Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 35
Quaestio II. Utrum dimittere uxorem fornicariam sit in praecepto.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum dimittere uxorem fornicariam sit in praecepto. Et quod non, videtur.
1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo6 dicit Glossa: « Dominus permisit causa fornicationis dimittere uxorem »; sed permissio non est praeceptum: ergo etc.
2. Item, esto quod vir non peccavit, tunc ergo ius habet et actionem in petendo debitum ab uxore, quantumcumque uxor peccet: ergo qualitercumque peccet, non tenetur eam dimittere.
3. Item, ipse vir non tenetur continere, nisi velit: ergo cum, dimissa uxore, teneatur continere, non tenetur uxorem dimittere.
4. Item, unusquisque potest iniuriam sibi illatam dimittere et peccanti parcere nec tenetur a peccante poenam exigere: ergo quotiescumque mulier peccaverit in virum adulterando, vir potest remittere: ergo non tenetur eam dimittere.
Contra: 1. Chrysostomus1: « Sicut crudelis et iniquus est qui castam dimittit, similiter stultus et iniustus est qui retinet meretricem »: ergo etc.
2. Item, Hieronymus2: « Cum mulier se fornicatione a viro separaverit, non debet teneri, ne virum quoque sub maledicto faciat, dicente Scriptura: Qui tenet adulteram stultus et impius est », decimo octavo Proverbiorum.
3. Item, viri est cohibere et corrigere uxorem: ergo si cohabitat cum muliere adultera affectu maritali, consentit sceleri: ergo si tenetur non consentire, patet etc.
4. Item, mulier fornicans meretricatur; sed qui adhaeret meretrici unum corpus efficitur3: ergo cum membra Christi non debeant fieri membra meretricis, tenetur ab ea separari.
Conclusio. Uxorem publice et perseveranter adulterantem tenetur vir dimittere ex praecepto; non vero hoc potest, si ista peccat in occulto, nec tenetur, si poeniteat.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod fornicans coniux, aut fornicatur in occulto, aut in manifesto. Si in occulto; sic non potest dimittere, quia non potest probare, et non est nostrum de occultis iudicare. Si in manifesto, aut perseverat in malitia, aut convertitur ad poenitentiam. Si perseverat in malitia, sic, quia scandalizat, et quia vir tenetur uxorem corrigere iuxta mandatum evangelicum4, tenetur eam dimittere. Si autem poenitet et se corrigit, non tenetur. — Et in primo casu loquuntur auctoritates Sanctorum et canonum; unde Hieronymus5: « Si vir scit, uxorem deliquisse, et mulier permanserit in fornicatione, et vivit cum ea vir; particeps est peccati eius ». Tenetur ergo vir uxorem corrigere, ideo et fornicantem dimittere et ratione huius ad tempus continere; nec amittit ius in uxorem, ut patebit6; et quamvis debeat dimittere iniuriam, debet tamen corrigere culpam. — Et sic concedendae sunt rationes, quod non tenetur simpliciter dimittere, sed in casu; nec tunc ad omne tempus, sed ad aliquod, pro eo quod non tenetur perpetualiter continere; sed quemadmodum, uxore infirmante corporaliter, tenetur continere ad tempus, ita, uxore infirmante spiritualiter, ad eius correptionem tenetur ad tempus eam repellere, quoniam, quamvis possit culpam indulgere, debet tamen corrigere. Haec enim simul a Domino praecepta sunt cuilibet, scilicet ut proximo suo unusquisque parcat; iterum, quod parcendo corripiat. Et haec duo simul tanguntur Matthaei decimo octavo7. Similiter rationes ad oppositum concedendae sunt in eo casu, in quo mulier indiget aliqua manifesta correptione propter criminis infamiam et evidentiam8. 4. Tamen quod obiicit, quod est meretrix; dicendum, quod meretrix dupliciter potest cognosci: aut secundum quod meretrix, et sic cognoscitur a non suo, et hoc modo Apostolus9 istud vituperat, quia est in contumeliam Christi; potest iterum cognosci ut uxor; et sic in nullius est contumeliam, immo cognoscitur ordinate. — Item, cum dicitur, quod cognoscere meretricem est malum, intelligenda est propositio cum reduplicatione, in quantum scilicet est meretrix, sive affectu meretricio. Et sic patet totum10.
---
Question II. Whether to dismiss an adulterous wife is a matter of precept.
Secondly it is asked whether to dismiss an adulterous wife is a matter of precept. And that it is not, seems [to be the case]:
1. On First Corinthians, chapter seven6, the Gloss says: « The Lord permitted a wife to be dismissed for the cause of fornication »; but a permission is not a precept: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, granted that the husband has not sinned, then he therefore has a right and an action in demanding the [conjugal] debt from his wife, however much the wife may sin: therefore in whatever way she sins, he is not bound to dismiss her.
3. Likewise, the husband himself is not bound to be continent unless he wishes: therefore since, once his wife is dismissed, he would be bound to be continent, he is not bound to dismiss his wife.
4. Likewise, anyone can remit an injury done to himself and spare the one who sins, nor is he bound to exact a penalty from the one who sins: therefore however often the woman has sinned against her husband by committing adultery, the husband can remit [it]: therefore he is not bound to dismiss her.
On the contrary: 1. Chrysostom1: « Just as he is cruel and unjust who dismisses a chaste [wife], so he is foolish and unjust who retains a harlot »: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, Jerome2: « When a woman has separated herself from her husband by fornication, he ought not to be bound [to her], lest he make her husband also to be under a curse, as Scripture says: He who keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious », in the eighteenth [chapter] of Proverbs.
3. Likewise, it belongs to the husband to restrain and correct his wife: therefore if he cohabits with an adulterous woman with marital affection, he consents to the crime: therefore if he is bound not to consent, it is evident etc.
4. Likewise, a woman who fornicates plays the harlot; but he who cleaves to a harlot is made one body [with her]3: therefore since the members of Christ ought not to become members of a harlot, he is bound to be separated from her.
Conclusion. A wife who commits adultery publicly and persistently the husband is bound to dismiss by precept; but he cannot do this if she sins in secret, nor is he bound [to] if she repents.
I respond: It must be said that a spouse who fornicates either fornicates in secret or in the open. If in secret, then he cannot dismiss [her], because he cannot prove [it], and it is not for us to judge concerning hidden things. If in the open, either she perseveres in her wickedness, or she is converted to penitence. If she perseveres in wickedness, then, because she gives scandal, and because the husband is bound to correct his wife according to the evangelical command4, he is bound to dismiss her. But if she repents and corrects herself, he is not bound [to]. — And in the first case the authorities of the Saints and of the canons are speaking; whence Jerome5: « If a husband knows that his wife has offended, and the woman has persisted in fornication, and the husband lives with her, he is a participant in her sin ». Therefore the husband is bound to correct his wife, and hence also to dismiss the fornicating [wife] and by reason of this to be continent for a time; nor does he lose his right over his wife, as will be shown6; and although he ought to remit the injury, he ought nevertheless to correct the fault. — And thus the reasons are to be conceded, that he is not bound to dismiss [her] simply, but in [a particular] case; nor then for all time, but for some [time], for the reason that he is not bound to be continent perpetually; but just as, when the wife is sick bodily, he is bound to be continent for a time, so, when the wife is sick spiritually, for her correction he is bound to repel her for a time, since, although he can pardon the fault, he ought nevertheless to correct [it]. For these two things were commanded together by the Lord to everyone, namely that each one spare his neighbor; and again, that in sparing he correct. And these two are touched upon together in Matthew, the eighteenth [chapter]7. Similarly the reasons for the opposite are to be conceded in that case in which the woman needs some manifest correction on account of the infamy and evidence of the crime8. 4. Yet as to what is objected, that she is a harlot; it must be said that a harlot can be known in two ways: either according as [she is] a harlot, and thus she is known by one who is not her own, and in this way the Apostle9 censures this, because it is unto the reproach of Christ; she can also be known as a wife; and thus it is unto no one's reproach, but rather she is known in an orderly way. — Likewise, when it is said that to know a harlot is an evil, the proposition must be understood with reduplication, namely inasmuch as she is a harlot, or with harlot-like affection. And thus the whole [matter] is evident10.
---
- 6Vers. 12. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, sumta est ex August., l. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 45.Verse 12. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary [Gloss] in Strabo and Lyra, is taken from Augustine, book On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, c. 16, n. 45.
- 1Homil. 32. in Matth. 19, 9. (op. imperfect.). Cfr. C. Sicut crudelis (1.), C. 32. q. 1, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.Homily 32 on Matthew 19:9 (Opus imperfectum). Cf. the canon Sicut crudelis (1), Causa 32, q. 1, and here the text of the Master, c. 3.
- 2Libr. III. Comment. in Matth. 19, 9. Locus Scripturae est Prov. 18, 22. Vide C. Dixit Dominus (2.), C. 32. q. 1.Book III of the Commentary on Matthew 19:9. The scriptural passage is Proverbs 18:22. See the canon Dixit Dominus (2), Causa 32, q. 1.
- 3Epist. 1. Cor. 6, 16.[Paul's] Epistle, 1 Corinthians 6:16.
- 4Matth. 18, 15. seqq.Matthew 18:15 ff.
- 5Potius Hermas; cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. in fine. Eadem verba occurrunt in C. Si vir sciens (3.), X. de Adulteriis et stupro (lib. V. tit. 16.).Rather Hermas; cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3, at the end. The same words occur in the canon Si vir sciens (3), in the Decretals, On Adulteries and Rape (book V, tit. 16).
- 6Quaest. 4. et 5.Questions 4 and 5.
- 7Vers. 15. seqq. — Superius verbo corrigere cod. aa praemittit eam.Verse 15 ff. — Above, at the word corrigere, codex aa prefixes eam.
- 8Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3, ubi Chrysostomi et Hieron. verba explicantur.Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3, where the words of Chrysostom and Jerome are explained.
- 9Epist. 1. Cor. 6, 15: Nescitis, quoniam corpora vestra membra sunt Christi etc.[Paul's] Epistle, 1 Corinthians 6:15: Know you not, that your bodies are the members of Christ, etc.
- 10Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question. ---