← Back to Distinction 35

Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 3

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 35

Textus Latinus
p. 783

Quaestio III. Utrum possit aliquis uxorem fornicantem dimittere propria auctoritate.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum possit quis uxorem fornicantem dimittere propria auctoritate, sine iudicio Ecclesiae. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia Dominus11 dat iustam sententiam, cum iubet dimitti ex causa fornicationis: ergo si hoc est de iustitia, et quod a Deo iudicatum est, non indiget ampliori iudicio: ergo sine omni alio iudicio potest eam dimittere.

2. Item, Matthaei primo12: Ioseph, cum esset vir iustus, cogitavit occulte dimittere Mariam; p. 784 Glossa dicit, quod fuit «iustus et pius: iustus, quia voluit dimittere; pius, quia noluit propalare»: ergo cum Ioseph laudetur, quia voluit occulte dimittere; licet ergo sine iudicio Ecclesiae dimittere.

3. Item, possibile est, quod fornicatio nota sit soli viro, sed nihilominus tenetur vir uxorem corripere; sed divortium erat ad correptionem fornicariae: ergo cum hoc non possit probare in facie Ecclesiae, saltem tenetur, si non potest eam dimittere in publico, dimittere in occulto.

4. Item, si vir post cognitam fornicationem voluntarie uxorem cognoscit, contrahit irregularitatem1 et etiam amittit actionem contra fornicariam: ergo si ad hoc non tenetur, potest uxori debitum denegare, et ita potest eam dimittere.

Contra:

1. Nullus se ipsum debet vindicare, quia mihi vindictam, dicit Dominus, ad Romanos duodecimo2: ergo si mulier peccavit in virum, vir non potest eam propria auctoritate dimittere.

2. Item, nullus in eadem causa potest esse actor et iudex3; sed vir est actor: ergo non debet esse iudex.

3. Item, repudium in Lege non licebat fieri nisi auctoritate iudicum civitatis cum datione libelli4: ergo multo fortius nec in nova lege.

4. Item, si vir propria auctoritate dimittat uxorem reclamantem, compellitur eam recipere5: ergo praeter ordinem iuris eam dimisit, ergo non videtur etc.

5. Item, matrimonium non potest contrahi in occulto sine peccato6; sed facilius est ipsum contrahere quam dividere: ergo in occulto sine peccato non potest dividi.

Conclusio. Cognito certitudinaliter adulterio, pars innocens potest propria auctoritate in occulto se separare a toro tantum; sed divortium manifestum non potest fieri nisi in iudicio episcopi.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod contingit, uxorem dimitti a viro dupliciter: vel quantum ad torum, ut non commisceantur carnaliter; vel quantum ad torum et mutuam cohabitationem. Si primo modo; sic dico, quod vir, comperto et cognito certitudinaliter, quod uxor fornicetur, vel e converso, potest debitum denegare, nec ad hoc tenetur, nisi per censuram ecclesiasticam compellatur; et tunc, si compulsus debitum reddidit, nullum ei praeiudicium generatur. — Ratio huius est, quia tenetur et debet corrigere suam comparem vel coniugem in occulto7.

Si autem loquamur de separatione secundo modo; sic dicitur divortium, et hoc, quia est in manifesto, non debet fieri in occulto, sed in facie Ecclesiae; et quia matrimonium est magnum Sacramentum8, non sub quocumque iudice, sed coram episcopo. Et hoc est quod dicitur Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda, capitulo primo, Saeculares etc.; quod fuit editum in Concilio Carthaginensi, cui interfuit Augustinus9, ubi dicitur: «Si antequam ad episcopos comprovinciales dissidii causas dixerint, et priusquam in iudicio damnentur, uxores suas abiecerint; a communione Ecclesiae et sancto populi coetu, pro eo quod coniugia maculant, separentur». Et iterum, in eadem quaestione Nicolaus Papa10: Non liceat alicui sua auctoritate uxorem suam dimittere. — Unde secundum ius commune tenetur iterum eam resumere, quia iniuste exspoliati restitui debent ante litis contestationem; et hoc dico, nisi obiiciat ei fornicationem, quam velit incontinenti probare, vel aliquod consimile.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Dominus sententiam tulit; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia non tulit sententiam, sed expressit; et secundum illud ius episcopis potestatem sententiandi dimisit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ioseph, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia tunc propter fornicationem non fiebat divortium, sed homicidium11, et Ioseph tanquam pius timebat mortem Mariae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quodsi fornicatio soli viro nota est; dicendum, quod tunc debet uxorem corripere in occulto, non per divortium.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod contrahit irregularitatem et amittit actionem, si cognoscit p. 785 voluntarie; dicendum, quod non tenetur eam cognoscere, nec tamen ex hoc debet eam propria auctoritate dimittere.

Rationes ad oppositum probant, quod divortium non potest fieri nisi in facie Ecclesiae, cum sit publicum; et hoc est verum1.

---

English Translation
p. 783

Question III. Whether anyone may dismiss an adulterous wife on his own authority.

Thirdly it is asked whether anyone may dismiss an adulterous wife on his own authority, without the judgment of the Church. And that he may, it seems:

1. Because the Lord11 gives a just sentence when he commands [a wife] to be dismissed for the cause of fornication: therefore if this is a matter of justice, and what has been judged by God does not need any further judgment: therefore without any other judgment he can dismiss her.

2. Likewise, in Matthew, chapter one12: Joseph, since he was a just man, thought to dismiss Mary secretly; p. 784 the Gloss says that he was «just and merciful: just, because he willed to dismiss her; merciful, because he was unwilling to make it public»: therefore since Joseph is praised because he willed to dismiss her secretly; it is therefore permitted to dismiss [a wife] without the judgment of the Church.

3. Likewise, it is possible that the fornication is known to the husband alone, but nonetheless the husband is bound to correct his wife; but divorce was for the correction of the adulteress: therefore, since he cannot prove this before the Church, at least he is bound, if he cannot dismiss her publicly, to dismiss her secretly.

4. Likewise, if a husband, after knowing of the fornication, voluntarily has knowledge of his wife, he contracts an irregularity1 and also loses his action against the adulteress: therefore if he is not bound to this, he can deny his wife the [conjugal] debt, and thus he can dismiss her.

On the contrary:

1. No one ought to avenge himself, because vengeance is mine, says the Lord, to the Romans, chapter twelve2: therefore if a wife has sinned against her husband, the husband cannot dismiss her on his own authority.

2. Likewise, no one in the same case can be both plaintiff and judge3; but the husband is the plaintiff: therefore he ought not to be the judge.

3. Likewise, in the [Old] Law repudiation was not permitted to take place except by the authority of the judges of the city, with the giving of a bill [of divorce]4: therefore much more so [is it not permitted] in the new law.

4. Likewise, if a husband on his own authority dismisses a wife who protests, he is compelled to take her back5: therefore he dismissed her outside the order of law, therefore it does not seem [lawful], etc.

5. Likewise, matrimony cannot be contracted in secret without sin6; but it is easier to contract it than to dissolve it: therefore in secret it cannot be dissolved without sin.

Conclusion. When adultery is known with certainty, the innocent party can on his own authority separate himself in secret from the bed only; but a manifest divorce cannot take place except in the judgment of the bishop.

I respond: It must be said that it happens that a wife is dismissed by her husband in two ways: either as regards the bed, so that they are not joined carnally; or as regards the bed and mutual cohabitation. If in the first way; thus I say that the husband, having discovered and known with certainty that his wife commits fornication, or vice versa, can deny the [conjugal] debt, nor is he bound to this, unless he is compelled by ecclesiastical censure; and then, if when compelled he has rendered the debt, no prejudice is generated against him. — The reason for this is that he is bound and ought to correct his spouse or consort in secret7.

But if we are speaking of separation in the second way; thus it is called divorce, and this, because it is in the open, ought not to be done in secret, but before the Church; and because matrimony is a great Sacrament8, [it is] not [to be dissolved] under any judge whatever, but before the bishop. And this is what is said in Cause thirty-three, question two, chapter one, Saeculares etc.; which was promulgated in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine9 was present, where it is said: «If, before they have stated the causes of their disagreement to the provincial bishops, and before they are condemned in court, they cast off their wives; let them be separated from the communion of the Church and the holy assembly of the people, because they defile their marriages». And again, in the same question, Pope Nicholas10: Let it not be permitted to anyone to dismiss his wife on his own authority. — Hence, according to the common law, he is bound to take her back again, because those unjustly despoiled ought to be restored before the joining of issue; and this I say, unless he objects fornication against her, which he is willing to prove immediately, or something similar.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that the Lord passed sentence; it must be said that this is false, because he did not pass sentence, but declared [it]; and according to that law he left to the bishops the power of passing sentence.

2. To that which is objected concerning Joseph, it must be said that it is not similar: because then, on account of fornication, there was not divorce but death11, and Joseph, as a merciful man, feared the death of Mary.

3. To that which is objected, that if the fornication is known to the husband alone; it must be said that then he ought to correct his wife in secret, not by divorce.

4. To that which is objected, that he contracts an irregularity and loses his action, if he knowingly and voluntarily p. 785 [has intercourse]; it must be said that he is not bound to have knowledge of her, nor yet on account of this ought he to dismiss her on his own authority.

The arguments to the opposite prove that divorce cannot take place except before the Church, since it is public; and this is true1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 11
    Matth. 5, 32. et 19, 9.
    Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
  2. 12
    Vers. 19: Ioseph autem vir eius, cum esset iustus et nollet eam traducere, voluit occulte dimittere eam. — Expositio huius loci, ex Glossa sumta, secundum S. Thom. (Comment. in hunc loc.) est Rabani. Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum sic habet: Quod iustus erat, hoc est testimonium castitatis Mariae, ut qui servat innocentem iustus dicatur; sed et [p. 784:] pius, dum nollet propalare; ex conscientia castitatis iustus, ex timore pius. Cfr. August., Serm. 51. (alias 63. de Diversis) c. 6. n. 9.
    Verse 19: But Joseph her husband, since he was a just man and was unwilling to expose her, wished to dismiss her secretly. — The exposition of this passage, drawn from the Gloss, according to St. Thomas (Commentary on this passage) is Rabanus's. The ordinary Gloss in Strabo and Lyra reads thus: That he was just, this is the testimony of Mary's chastity, so that he who preserves an innocent [woman] may be called just; but also [p. 784:] merciful, in that he was unwilling to make it public; from his conscience of chastity he is just, from fear he is merciful. Cf. Augustine, Sermon 51 (elsewhere 63, On Various Matters) c. 6, n. 9.
  3. 1
    Cfr. supra pag. 654, nota 1. De seq. propos. vide infra dub. 1.
    Cf. above, p. 654, note 1. On the following proposition see below, dubium 1.
  4. 2
    Vers. 19: Mihi vindicta; ego retribuam, dicit Dominus (Rom. 12).
    Verse 19: Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord (Rom. 12).
  5. 3
    Can. Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse et iudex vel testis (1.), C. 4. q. 4. Cfr. C. Multi corriguntur (18.), C. 2. q. 1. § 1. — De minori vide C. Maritis, (4.), X. de Adulteriis etc. (lib. V. tit. 16.).
    Canon Let no accuser ever presume to be at once both judge and witness (1), C. 4, q. 4. Cf. C. Multi corriguntur (18), C. 2, q. 1, § 1. — On the lesser [point] see C. Maritis (4), X, On Adulteries etc. (bk. V, tit. 16).
  6. 4
    Cfr. Deut. 24, 1. Vide August., XIX. contra Faustum, c. 26, ubi docet, quod «apud Hebraeos scribere litteras Hebraeas nulli fas erat nisi Scribis solis».
    Cf. Deut. 24:1. See Augustine, Against Faustus XIX, c. 26, where he teaches that «among the Hebrews it was lawful for no one to write Hebrew letters except the Scribes alone».
  7. 5
    Cfr. C. Multorum relatione cognovimus (10.), C. 35. q. 6. et C. Porro (3.), X. de Divortiis (lib. IV. tit. 19.). — Pro primo ergo edd. quia.
    Cf. C. Multorum relatione cognovimus (10), C. 35, q. 6, and C. Porro (3), X, On Divorces (bk. IV, tit. 19). — For the first ergo the editions read quia.
  8. 6
    Vide supra d. 28. q. 5.
    See above, d. 28, q. 5.
  9. 7
    Matth. 18, 15. Cfr. quaest. praeced.
    Matthew 18:15. Cf. the preceding question.
  10. 8
    Eph. 5, 32: Sacramentum hoc magnum est etc.
    Eph. 5:32: This is a great sacrament etc.
  11. 9
    Ut dicit Gratian., loc. cit.; in nota tamen adiecta dicitur, quod canon ille non in concilio Carthaginensi, sed in Agathensi (an. 506) editus sit. — Textus originalis substituit apud episcopos pro ad episcopos et finem exhibet sic: pro eo quod fidem et coniugia maculant, excludantur.
    As Gratian says, in the place cited; yet in a note added it is said that that canon was promulgated not in the Council of Carthage, but in the Council of Agde (a.d. 506). — The original text substitutes apud episcopos ("before the bishops") for ad episcopos ("to the bishops") and gives the ending thus: because they defile their faith and their marriages, let them be excluded.
  12. 10
    Can. Si quis cum matre (17.), in quo de viro fornicante dicitur: «legitimam tamen, si habuit, non dimittat uxorem». Quibus verbis Gratian. adiungit: Quos enim Deus coniunxit iudex sua auctoritate separare non debet. Cfr. ibid. C. Historia (3.) et seq., ubi Nicolaus decernit, quod uxor absque causae cognitione a viro suo dimissa ad omnia restituatur.
    Canon Si quis cum matre (17), in which, concerning a fornicating husband, it is said: «yet let him not dismiss his lawful wife, if he had one». To which words Gratian adds: For whom God has joined, the judge ought not by his own authority to separate. Cf. ibid. C. Historia (3) and following, where Nicholas decrees that a wife dismissed by her husband without examination of the cause is to be restored to all [her rights].
  13. 11
    Lev. 20, 10: Morte moriantur et moechus et adultera. Cfr. Deut. 22, 22. et Ioan. 8, 5.
    Lev. 20:10: Let both the adulterer and the adulteress be put to death. Cf. Deut. 22:22 and John 8:5.
  14. 1
    Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---
Cited by

1 place in the Opera Omnia citesthis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Doubts concerning the text of the Master
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 38
supra pag. 784, nota 11
← Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 4→