← Back to Distinction 32

Dist. 32, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 32

Textus Latinus
p. 733

Articulus II. De obligatione coniugum per comparationem ad accidens superveniens.

Consequenter, quantum ad secundum articulum, quaeritur de obligatione coniugum quantum ad accidens superveniens. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum oporteat debitum reddere, si alter fiat leprosus. Secundo, utrum quis teneatur debitum reddere, si alter fiat fornicarius, vel e converso.

Quaestio I. Utrum oporteat coniugi debitum reddere, si alter fiat leprosus.

Et quod leproso coniugi oporteat debitum reddere, videtur:

1. Quia dicit decretalis, de Coniugio leprosorum8: «Uxores viros, et viri uxores sequantur et eis coniugali affectione ministrent».

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia matrimonium est vinculum insolubile, ergo non solvitur per infirmitatem: ergo manet potestas petendi, etiam superveniente lepra: ergo si mulier non habet potestatem sui corporis9, et sic etc.

3. Item, leprosi, si tentantur de fornicatione, ergo possunt et debent habere remedium: ergo si iste qui habet uxorem, remedium non potest habere, nisi ipsa reddat debitum10; videtur etc.

p. 734

4. Item, leprosi, eo ipso quod leprosi, non tenentur ad continentiam nec possunt cogi: ergo necesse est, uxores eorum eis reddi.

Contra:

1. Levitici decimo tertio1 praecipitur, ut leprosi extra communionem sanorum eiiciantur: ergo cum uxor est sana, debet per Legem sequestrari ab uxore.

2. Item, lepra est morbus contagiosus, ergo morbus, quem licet homini fugere: ergo mulier cum viro leproso non tenetur cohabitare, et si hoc: ergo nec debitum reddere.

3. Item, lepra est morbus hereditarius2, ergo transmittitur ad prolem: ergo cum coitus, qui est causa deformitatis in prole, sit contra bonum prolis, et talis sit prohibitus: ergo nullo modo licebit mulieri coire cum leproso, aut e converso.

4. Item, sicut lepra reddit inhabilem ad ordinis susceptionem, ita reddit inhabilem ad ordinis suscepti administrationem: ergo sicut reddit inhabilem ad matrimonii contractionem post sponsalia, quia solvit sponsalia3; ita videtur, quod reddat inhabilem ad debiti solutionem.

Conclusio. Coniux leprosus habet ius petendi debitum, sed sanus cogi non potest, ut omnino cohabitet.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis lepra solvat sponsalia, tamen non potest solvere matrimonium; et ideo, cum aliquis efficitur leprosus, et coniux est et leprosus; et4 quia coniux est, habet ius petendi debitum et reddendi; quia vero leprosus, debet extra sanos habitare: ita dico, quod mulier petenti debitum potest solvere, sed tamen non habet necesse cohabitare omnino. Unde quod dicitur, quod «viri uxores sequantur et administrent», dicitur per modum admonitionis, non praecepti; nec cogi potest sanus ad aliud, quam ut reddat debitum infirmo5, et hoc propter periculum fornicationis. — Et sic concedendae sunt rationes probantes, quod debeat solvere debitum.

Ad oppositum:

Ad 1, 2. Ad rationes duas ad oppositum patet responsio: quia non sequitur, si non tenetur cohabitare, quod nec debitum solvere.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de prole, dicendum, quod secus est in menstruatis et leprosis. Nam menstruatae alio tempore possunt bonam prolem procreare, sed leprosi non possunt nec omnino faciunt contra6, quia, quantum in se est, libenter generarent sanum; attamen proli generatae melius est sic esse quam omnino non esse.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de irregularitate, dicendum quod non est simile: quia utraque est congruitatis, scilicet quod ordinem suscipiat7 et quod in ordine suscepto administret. Sed matrimonium contrahere hoc libertatis est, sed ius reddere hoc necessitatis est propter insolubilitatem vinculi. Et sic patet illud quod obiicit8.

---

English Translation
p. 733

Article II. On the obligation of spouses in comparison with a supervening accident.

Next, with respect to the second article, it is asked concerning the obligation of spouses as regards a supervening accident. And concerning this two questions are asked. First it is asked whether one must render the debt if the other becomes a leper. Secondly, whether one is bound to render the debt if the other becomes a fornicator, or vice versa.

Question I. Whether one must render the debt to a spouse if the other becomes a leper.

And that one must render the debt to a leprous spouse, it seems:

1. Because the decretal, On the Marriage of Lepers8, says: «Let wives follow their husbands, and husbands their wives, and minister to them with conjugal affection».

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because marriage is an insoluble bond, therefore it is not dissolved by an infirmity: therefore the power of demanding remains, even when leprosy supervenes: therefore if the woman does not have power over her own body9, and so forth.

3. Likewise, lepers, if they are tempted to fornication, therefore can and ought to have a remedy: therefore if this man who has a wife cannot have a remedy unless she render the debt10; it seems so, etc.

p. 734

4. Likewise, lepers, by the very fact that they are lepers, are not bound to continence nor can they be compelled [to it]: therefore it is necessary that their wives be rendered to them.

On the contrary:

1. In Leviticus, chapter thirteen1, it is commanded that lepers be cast out from the fellowship of the healthy: therefore, when the wife is healthy, [the leper] must by the Law be separated from the wife.

2. Likewise, leprosy is a contagious disease, therefore a disease which a person is permitted to flee: therefore a woman is not bound to cohabit with a leprous husband, and if this [is so]: therefore neither [is she bound] to render the debt.

3. Likewise, leprosy is a hereditary disease2, therefore it is transmitted to the offspring: therefore, since coitus, which is the cause of deformity in the offspring, is against the good of offspring, and such [coitus] is forbidden: therefore in no way will it be lawful for a woman to have intercourse with a leper, or vice versa.

4. Likewise, just as leprosy renders one unfit for the reception of orders, so it renders one unfit for the administration of an order received: therefore, just as it renders one unfit for the contracting of marriage after betrothal, because it dissolves the betrothal3; so it seems that it renders one unfit for the rendering of the debt.

Conclusion. A leprous spouse has the right of demanding the debt, but the healthy one cannot be compelled to cohabit wholly.

I respond: It must be said that, although leprosy dissolves a betrothal, nevertheless it cannot dissolve a marriage; and therefore, when someone becomes leprous, he is both a spouse and a leper; and4 because he is a spouse, he has the right of demanding and of rendering the debt; but because he is a leper, he must dwell apart from the healthy: thus I say that the woman can render [the debt] to the one who demands it, but nevertheless is not obliged to cohabit wholly. Hence, as to what is said, that «husbands should follow their wives and minister to them», it is said by way of admonition, not of precept; nor can the healthy one be compelled to anything other than to render the debt to the infirm5, and this on account of the danger of fornication. — And thus the reasons proving that he ought to render the debt are to be granted.

To the contrary [arguments]:

To 1 and 2. To the two reasons to the contrary the response is clear: because it does not follow, if one is not bound to cohabit, that neither [is one bound] to render the debt.

To 3. To that which is objected concerning offspring, it must be said that it is otherwise in menstruating women and in lepers. For menstruating women can at another time procreate good offspring, but lepers cannot, nor do they at all act against [the good of offspring]6, because, as far as in them lies, they would gladly beget a healthy [child]; yet for the offspring already begotten it is better to be thus than not to be at all.

To 4. To that which is objected concerning irregularity, it must be said that it is not similar: because both belong to fittingness, namely that one receive an order7 and that one administer in the order received. But to contract marriage is a matter of liberty, whereas to render the right [of the debt] is a matter of necessity, on account of the insolubility of the bond. And thus is clear that which he objects8.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 8
    Extra lib. IV. tit. 8. C. Pervenit ad nos (1.). Textus originalis post et viri uxores addit qui leprae morbum incurrunt.
    Decretals (Extra), Book IV, tit. 8, ch. Pervenit ad nos (1.). The original text, after et viri uxores ("and husbands their wives"), adds qui leprae morbum incurrunt ("who contract the disease of leprosy").
  2. 9
    Epist. 1. Cor. 7, 4. — Cfr. de hoc arg. C. Quoniam nemini licet (2.), X. de Coniugio leprosorum (lib. IV. tit. 8.). Pro ergo si permulti codd. perperam ergo similiter.
    [Paul's] Epistle, 1 Cor. 7:4. — Cf. on this argument the chapter Quoniam nemini licet (2.), in the Decretals (X.), On the Marriage of Lepers (Book IV, tit. 8). For ergo si ("therefore if") very many codices wrongly [read] ergo similiter ("therefore likewise").
  3. 10
    Cfr. 1. Cor. 7, 2. seq. — Superius pro si tentantur cod. P saepe tentantur, codd. F G omittunt primum ergo.
    Cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 f. — Above, for si tentantur ("if they are tempted") codex P often [reads] tentantur, codices F, G omit the first ergo ("therefore").
  4. 1
    Vers. 3. seqq. — In fine arg. pro uxore cod. bb viro (in nostra lectione supple: leprosus).
    [Lev. 13,] verse 3 ff. — At the end of the argument, for uxore ("wife") codex bb [reads] viro ("husband") (in our reading supply: leprosus, "the leper").
  5. 2
    Vide tom. II. pag. 763, nota 3. verba Avicennae. — Inferius post prohibitus edd. rationem indicant allegantes infra a. 3. q. 1, ubi de menstruatis, ad quas in solut. huius obiect. respicitur.
    See vol. II, p. 763, note 3, the words of Avicenna. — Below, after prohibitus ("forbidden"), the editions indicate the reasoning, citing below at a. 3, q. 1, where [the discussion] is of menstruating women, to whom reference is made in the solution of this objection.
  6. 3
    Ut habetur in C. Litteras (3.), X. de Coniugio leprosorum (lib. IV. tit. 8.). — Pro solvit cod. bb solvuntur.
    As is had in the chapter Litteras (3.), in the Decretals (X.), On the Marriage of Lepers (Book IV, tit. 8). — For solvit ("it dissolves") codex bb [reads] solvuntur ("they are dissolved").
  7. 4
    Non pauci codd. pro et substituunt est, legentes leprosus est; quia coniux etc. Inferius pro potest solvere cod. K (1 a secunda manu) tenetur reddere. Post omnino cod. Z supplet cum eo.
    Not a few codices for et ("and") substitute est ("is"), reading leprosus est; quia coniux etc. ("he is leprous; because he is a spouse," etc.). Below, for potest solvere ("can render") codex K (1, by a second hand) [reads] tenetur reddere ("is bound to render"). After omnino ("wholly") codex Z supplies cum eo ("with him").
  8. 5
    Idem dicitur in Glossa super praeallegatum C. Pervenit ad nos. Cfr. Glossa in C. Si uxorem (18.), C. 32. q. 5.
    The same is said in the Gloss on the aforecited chapter Pervenit ad nos. Cf. the Gloss on the chapter Si uxorem (18.), Causa 32, q. 5.
  9. 6
    Vat. cum nonnullis codd. supplet bonum prolis, cui in cod. bb secunda manus addidit nisi quantum ad bene esse.
    The Vatican [edition], with some codices, supplies bonum prolis ("the good of offspring"), to which in codex bb a second hand added nisi quantum ad bene esse ("except as to well-being").
  10. 7
    Edd. non suscipiat et mox non ministret pro administret. Superius pro utraque (scilicet irregularitas), quod est in codd. IK, in aliis et edd. utrumque.
    The editions [read] non suscipiat ("let him not receive") and shortly non ministret for administret ("administers"). Above, for utraque ("both," feminine — namely, irregularity), which is in codices I, K, in the others and in the editions utrumque ("both," neuter).
  11. 8
    Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis articuli quaest.
    See the scholion to question I of the preceding article. ---
← Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 32, Art. 2, Q. 2→