is absolutely bound to
continence, he may be bound accidentally; for instance, if his wife
contract an incurable disease that is incompatible with carnal
intercourse. And it is the same if she labor under a spiritual
disease, namely fornication, so as to be incorrigible.
Reply to Objection 2: The very shame of having been divorced ought
to keep her from sin: and if it cannot keep her from sin, it is a
lesser evil that she alone sin than that her husband take part in her
sin.
Reply to Objection 3: Although after divorce the wife is not bound
to her husband as regards paying him the marriage debt and cohabiting
with him, the marriage tie, whereby she was bound to this, remains,
and consequently she cannot marry again during her husband's lifetime.
She can, however, take a vow of continence, against her husband's
will, unless it seem that the Church has been deceived by false
witnesses in pronouncing the divorce; for in that case, even if she
has made her vow of profession she ought to be restored to her husband,
and would be bound to pay the marriage debt, but it would be unlawful
for her to demand it.
Reply to Objection 4: The exception expressed in our Lord's words
refers to the putting away of the wife. Hence the objection is based
on a false interpretation.
|
|