Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 37
Articulus II. De uxoricidio.
Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de uxoricidio. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum uxorem adulteram occidere sit licitum. Secundo, quod sit gravius peccatum, utrum occidere uxorem, an matrem. Tertio, utrum hoc peccatum simpliciter impediat matrimonium.
Quaestio I. Utrum liceat uxorem adulteram interficere.
Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod licitum sit uxorem adulteram interficere:
1. Primo per textum sacrae Scripturae, Exodi vigesimo secundo1: Maleficos non patieris vivere; istud est morale, ergo adhuc manet. Si tu dicas, istud fuisse iudiciale, et talia evacuata sunt; contra: istud est in lege humana2, quod adultera est interficienda et adulter; sed tales leges approbat et sustinet Ecclesia: si ergo Ecclesia non debet approbare nisi licitum; videtur, quod viro uxorem adulterantem interficere sit licitum.
2. Item hoc probatur per canonem, Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda3: « Interfectores suarum coniugum sine iudicio, cum non addis adulterarum, quid aliud sunt quam homicidae »? Ergo si additur adulterarum, non videntur esse homicidae.
3. Item, viri est uxorem suam corrigere4, et secundum quod gravius peccat, gravius debet eam punire: si ergo mulier, quae adulteratur, digna est morte; si vir eam occidat, non videtur, quod incurrat aliquam offensam.
Contra: 1. Ioannis octavo5: Qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in eam lapidem mittat: noluit ergo Dominus, quod aliquis occideret mulierem in adulterio deprehensam, nisi haberet conscientiam mundam a culpa: ergo non videtur, quod hoc alicui liceat.
2. Item, canon dicit Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda6, Inter haec sanctitas vestra, et infra: « Sancta Dei Ecclesia mundanis nunquam constringitur legibus, gladium non habet nisi spiritualem »: ergo etc.
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia quantum ad culpam fornicationis iudicantur pares; sed nulli mulieri licet occidere virum adulterum: ergo nec alicui viro adulteram mulierem.
Conclusio. Uxorem propriam adulteram non licet occidere secundum ius divinum et canonicum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod interfector propriae coniugis, si ex certa scientia facit, peccat, quantumcumque illa sit adultera. — Peccat autem non tantum contra canones, sed etiam contra ius civile: contra ius civile, quia eam interficit, praetermisso iuris ordine, nisi forte in actu malo eam inveniat, in quo casu leges humanae concedunt. — Sed contra ius divinum et canonicum peccat in ipso facto, quoniam non debet ipsam adulteram interficere, sed corrigere, cum Deus peccatori paratus sit parcere in lege gratiae, sicut in exemplo patet mulieris adulterae, Ioannis octavo7. Et quoniam matrimonia et causae matrimoniales tractari debent lege poli, et non lege fori; ideo non licet hoc facere, quod ius civile dictat — quamvis Ecclesia sustineat ad terrorem malorum — sed quod indicat sancta Ecclesia, uxorem scilicet adulteram non esse occidendam, sed potius dimittendam.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Lege, dicendum, quod illud erat iudiciale, et iudicialia non manent, quia illa fuit lex rigoris, haec autem est mansuetudinis. — Ad illud quod obiicitur de lege civili, dicendum, quod quaedam sunt ibi, quae Ecclesia approbat, quaedam, quae sustinet, et quaedam, quae revocat. Et hoc iudicium de occisione fornicariae sive adulterae aut sustinet ad aliorum terrorem, aut etiam retractat, cum prohibet in supradicto8 canone, nullo iudicio interficiendam esse uxorem, quantumcumque in crimine deprehensam.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illo canone: Interfectores suarum etc.; dicendum, quod illud dictum est secundum leges humanas; talis enim, ex quo sine causa et praeter iudicium occidit, secundum leges civiles punitur ut homicida; sed si per iudicium et causam faciat, non iudicatur homicida secundum leges humanas. Sed secundum ius canonicum, etiam secundum quod debent regi matrimonia, et secundum mandatum Ecclesiae, non principum, non licet occidere, immo homicida iudicatur, sicut expresse testatur capitulum sequens de Nicolao1.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potest corrigere; dicendum, quod verum est; sed correctio tanta et talis debet esse, ut non auferat locum poenitentiae; et ideo, quando excedit limites, ut occidat, iam non est zelus correctionis, sed furor occisionis.
I. Quaestiones 1. et 2. nullam difficultatem habent; cfr. de utraque quaest. S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; Suppl. q. 60. a. 1, et de 2. q. ibid. a. 2. ad 2. — B. Albert., de his et seq. q. hic a. 12. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — De his et de 3. q. Durand., hic q. 2; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
II. Quoad 3. quaestionem observandum est, secundum rigorem antiquorum canonum poenitentialium cuilibet, qui coniugem occidit, fuisse poenam impositam, ut a quolibet matrimonio contrahendo abstineret (vide lit. Magistri hic c. 2.). Impedimentum criminis nostra aetate intelligitur de complicibus et incurritur triplici modo: 1. est crimen uno patrante i. e. machinatio mortis et occisio coniugis simul cum adulterio; 2. crimen utroque patrante i. e. occisio coniugis, utroque conspirante; 3. adulterium cum mutua promissione matrimonii post mortem coniugis contrahendi. Cfr. infra dub. 3. — De 3. quaestione: Scot., supra d. 36. q. unica. — S. Thom., locis citt. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2.
---
Article II. On uxoricide.
Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning uxoricide. And concerning this, three things are asked. First it is asked, whether it is licit to kill an adulterous wife. Second, which is the graver sin: whether to kill a wife, or a mother. Third, whether this sin simply impedes marriage.
Question I. Whether it is licit to kill an adulterous wife.
Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that it is licit to kill an adulterous wife:
1. First, by the text of sacred Scripture, Exodus twenty-two1: Thou shalt not suffer evildoers to live; this is moral, therefore it still stands. If you should say that this was judicial, and such things have been abrogated; on the contrary: it is in human law2 that an adulteress is to be killed, and the adulterer too; but the Church approves and upholds such laws: if therefore the Church ought not to approve except what is licit, it seems that for a husband to kill an adulterating wife is licit.
2. Likewise, this is proved by the canon, Cause thirty-three, question two3: « Those who slay their own spouses without judgment — when you do not add "adulterous" — what else are they than homicides »? Therefore if adulterous is added, they do not seem to be homicides.
3. Likewise, it belongs to the husband to correct his wife4, and according as she sins more gravely, he ought the more gravely to punish her: if therefore the woman who commits adultery is worthy of death, if the husband kill her, it does not seem that he incurs any offense.
On the contrary: 1. John eight5: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her: the Lord therefore did not will that anyone should kill a woman caught in adultery, unless he had a conscience clean of fault: therefore it does not seem that this is licit for anyone.
2. Likewise, the canon says, Cause thirty-three, question two6, Inter haec sanctitas vestra, and further below: « The holy Church of God is never constrained by worldly laws; it has no sword but the spiritual one »: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because as to the fault of fornication they are judged equal; but it is licit for no woman to kill an adulterous husband: therefore neither is it licit for any husband to kill an adulterous wife.
Conclusion. It is not licit to kill one's own adulterous wife, according to divine and canon law.
I respond: It must be said that the slayer of his own spouse, if he does it from certain knowledge, sins, however much she be an adulteress. — But he sins not only against the canons, but also against the civil law: against the civil law, because he kills her with the order of law passed over, unless perhaps he find her in the very evil act, in which case human laws grant it. — But against divine and canon law he sins in the very deed, since he ought not to kill the adulteress herself, but to correct her, since God is ready to spare the sinner under the law of grace, as is plain in the example of the adulterous woman, John eight7. And since marriages and matrimonial cases ought to be handled by the law of heaven (poli), and not by the law of the forum (fori); therefore it is not licit to do this which the civil law dictates — although the Church upholds it for the terror of the wicked — but rather what holy Church declares, namely that the adulterous wife is not to be killed, but rather dismissed.
1. To that which is objected concerning the Law, it must be said that it was judicial, and judicial precepts do not remain, because that was a law of rigor, whereas this is one of gentleness. — To that which is objected concerning the civil law, it must be said that there are certain things there which the Church approves, certain which it upholds, and certain which it revokes. And this judgment concerning the killing of a fornicatress or adulteress it either upholds for the terror of others, or else retracts, when it forbids, in the aforesaid8 canon, that a wife be killed by any judgment, however much she be caught in the crime.
2. To that which is objected concerning that canon: Those who slay their own etc.; it must be said that it was said according to human laws; for such a man, since he kills without cause and apart from judgment, is punished under the civil laws as a homicide; but if he acts through judgment and cause, he is not judged a homicide according to human laws. But according to canon law, also according to that whereby marriages ought to be governed, and according to the mandate of the Church, not of princes, it is not licit to kill; nay rather he is judged a homicide, as the following chapter concerning Nicholas1 expressly attests.
3. To that which is objected, that he can correct her; it must be said that this is true; but the correction ought to be so great and of such a kind that it does not take away the place for repentance; and therefore, when it exceeds the limits, so as to kill, it is no longer the zeal of correction, but the fury of slaying.
I. Questions 1 and 2 present no difficulty; cf. on both questions St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; Suppl. q. 60, a. 1, and on the 2nd question ibid. a. 2, ad 2. — Bl. Albert, on these and the following question here, a. 12, 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1. — On these and on the 3rd question, Durandus, here q. 2; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.
II. As to the 3rd question it must be observed that, according to the rigor of the ancient penitential canons, a penalty was imposed on anyone who killed a spouse, that he should abstain from contracting any marriage (see the letter of the Master here, c. 2). The impediment of crime is in our age understood of accomplices, and is incurred in a threefold manner: 1. there is crime with one perpetrating, i.e. the plotting of death and the slaying of the spouse together with adultery; 2. crime with both perpetrating, i.e. the slaying of the spouse, both conspiring; 3. adultery with a mutual promise of contracting marriage after the death of the spouse. Cf. below, dubium 3. — On the 3rd question: Scotus, above, d. 36, q. unica. — St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, in the place cited, q. 2.
---
- 1Vers. 18.Verse 18. (Exodus 22:18.)
- 2Iustinian., D. XLVIII. de Adulteriis coercendis (tit. 15.), lex Patri datur (20.), et C. IX. ad Legem Iuliam etc. (tit. 9.), lex Gracchus (4.).Justinian, Digest XLVIII, On the Punishment of Adulteries (tit. 15), the law Patri datur (20), and Codex IX, On the Julian Law etc. (tit. 9), the law Gracchus (4).
- 3Can. 5. Textus originalis, quem sequuntur edd., plura interserit; cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.Canon 5. The original text, which the editions follow, inserts more; cf. the letter of the Master here, c. 2.
- 4Cfr. supra d. 35. q. 2. in corp.Cf. above, d. 35, q. 2, in the body.
- 5Vers. 7.Verse 7. (John 8:7.)
- 6Can. 6.Canon 6.
- 7Vers. 7. seqq. — Superius pro peccatum ex codd. M O S U substituimus peccatori. — Nicolaus III. in C. Exiit qui seminat (3.), de Verborum significat. (lib. V. tit. 12.) in VI, in explicanda Regula Fratrum Minorum ait: Sicut nec ceteris, sic nec ipsis fratribus iure poli [i. e. iure naturali] in extremae necessitatis articulo ad providendum sustentationi naturae via omnibus extrema necessitate detentis concessa praecluditur etc.Verse 7 ff. — Above, in place of peccatum [sin], on the authority of codices M O S U, we have substituted peccatori [to the sinner]. — Nicholas III, in the canon Exiit qui seminat (3), On the Signification of Words (bk. V, tit. 12) in the Sext, in expounding the Rule of the Friars Minor, says: Just as to others, so neither to the friars themselves is there foreclosed, by right of heaven [i.e. by natural right], in the moment of extreme necessity, for providing for the sustenance of nature, the way granted to all who are held by extreme necessity, etc.
- 8In fundam. 2. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Inferius pro iudicio edd. cum aliquot codd. modo.In the 2nd argument. Cf. the letter of the Master here, c. 2. — Below, in place of iudicio [judgment], the editions with some codices [read] modo [manner].
- 1Scilicet C. Inter haec sanctitas vestra, qui est Nicolai, sicut et C. Interfectores. — Superius post matrimonia Vat. inepte addit lege matrimonii.Namely the canon Inter haec sanctitas vestra, which is Nicholas's, as also the canon Interfectores. — Above, after matrimonia, the Vatican [edition] ineptly adds lege matrimonii. ---