Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 35
Quaestio IV. Utrum, divortio celebrato, vir possit aliam uxorem ducere, vel uxor alium virum.
Quarto quaeritur, utrum, divortio celebrato, vir possit aliam uxorem ducere, vel uxor alium virum. Et quod non, videtur.
1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo2: Praecipio non ego, sed Dominus, uxorem a viro non discedere; quodsi discesserit, manere innuptam.
2. Item, Augustinus de Bono coniugali3: « Manet inter viventes coniugale vinculum, quod nec separatio nec cum alio coniunctio possit auferre ».
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia, si alter posset nubere; cum matrimonium non claudicet4, posset uterque nubere: ergo quotiescumque aliqua vellet habere alium virum, posset habere fornicando; quod stultum est dicere.
4. Item, si propter fornicationem solveretur omnino matrimonium: ergo si aliquis cognosceret uxorem, ex quo fornicata est, cum iam non sit inter eos matrimonium, peccaret mortaliter; quod est inconveniens dicere.
Contra:
1. Osee secundo5: Ipsa non uxor mea, et ego non vir eius; Glossa: « Quia pristinos errores non reliquit »: ergo anima, quae non relinquit errores, non est uxor Dei: ergo a simili, si ita est in signato et in signo, mulier, quae fornicationes non relinquit, non est uxor viri; et si hoc: ergo vir potest cum alia nubere.
2. Item, Matthaei decimo nono6: Qui dimiserit uxorem et aliam duxerit, excepta causa fornicationis, moechatur: ergo si recta est exceptio, licet ex causa fornicationis uxorem dimittere et aliam ducere.
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia adulterando divisit carnem suam; sed Sacramentum matrimonii est, quod sint duo in carne una7: ergo Sacramentum per fornicationem solvitur: ergo non est ibi amplius matrimonium.
4. Item, post divortium vir in nullo tenetur uxori, nec in quantum ad debitum solvendum nec quoad cohabitationem: ergo aliquis est a lege uxoris solutus8; et si hoc; cum vir solutus a lege uxoris possit contrahere, videtur etc.
Conclusio. Divortium ob adulterium factum non separat matrimonium, dummodo legitime fuit contractum, quoad vinculum, sed tantum quoad debitum et cohabitationem.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod divortium potest fieri dupliciter: aut quia personae erant illegitimae ad contrahendum ad invicem simpliciter; et tunc uterque potest alteri nubere, sicut supra9 distinctum est. Potest etiam fieri propter crimen fornicationis; et tunc non potest contrahere nec vir nec mulier; quia, cum essent personae legitimae, fuit inter eas Sacramentum, quod est vinculum insolubile. Unde divortium non est separatio quantum ad vinculum sacramentale, sed quantum ad debitum et cohabitationem.
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod anima fornicatoris non est uxor Dei; dicendum, quod matrimonium non est Sacramentum huius principaliter, sed coniunctionis divinae naturae et humanae, quae nullatenus solvitur10; ideo non est simile.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de exceptione Domini dicendum, quod exceptio non refertur ad utrumque actum, sed ad alterum tantum, scilicet ad actum dimissionis; unde oratio illa tres habet causas veritatis11; unde quia procedit ad alteram tantum, fit consequens.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solvitur Sacramentum: dicendum, quod istud non est de necessitate Sacramenti, quod caro sit indivisa, sed de nobilitate et dignitate. Quamvis enim caro alterius dividatur, nihilominus sunt duo in carne una1.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod post divortium vir in nullo tenetur uxori, nec e converso; dicendum, quod quamvis nihil teneatur reddere, nihilominus tamen sacramentaliter est ligatus; et quia est ei alligatus, quamdiu vivit: ideo non potest alteri alligari.
<!-- page 786: scholion printed between q. IV and q. V; placed here as last subsection per parser convention -->
I. Vinculum matrimonii Christianorum rati et consummati nulla auctoritate humana nulloque in casu, ne ipsius quidem adulterii, solvi posse, spectat ad fidem catholicam. Hoc Concil. Trident. (Sess. XXIV. can. 7.) definivit contra doctrinam Protestantium et etiam contra Graecos, apud quos viget praxis solvendi matrimonium propter superveniens adulterium. Communiter autem tenetur, ipso iure naturae matrimonium legitimum quodcumque esse per se indissolubile; quod innuitur etiam prop. 67. Syllabi a Pio IX. damnata. — De hac quaestione cfr. supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 1. 2. — De eadem 4. quaestione: Scot., supra d. 26. q. unica n. 10, d. 33. q. 3. n. 4. seqq. — S. Thom., hic a. 5; Suppl. q. 62. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 5-16. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.
II. De seq. (5.) quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 11-13. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 6. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2.
III. Ultima (6.) quaestio ab aliis non tractatur specialiter, sed principia tanguntur in praecedentibus, praesertim supra d. 32, de solutione debiti.
---
Question IV. Whether, once a divorce has been celebrated, the man may take another wife, or the wife another husband.
Fourthly it is asked whether, once a divorce has been celebrated, the man may take another wife, or the wife another husband. And that he may not, seems [to be the case].
1. First to the Corinthians, chapter seven2: I command, not I but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband; but if she depart, that she remain unmarried.
2. Likewise, Augustine On the Good of Marriage3: « Between the living there remains the conjugal bond, which neither separation nor union with another can take away ».
3. Likewise, by reason it seems [so]: because, if one [party] could marry [again]; since matrimony does not limp [i.e. is not one-sided]4, both could marry: therefore, as often as some woman wished to have another man, she could have [him] by fornicating; which is foolish to say.
4. Likewise, if on account of fornication the matrimony were wholly dissolved: then if someone knew [carnally] his wife, from the fact that she has fornicated, since there would no longer be matrimony between them, he would sin mortally; which is unfitting to say.
On the contrary:
1. Hosea, chapter two5: She is not my wife, and I am not her husband; the Gloss: « Because she has not left her former errors »: therefore the soul which does not leave its errors is not the wife of God: therefore by a similar [reasoning], if it is so in the thing signified and in the sign, the woman who does not leave her fornications is not the wife of [her] husband; and if this [is so]: therefore the man may marry another.
2. Likewise, Matthew, chapter nineteen6: Whoever dismisses his wife and marries another, except for the cause of fornication, commits adultery: therefore, if the exception is correct, it is permitted, for the cause of fornication, to dismiss a wife and marry another.
3. Likewise, by reason it seems [so]: because by committing adultery she divided her own flesh; but the Sacrament of matrimony is that they be two in one flesh7: therefore the Sacrament is dissolved through fornication: therefore there is no longer matrimony there.
4. Likewise, after a divorce the man is bound to the wife in nothing, neither as to paying the debt nor as to cohabitation: therefore someone is loosed from the law of the wife8; and if this [is so]; since a man loosed from the law of the wife can contract [marriage], it seems, etc.
Conclusion. A divorce made on account of adultery does not separate the matrimony — provided it was legitimately contracted — as to the bond, but only as to the debt and cohabitation.
I respond: It must be said that a divorce can take place in two ways: either because the persons were illegitimate for contracting with one another simply — and then either may marry the other, as was distinguished above9. It can also take place on account of the crime of fornication — and then neither the man nor the woman can contract [marriage]; because, since the persons were legitimate, there was between them a Sacrament, which is an indissoluble bond. Hence a divorce is not a separation as to the sacramental bond, but as to the debt and cohabitation.
To 1. To that, then, which is objected, that the soul of a fornicator is not the wife of God; it must be said that matrimony is not principally the Sacrament of this [union], but of the conjunction of the divine and human nature, which is in no way dissolved10; therefore it is not similar.
To 2. To that which is objected concerning the Lord's exception, it must be said that the exception does not refer to both acts, but to one only, namely to the act of dismissal; hence that saying has three grounds of truth11; hence, since it proceeds to one [act] only, it becomes [a fallacy of] the consequent.
To 3. To that which is objected, that the Sacrament is dissolved: it must be said that this is not from the necessity of the Sacrament — that the flesh be undivided — but from [its] nobility and dignity. For although the flesh of one is divided, nonetheless they are two in one flesh1.
To 4. To that which is objected, that after a divorce the man is bound to the wife in nothing, nor conversely; it must be said that although he is bound to render nothing, nonetheless he is still sacramentally bound; and since he is bound to her as long as he lives, therefore he cannot be bound to another.
I. That the bond of the matrimony of Christians, ratified and consummated, can be dissolved by no human authority and in no case — not even that of adultery itself — pertains to the Catholic faith. This the Council of Trent (Session XXIV, canon 7) defined against the doctrine of the Protestants and also against the Greeks, among whom there flourishes the practice of dissolving matrimony on account of supervening adultery. It is commonly held that, by the very law of nature, any legitimate matrimony whatsoever is of itself indissoluble; which is intimated also by proposition 67 of the Syllabus condemned by Pius IX. — On this question cf. above, d. 27, a. 3, q. 1, 2. — On the same 4th question: Scotus, above d. 26, q. unica, n. 10, d. 33, q. 3, n. 4 ff. — St. Thomas, here a. 5; Suppl. q. 62, a. 5. — B. Albert, here a. 5-16. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 5. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3, q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 2.
II. On the following (5th) question: St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 11-13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 6. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3, q. 2.
III. The last (6th) question is not treated specially by the others, but its principles are touched upon in the preceding [questions], especially above at d. 32, on the payment of the debt.
---
- 2Vers. 10. seq.[1 Cor. 7,] v. 10 f.
- 3Cap. 7. n. 6. seq. sententialiter; verba ipsa habentur I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 10. n. 11. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXI. c. 2.[Augustine, On the Good of Marriage] ch. 7, n. 6 f., in sense; the very words are found in [the] first [book] On Marriage and Concupiscence, c. 10, n. 11. See above, the text of the Master, d. XXXI, c. 2.
- 4Cfr. supra d. 29. q. 2. in corp.Cf. above, d. 29, q. 2, in the body [of the article].
- 5Vers. 2. — Glossa apud Lyranum interlinearis sumta est ex Hieron. in hunc locum. — Verbis ergo anima codd. F G interserunt si.[Hosea 2,] v. 2. — The Gloss in Lyra, an interlinear one, is taken from Jerome on this passage. — At the words ergo anima codices F G insert si.
- 6Vers. 9: Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit moechatur. Cfr. ibid. 5, 32.[Matt. 19,] v. 9: Whoever dismisses his wife, unless for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. Cf. ibid. 5, 32.
- 7Gen. 2, 24. et Matth. 19, 5.Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5.
- 8Respicitur Rom. 7, 2. et I. Cor. 7, 39. — Edd. post ergo addunt si, et deinde potest contrahere.Reference is made to Rom. 7:2 and 1 Cor. 7:39. — The editions after ergo add si, and then [read] potest contrahere.
- 9Lit. Magistri, d. XXXI. c. 2; XXXIV. c. 1, ibique Comment. a. 1. q. 2; et d. 32. a. 4. q. 2. in corp. — Superius voci simpliciter ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. perperam praemittit non tamen. Inferius pro quia, cum plures codd. quia tum, cod. aa quia cum tunc.The text of the Master, d. XXXI, c. 2; XXXIV, c. 1, and there the Commentary, a. 1, q. 2; and d. 32, a. 4, q. 2, in the body. — Above, before the word simpliciter, ed. 1 with several codices wrongly prefixes non tamen. Below, for quia, cum several codices [read] quia tum, codex aa quia cum tunc.
- 10Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 6, et Comment. a. 2. q. 1. — Superius pro Sacramentum ed. 1 signum, Vat. signum vel Sacramentum.Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 6, and the Commentary, a. 2, q. 1. — Above, for Sacramentum ed. 1 [reads] signum, the Vatican [edition] signum vel Sacramentum.
- 11In matrimonii coniunctione tria consideranda sunt, scil. vinculum, torum et cohabitatio; quibus triplex respondet separatio, scil. solutio vinculi, separatio quoad torum et separatio quoad cohabitationem (cfr. quaest. praeced. et supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXI. c. 2.). Solutioni matrimonii opponit S. Bonav. dimissionem, quae separationem sive quoad torum, sive quoad cohabitationem importat. (Pro tres Vat. duas). — De locutione tres habet causas veritatis cfr. tom. III. pag. 252, nota 7, et de sophismate secundum consequens supra pag. 44, nota 10. — Pro fit consequens plures codd. facit consequens.In the conjunction of matrimony three things are to be considered, namely the bond, the bed, and cohabitation; to which a threefold separation corresponds, namely the loosing of the bond, separation as to the bed, and separation as to cohabitation (cf. the preceding question and above, the text of the Master, d. XXXI, c. 2.). To the loosing of matrimony St. Bonaventure opposes dismissal, which entails a separation either as to the bed or as to cohabitation. (For tres the Vatican [edition reads] duas). — On the phrase it has three grounds of truth cf. tom. III, p. 252, note 7, and on the sophism of the consequent, above, p. 44, note 10. — For fit consequens several codices [read] facit consequens.
- 1Cfr. infra d. 42. a. 3. q. 2. ad 3.Cf. below, d. 42, a. 3, q. 2, to [objection] 3. ---