Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 35

Textus Latinus

p. 780

Articulus unicus. De divortio.

Quaestio I. Utrum liceat uxorem dimittere ex causa fornicationis.

Circa primum ostenditur, quod possit fieri divortium ex causa fornicationis.

1. Matthaei decimo nono²: Si quis uxorem dimiserit, excepta causa fornicationis etc.: ergo si hanc causam excipit, et vera est exceptio Domini; videtur, quod ex hoc licet dimittere.

p. 781

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia alter coniugum non habet potestatem in corpore alterius, nisi quia dat ei sui corporis potestatem: ergo si, quantum est in se, subtrahit, amittit potestatem in corpore coniugis. Sed hoc facit per fornicationem: ergo etc.

3. Item, vir non tenetur esse cum uxore nec reddere ei debitum nisi ratione boni fidei, nec e converso: ergo si fornicans frangit bonum fidei, non tenetur¹ debitum reddere nec cohabitare: ergo potest eam dimittere.

4. Item, alter coniugum fornicando scandalizat alterum, quia est «factum minus rectum, praebens occasionem ruinae»: ergo si omne quod scandalizat, potest homo a se sequestrare, ut patet Matthaei decimo octavo²: Si oculus tuus scandalizat te: ergo etc.

Contra:

1. Matthaei decimo nono³: Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet; sed coniuges sunt divinitus coniuncti: ergo non debent humano iudicio separari: ergo nec divortium fieri ex aliqua causa.

2. Item, non est reddendum malum pro malo⁴: ergo quamvis uxor fornicando iniurietur viro, vir non debet ei reddere malum: ergo non debet eam abiicere.

3. Item, sicut dicunt canones⁵, utroque fornicante, non potest alter ab altero separari; sed maior culpa est, cum uterque fornicatur, quam cum alter tantum: ergo si non potest fieri divortium ex maiori culpa, nec ex minori.

4. Item, propter defectum boni prolis, ut puta si alter sit sterilis, non potest coniux dimitti: ergo si hoc non est minus quam bonum fidei, propter defectum boni fidei matrimonium non⁶ solvitur.

5. Item, quaero, qua de causa possit divortium fieri magis ex fornicatione quam ex alio peccato. Si, quia peccat in coniugem, similiter peccare potest detrahendo, odiendo; si vero, quia dividit carnem: ergo cum in peccato sodomitico non dividatur caro, videtur, quod ex illo non possit dimitti uxor; quod nefarium videtur, cum illud sit magis contra matrimonium.

Item, quaero, cum in repudio vir et uxor non iudicarentur ad paria, quia uxor non repudiabat virum; unde est hoc, quod in divortio ad paria iudicantur secundum iura⁷? Praeterea, quae est differentia inter divortium et repudium?

Conclusio. Ex causa fornicationis culpabilis et singularis divortium fieri potest, postulante innocente.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod propter fornicationem licitum est fieri divortium inter coniuges, altero postulante. — Et ratio huius est, quia Dominus concessit; ratio autem, quare concessit, haec est, quia non servanti fidem, immo frangenti, non tenetur vir fidem servare⁸; et quia directe peccavit contra actum matrimonialem, in eodem puniri debet. Concessit igitur Dominus, divortium fieri, hoc exigente aequitate iuris matrimonialis, quae surgit ex hoc, quod alter iniuriatur alteri culpabiliter subtrahendo ius, quod habebat in corpore sine iniuria alterius. Unde non ex quacumque fornicatione fit divortium, sed ex ea, quae est culpabilis et singularis in altera personarum. Si ergo fornicetur sine culpa, ut puta per violentiam, vel per ignorantiam, cum credit, alium, cum quo coit, esse virum suum vel credit virum mortuum et contrahit cum alio; ex tali non fit divortium. Si vero fornicatio non est singularis: vel quia alter similiter⁹ fornicatur, et non potest de hoc alterum increpare; vel etiam, quia alter fornicatur, altero consentiente et prostituente, et tunc est particeps criminis; vel etiam altero occasionem praebente, ut puta cum repudiavit eam, et illa contraxit cum alio — si ambo veniant ad fidem, tenetur ipsam recipere — vel etiam altero tolerante et dissimulante, ut puta cum cognoscit eam voluntarie, postquam scit, coniugem fornicari: omnibus istis modis fit quasi criminis particeps; et ideo non fit ei iniuria, et ideo ex causa tali non debet fieri divortium; quod si fiat ex tali causa propter defectum probationis, peccat ille qui procurat divortium, quia iniuste subtrahit ius coniugi¹⁰.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod fit ab homine divortium; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo a Deo fit ex causa iusta. «Non enim homo separat, sed Deus, quos poena damnat, quos reatus accusat, quos maleficium coarctat¹¹».

p. 782

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est reddendum malum pro malo; dicendum, quod si quis uxorem dimittat in ultionem iniuriae, utique peccat; sed dimitti debet propter scandalum proprium evitandum et propter uxoris vitium corrigendum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non debet propter peccatum utriusque; dicendum, quod divortium non fit, nisi altero petente et altero coniugum alterum repellente; et quia, quando uterque reus est, non habet actionem in alterum — quia, in quo iudicat alterum, se ipsum condemnat, ad Romanos secundo¹ — cum autem alter est innocens, potest agere: ideo non est simile.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non fit propter defectum prolis divortium; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia fornicator peccat in corpus comparis², sed ubi defectus est prolis, potest esse sine peccato, vel saltem sine peccato in corpus viri.

5. Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare fornicatio separet; dicendum, quod est culpa non tantum contra Deum et contra corpus suum, sed contra matrimonii bonum et contra coniugii actum et contra corpus coniugis; est enim contra fidem et contra actum matrimonialem; abutitur etiam corpore, quod non est suum, sed alterius³: et ideo talis amittit ius petendi debitum, et quia hoc totum est in peccato contra naturam, ideo sub fornicatione comprehenditur.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de repudio, dicendum, quod differt repudium et divortium, quia repudium fiebat ex indebita causa, sed divortium ex debita; et illud est permissum, hoc concessum; differunt etiam, quia post repudium non prohibebantur nubere, post divortium autem prohibentur⁴; differunt etiam, quia vir repudiabat uxorem, non e converso; unde non iudicabantur ad paria, in divortio iudicantur ad paria. — Et huius ratio est, quia mulier merito primi peccati subiecta est viro; sed post reconciliationem Christi, in quo non est servus et liber, masculus et femina⁵, omnino quantum ad legem tori ad paria iudicantur.

Scholion

I. Solutio 1. quaestionis definita est a Concilio Tridentino (Sess. XXIV. can. 8.). Divortium ob adulterium concessum in septem casibus non licere, docetur a S. Bonav. infra dub. 1. et a S. Thoma aliisque in ipsa 1. quaestione, a B. Alberto, hic a. 10.

De hac 1. quaestione: S. Thom., hic a. 1; Suppl. q. 62. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 4. — Durand., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de tota dist. hic q. unica.

II. Quoad 2. quaestionem communiter (cfr. etiam infra dub. 3.) docetur, quod rarissime uxor teneatur se separare a viro adultero; sed vir, utpote ad correctionem uxoris obligatus, quando adulterium mulieris est publicum, «si adultera non poeniteat, tenetur, ne peccato eius consentire videatur, dum correctionem debitam non apponit» (S. Thom., hic a. 2; Suppl. q. 62. a. 2.). Hoc Richard. (loc. cit. q. 2.) intelligit de ea quae «probabiliter praesumitur esse incorrigibilis». Recentiores etiam virum saepe excusari posse docent, si ob graves rationes separationem non procuret.

De eadem 2. quaestione: B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 2.

III. Secundum canones divortium proprie dictum, sive separatio a toro et cohabitatione, non potest licite fieri nisi iudicio ecclesiastico. Ob speciales circumstantias, ubi aditus ad iudicem ecclesiasticum non patet, etiam privatam separationem nostra aetate interdum excusari posse, nunc communiter docetur, praesertim quando non intenditur perpetuum divortium.

De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3.

---

English Translation

Sole Article. On divorce.

Question I. Whether it is licit to dismiss a wife for the cause of fornication.

Concerning the first [question] it is shown that a divorce can take place for the cause of fornication.

1. Matthew nineteen²: If anyone dismiss his wife, except for the cause of fornication etc.: therefore if He excepts this cause, the Lord's exception is also true; it seems that on account of this it is licit to dismiss.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because one spouse does not have power over the body of the other, except because he gives to him the power of his own body: therefore if, as far as it lies in himself, he withdraws it, he loses power over the body of the spouse. But this he does through fornication: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the husband is not bound to be with his wife nor to render her the debt except by reason of the good of faith, nor conversely: therefore if by fornicating she breaks the good of faith, he is not bound¹ to render the debt nor to cohabit: therefore he can dismiss her.

4. Likewise, one spouse by fornicating scandalizes the other, because it is «a deed less upright, affording an occasion of ruin»: therefore if everything that scandalizes a man can be set apart from himself, as is clear from Matthew eighteen²: If your eye scandalize you: therefore etc.

On the contrary:

1. Matthew nineteen³: What God has joined let not man separate; but spouses are joined by God: therefore they ought not to be separated by human judgment: therefore neither can a divorce take place for any cause.

2. Likewise, evil is not to be rendered for evil⁴: therefore although a wife by fornicating injures her husband, the husband ought not to render her evil: therefore he ought not to cast her off.

3. Likewise, as the canons say⁵, when both fornicate, one cannot be separated from the other; but the fault is greater when both fornicate than when only one does: therefore if a divorce cannot take place for the greater fault, neither for the lesser.

4. Likewise, on account of a defect of the good of offspring — as, for instance, if one party be sterile — the spouse cannot be dismissed: therefore if this [good] is not less than the good of faith, then on account of a defect of the good of faith the marriage is not⁶ dissolved.

5. Likewise, I ask, for what cause a divorce can take place rather from fornication than from another sin. If [it be said] because she sins against her spouse, she can sin likewise by detraction, by hatred; but if because she divides the flesh: therefore since in the sodomitical sin the flesh is not divided, it seems that on account of it a wife cannot be dismissed; which seems nefarious, since that [sin] is more against marriage.

Likewise, I ask: since in repudiation the husband and wife were not judged as equals, because the wife did not repudiate the husband; whence is it that in divorce they are judged as equals according to the laws⁷? Moreover, what is the difference between divorce and repudiation?

Conclusion. For the cause of a culpable and singular fornication a divorce can take place, at the request of the innocent party.

I respond: It must be said that, on account of fornication, it is licit for a divorce to take place between spouses, at the request of one party. — And the reason for this is that the Lord granted it; and the reason why He granted it is this: that to one not keeping faith — indeed breaking it — the husband is not bound to keep faith⁸; and because [the offender] sinned directly against the matrimonial act, [she] ought to be punished in the same thing. The Lord therefore granted that a divorce take place, this being demanded by the equity of matrimonial law, which arises from this: that one party culpably injures the other by withdrawing the right which [the other] had over the body without injury to the other. Hence a divorce does not arise from just any fornication, but from that which is culpable and singular in one of the persons. If therefore she fornicate without fault — as, for instance, through violence, or through ignorance, when she believes the man with whom she has intercourse to be her own husband, or believes her husband dead and contracts with another — from such [fornication] no divorce arises. But if the fornication is not singular: either because the other party likewise⁹ fornicates, and cannot reproach the other for this; or also because one fornicates with the other consenting and prostituting [her], and then he is a partaker of the crime; or also with the other affording the occasion, as when he has repudiated her, and she has contracted with another — if both come to the faith, he is bound to take her back — or also with the other tolerating and dissembling, as when he knowingly has relations with her voluntarily after he knows his spouse to fornicate: in all these ways he becomes as it were a partaker of the crime; and therefore no injury is done to him, and therefore from such a cause a divorce ought not to take place; and if it be done from such a cause on account of a defect of proof, he who procures the divorce sins, because he unjustly withdraws the right from his spouse¹⁰.

1. To that, then, which is objected — that the divorce is made by man — it must be said that this is false; rather it is made by God for a just cause. «For it is not man that separates, but God, whom the penalty condemns, whom the guilt accuses, whom the crime constrains¹¹».

2. To that which is objected — that evil is not to be rendered for evil — it must be said that if anyone dismiss his wife in vengeance for the injury, he certainly sins; but she ought to be dismissed for avoiding one's own scandal and for correcting the wife's vice.

3. To that which is objected — that it ought not [to be done] on account of the sin of both — it must be said that a divorce is not made unless with one party petitioning and one of the spouses repelling the other; and because, when both are guilty, [neither] has an action against the other — because, in that wherein he judges the other, he condemns himself, to the Romans, second [chapter]¹ — but when the one is innocent, he can proceed: therefore it is not the same case.

4. To that which is objected — that a divorce is not made on account of a defect of offspring — it must be said that it is not the same case: because the fornicator sins against the body of the partner², but where there is a defect of offspring, it can be without sin, or at least without sin against the husband's body.

5. To that which is asked — why fornication separates — it must be said that it is a fault not only against God and against one's own body, but against the good of matrimony and against the act of wedlock and against the body of the spouse; for it is against faith and against the matrimonial act; she abuses moreover a body which is not her own, but another's³: and therefore such a one loses the right of demanding the debt, and because this whole thing is in a sin against nature, therefore it is comprehended under fornication.

To that which is asked concerning repudiation, it must be said that repudiation and divorce differ, because repudiation was done for an undue cause, but divorce for a due one; and the former is permitted, the latter granted; they differ also because after repudiation they were not forbidden to marry, but after divorce they are forbidden⁴; they differ also because the husband repudiated the wife, not conversely; whence they were not judged as equals, [whereas] in divorce they are judged as equals. — And the reason for this is that the woman, by the desert of the first sin, was made subject to the man; but after the reconciliation of Christ, in whom there is neither slave nor free, male nor female⁵, entirely, as far as the law of the marriage-bed is concerned, they are judged as equals.

Scholion

I. The solution of the 1st question was defined by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, can. 8). That divorce granted on account of adultery is not licit in seven cases is taught by St. Bonaventure below, in dub. 1, and by St. Thomas and others in the 1st question itself, [and] by Bl. Albert, here, art. 10.

On this 1st question: St. Thomas, here, a. 1; Suppl. q. 62. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 1. q. 1. 4. — Durandus, on this and the 2 following questions, here, q. 1. — Denys the Carthusian, on the whole distinction, here, q. unica.

II. As to the 2nd question, it is commonly taught (cf. also below, dub. 3) that most rarely is a wife bound to separate herself from an adulterous husband; but the husband, inasmuch as he is obliged to the correction of his wife, when the wife's adultery is public, «if the adulteress do not repent, is bound [to it], lest he seem to consent to her sin by not applying the due correction» (St. Thomas, here, a. 2; Suppl. q. 62. a. 2). This Richard (loc. cit. q. 2) understands of her who «is probably presumed to be incorrigible». More recent [authors] also teach that the husband can often be excused, if for grave reasons he does not procure the separation.

On the same 2nd question: Bl. Albert, here, a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, a. 2.

III. According to the canons, divorce properly so called — that is, separation from bed and cohabitation — cannot licitly take place except by ecclesiastical judgment. On account of special circumstances, where access to the ecclesiastical judge is not open, that even a private separation can in our age at times be excused is now commonly taught, especially when a perpetual divorce is not intended.

On the 3rd question: St. Thomas, at the cited places, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 7. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus

2
Vers. 9: Dico autem vobis, quia, quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem etc. Cfr. ibid. 5, 32.
Verse 9: But I say to you, that whoever shall dismiss his wife except for fornication etc. Cf. ibid. 5, 32.
1
Cod. O supplet altera persona, cod. U alter.
Codex O supplies altera persona [another person], codex U [reads] alter [the other].
2
Vers. 9. Cfr. ibid. 5, 29. — Superius respicitur definitio scandali: «Scandalum est dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens alteri occasionem ruinae», et est secundum Hieron., II. Comment. in Matth. 15, 12. (quae etiam in Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum ponitur) et secundum Glossam interlinearem apud Lyranum in Matth. 18, 7.
Verse 9. Cf. ibid. 5, 29. — Above there is regard to the definition of scandal: «Scandal is a word or deed less upright, affording another an occasion of ruin», and it is according to Jerome, Book II of the Commentary on Matthew 15, 12 (which is also placed in the Ordinary Gloss among [the notes of] Strabo and Lyra) and according to the Interlinear Gloss among [those of] Lyra on Matthew 18, 7.
3
Vers. 6. Plures codd. Quos Deus etc.
Verse 6. Several codices [read] Whom God etc.
4
Ut insinuatur Rom. 12, 17; I. Thess. 5, 15, et I. Petr. 3, 9.
As is intimated in Rom. 12, 17; 1 Thess. 5, 15, and 1 Pet. 3, 9.
5
Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et infra dub. 1. — Pro dicunt cod. H dictant.
Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, and below, dub. 1. — For dicunt [say] codex H [reads] dictant [dictate].
6
Cod. S minime. Edd. legunt: videtur, quod propter defectum... non solvatur.
Codex S [reads] minime [by no means]. The editions read: it seems that on account of a defect... it is not dissolved.
7
Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — De libello repudii vide Deut. 24, 1: Si acceperit homo uxorem... scribet libellum repudii etc.
Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — On the bill of repudiation see Deut. 24, 1: If a man take a wife... he shall write a bill of repudiation etc.
8
Regul. iuris, regul. 75: «Frustra sibi fidem quis postulat ab eo servari, cui fidem a se praestitam servare recusat», in VI. — Subinde respicitur Sap. 11, 17: Per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur. — Pro directe codd. communiter recte.
Rules of law, rule 75: «In vain does one demand that faith be kept toward him by one to whom he refuses to keep the faith pledged by himself», in [the Liber] VI. — Then there is regard to Wisd. 11, 17: By what things a man sins, by these also is he tormented. — For directe [directly] the codices commonly [read] recte [rightly].
9
Vat. addit seu lucem, cod. aa tunc, plures codd. et, codd. T X etiam (coniungendum cum verbo tenetur). Inferius post modis cod. F subiungit quia, omisso subinde primo et ideo.
The Vatican [ed.] adds seu lucem, codex aa [reads] tunc [then], several codices et [and], codices T X etiam [also] (to be joined with the verb tenetur). Lower down, after modis codex F adds quia, the first et ideo being thereupon omitted.
10
Cfr. infra dub. 1, ubi quae praecedunt probantur ex iure canonico.
Cf. below, dub. 1, where the foregoing matters are proved from canon law.
11
Ut dicitur in C. Quos Deus coniunxit (18.), C. 33. q. 2.
As is said in the canon Quos Deus coniunxit (18), Causa 33, q. 2.
1
Vers. 1: In quo enim iudicas alterum, te ipsum condemnas. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. De ipsa solutione vide d. 32. a. 2. q. 2. ad 1.
Verse 1: For wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2. On this solution itself see d. 32, a. 2, q. 2, ad 1.
2
Hieron., Epist. 55. (alias 147.) n. 2, exponens illud 1. Cor. 6, 18: Qui autem fornicatur in corpus suum peccat, ait: «Sunt qui ita edisserant, quod secundum Scripturam [Eph. 5, 28.] uxor viri corpus sit, et quicumque fuerit fornicatus, peccet in corpus suum, hoc est in uxorem, dum eam sua fornicatione commaculat et facit, eam non peccantem sua commixtione peccare».
Jerome, Epist. 55 (alias 147), n. 2, expounding that [text] of 1 Cor. 6, 18: But he who fornicates sins against his own body, says: «There are those who so explain [it], that according to Scripture [Eph. 5, 28] the wife is the husband's body, and that whoever has fornicated sins against his own body, that is, against his wife, since he defiles her by his fornication and makes her, though not sinning, to sin by his commingling».
3
Cfr. 1. Cor. 7, 4. — Superius post dicendum, quod fere omnes codd. addunt quia; fortasse legendum: dicendum, quod hoc est, quia (vel quod ideo, quia).
Cf. 1 Cor. 7, 4. — Above, after dicendum, quod [it must be said that], nearly all the codices add quia [because]; perhaps it should be read: dicendum, quod hoc est, quia (or quod ideo, quia).
4
Vide infra q. 4. — Pro differunt non pauci codd. bis differt.
See below, q. 4. — For differunt [they differ] not a few codices [read], twice, differt [it differs].
5
Gal. 3, 28: Non est servus neque liber; non est masculus neque femina. Cfr. supra d. 33. a. 3. q. 2. ad 3.
Gal. 3, 28: There is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female. Cf. above, d. 33, a. 3, q. 2, ad 3. ---