Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 37
Quaestio II. Utrum sit gravius peccatum occidere uxorem quam matrem.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum gravius peccatum sit occidere uxorem quam matrem. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia quod gravius punitur gravius est in offensa; sed peccatum interfectionis uxoris gravius punitur quam peccatum interfectionis matris, sicut patet Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda2, Admonere etc.
2. Item, quod est magis contra naturam, illud est maius peccatum; sed magis contra naturam est odire et occidere carnem suam quam alienam, quia, ad Ephesios quinto3, nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit; et uxor est caro viri, sicut ibidem dicitur, quia sunt una caro: ergo videtur gravius peccatum.
3. Item, amor uxoris, sicut patet ex textu, Genesis secundo4, superexcedit amorem patris et matris, etiam amor castus; et hoc etiam videtur innui Genesis vigesimo quarto de Isaac, qui tantum dilexit Rebeccam, quod dolorem, qui de matre acciderat, temperaret; sed quanto magis aliquis inclinatur ad amorem, tanto minus ad laesionem: ergo videtur, quod si occidat uxorem, gravius peccat.
4. Item, qui occidit uxorem facit contra bonum naturae et Sacramenti, cum sint coniuncti ad individuam vitae consuetudinem5; qui autem occidit matrem facit contra alterum tantum: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Licitum est percutere et verberare uxorem in casu; sed nunquam licitum est verberare matrem6: ergo gravior est offensa illata matri quam uxori: ergo etc.
2. Item, tanto gravior est offensa, quanto personae, in quam est, debetur maior reverentia; sed multo maior reverentia debetur matri quam uxori: ergo maior est offensa, quae est in matrem, et sic etc.
3. Item, facilius frangitur amor socialis quam naturalis, pro eo quod naturalia magis adhaerent; sed amor matris est naturalis, amor uxoris socialis7: ergo maioris perversitatis et crudelitatis est occidere matrem.
4. Item, gravius est eum offendere, a quo plura beneficia sunt percepta; sed plura beneficia percipiuntur a matre quam ab uxore8: ergo etc.
Conclusio.
Gravius peccatum est, in genere loquendo, occidere matrem quam uxorem.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio gravius peccatum est, in genere loquendo, occidere p. 809matrem quam occidere uxorem, tum ratione personae exterioris, cui debetur maior reverentia, tum ratione minoris pronitatis. Pronior enim est homo iracundus ad verberandam uxorem quam matrem, quoniam, quando propter aliquam causam displicet, mirabile odium et taedium generatur1; et ideo pronior est ad occidendam uxorem quam matrem. Ad occidendam autem matrem nullius natura inclinatur, nisi sit per iniquitatem conversa in crudelitatem super bestias. Et quoniam homo pronior est ad uxoricidium, hinc est, quod quamvis minus sit peccatum, tamen maior poena imponitur, ut per incussionem timoris pronitas restringatur.
1. Et per hoc patet primo obiectum.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis est contra naturam, quia una caro; dicendum, quod maior est unio inter filium et matrem, quam inter virum et uxorem secundum rem, quamvis in matrimonio sit maior secundum significationem, pro eo quod caro matris et filii habent convenientiam in substantia et natura, sed caro masculi et feminae secundum actum commixtionis et unionis; et ideo ad tempus plus trahitur homo ad uxorem, sed simpliciter plus trahitur ad matrem.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus2 excedit amorem matris; dicendum, quod verum est intensive, tamen quantum ad radicationem facilius est, quod vir concitetur in odium uxoris, et e converso, per unam fornicationem, quam mater in odium filii, vel e converso. Tamen hoc non dicitur, quod relinquat matrem quantum ad affectum, sed quantum ad coniunctionem sexuum.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod facit contra bonum naturae et Sacramenti; dicendum, quod verum est; sed illud praeponderat, scilicet matricidium, adeo3 est contra naturam; nunquam enim natura abhorret ita occisionem alicuius, cui commiscetur, sicut eius, in cuius utero fuit totus. Unde quamvis canon dicat Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda4, quod occidens uxorem est crudelior omni bestia, quia «partem sui corporis occidit»: intelligendum est, hoc dictum esse per emphaticum modum loquendi, secundum quem modum posset dici, quod mater est totum corpus filii, cum totum ex matre traxerit; et ista est veritas, licet Hugutio super Decreta senserit contrarium; non enim in hoc approbatur eius sententia a modernis doctoribus5.
---
Question II. Whether it is a graver sin to kill one's wife than one's mother.
Secondly it is asked whether it is a graver sin to kill one's wife than one's mother. And that it is so seems [to be the case]:
1. Because what is more gravely punished is graver in respect of the offense; but the sin of killing a wife is more gravely punished than the sin of killing a mother, as is clear in Cause thirty-three, question two2, Admonere, etc.
2. Likewise, what is more against nature is the greater sin; but it is more against nature to hate and to kill one's own flesh than another's, because, in Ephesians five3, no one ever hated his own flesh; and the wife is the flesh of the husband, as is said in the same place, since they are one flesh: therefore it seems the graver sin.
3. Likewise, the love of a wife, as is clear from the text, Genesis two4, exceeds the love of father and mother, even chaste love; and this also seems to be intimated in Genesis twenty-four, concerning Isaac, who so loved Rebecca that he tempered the grief which had befallen him over his mother; but the more anyone is inclined to love, the less [he is inclined] to injury: therefore it seems that, if he kills his wife, he sins more gravely.
4. Likewise, he who kills his wife acts against the good of nature and of the Sacrament, since they are joined into an undivided partnership of life5; but he who kills his mother acts against one only: therefore, etc.
On the contrary: 1. It is licit to strike and beat a wife in a [certain] case; but it is never licit to beat a mother6: therefore the offense inflicted on a mother is graver than [that on] a wife: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, an offense is graver in proportion as greater reverence is owed to the person against whom it is [committed]; but much greater reverence is owed to a mother than to a wife: therefore the offense which is against a mother is greater, and so on.
3. Likewise, social love is more easily broken than natural [love], because natural things adhere more; but the love of a mother is natural, the love of a wife social7: therefore it is of greater perversity and cruelty to kill a mother.
4. Likewise, it is graver to offend one from whom more benefits have been received; but more benefits are received from a mother than from a wife8: therefore, etc.
Conclusion.
A graver sin, generally speaking, is to kill a mother than a wife.
Respondeo: It must be said that without doubt it is a graver sin, generally speaking, to kill a mother than to kill a wife, both by reason of the external person, to whom greater reverence is owed, and by reason of the lesser proneness. For an angry man is more prone to beat a wife than a mother, since, when for some cause she displeases [him], a wondrous hatred and loathing is generated1; and therefore he is more prone to kill a wife than a mother. But to killing a mother no one's nature is inclined, unless it has been turned by iniquity into a cruelty beyond the beasts. And because man is more prone to wife-killing, hence it is that, although it is a lesser sin, yet a greater penalty is imposed, so that by the striking-in of fear the proneness may be restrained.
1. And by this the first objection is answered.
2. To that which is objected, that it is more against nature because [they are] one flesh; it must be said that the union between son and mother is greater than [that] between husband and wife according to the thing [itself], although in matrimony it is greater according to signification, because the flesh of mother and son have a correspondence in substance and nature, but the flesh of male and female [have it] according to the act of commingling and union; and therefore for a time a man is drawn more to a wife, but simply [i.e., without qualification] he is drawn more to a mother.
3. To that which is objected, that [the love of a wife] exceeds more2 the love of a mother; it must be said that this is true intensively, yet as regards rootedness it is easier that a husband be stirred up into hatred of a wife, and conversely, through a single fornication, than a mother into hatred of a son, or conversely. Yet this is not said [to mean] that he leaves his mother as regards affection, but as regards the conjunction of the sexes.
4. To that which is objected, that he acts against the good of nature and of the Sacrament; it must be said that this is true; but that which preponderates, namely matricide, is3 so [much] against nature; for nature never so abhors the killing of anyone with whom one is joined [in flesh] as of the one in whose womb one was wholly [contained]. Hence, although the canon says, in Cause thirty-three, question two4, that one who kills a wife is crueler than every beast, because "he kills a part of his own body": it must be understood that this is said by an emphatic manner of speaking, according to which manner it could be said that the mother is the whole body of the son, since he drew his whole [substance] from the mother; and this is the truth, although Hugutio on the Decreta held the contrary; for in this his opinion is not approved by the modern doctors5.
---
- 2Can. 8. Cfr. ibid. C Latorem (15.).Canon 8. Cf. ibid., the canon Latorem (15.). [Gratian, C. 33, q. 2, c. 8, Admonere.]
- 3Vers. 29. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 31: Et erunt duo in carne una. Cfr. v. 28: Viri debent diligere uxores suas ut corpora sua. Qui suam uxorem diligit seipsum diligit.Verse 29. — The following passage is ibid., v. 31: And they shall be two in one flesh. Cf. v. 28: Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.
- 4Vers. 24: Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae. — Seq. locus ibid. 24, 67: Et in tantum dilexit eam, ut dolorem, qui ex morte matris eius acciderat, temperaret.Verse 24: Wherefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. — The following passage is ibid. 24, 67: And he so loved her, that he tempered the grief which had befallen him from the death of his mother.
- 5Cfr. supra d. 27. dub. 1.Cf. above, d. 27, dub. 1.
- 6Exod. 21, 15: Qui percusserit patrem suum aut matrem morte moriatur.Exodus 21, 15: He that striketh his father or mother shall be put to death.
- 7Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Ethic. c. 12.Cf. Aristotle, Ethics VIII, c. 12.
- 8Vide tom. III. pag. 646, nota 8. verba Aristot.See vol. III, p. 646, note 8, the words of Aristotle.
- 1Cfr. supra d. 36. a. 2. q. 2. in fine. — Superius pro quoniam, quod plures codd. omittunt, edd. cum aliquot codd. maxime, cod. H quam maxime. Inferius voci natura cod. aa praemittit animus nec.Cf. above, d. 36, a. 2, q. 2, at the end. — Above, for quoniam, which many codices omit, the editions with some codices [read] maxime, cod. H quam maxime. Below, before the word natura, cod. aa prefixes animus nec.
- 2Codd. K M (1 a secunda manu) quod amor uxoris. Inferius edd. et plures codd. convertatur pro concitetur. Subinde pro Tamen hoc non edd. Et hoc quod dicitur, post matrem addito non dicitur.Codices K M (the first by a second hand) [read] quod amor uxoris. Below, the editions and many codices [read] convertatur for concitetur. Thereupon, for Tamen hoc non the editions [read] Et hoc quod dicitur, with non dicitur added after matrem.
- 3Cod. U quia plus, cod. M quia, edd. quod adeo, quae etiam mox pro nunquam enim substituunt ut nunquam.Cod. U [reads] quia plus, cod. M quia, the editions quod adeo, which also presently substitute ut nunquam for nunquam enim.
- 4Can. Admonere te cum lacrymis... fili Hastulphe; sed non filius debes dici qui tam crudeliter infelix homicidium perpetrasti. Nam occidisti uxorem tuam, partem corporis tui (8.). — Sententia Huguitionis (vel Hugutionis) refertur in Glossa super hunc canonem ad verbum Existimes, et pro ipsa afferuntur duo argg., quae a S. Bonav. primo et secundo loco ad oppositum afferuntur. — Circa finem solut. Vat. cum paucis codd. super decreto pro super decreta.The canon Admonere: "[I admonish] you with tears... son Hastulphus; but you ought not to be called a son, you who so cruelly perpetrated an unhappy homicide. For you have killed your wife, a part of your own body" (8.). — The opinion of Huguitio (or Hugutio) is reported in the Gloss on this canon at the word Existimes, and on its behalf two arguments are adduced, which St. Bonaventure adduces in the first and second place for the opposite [side]. — Near the end of the solution the Vatican [edition] with a few codices [reads] super decreto for super decreta.
- 5Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question. ---