Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum petens in tempore sacro mortaliter peccet Whether it is a mortal sin to ask for the debt at a holy time? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod petens in tempore sacro mortaliter peccet. Gregorius enim dicit, in I Dial., quod mulier quae in nocte cognita est a viro, mane ad processionem veniens a diabolo est arrepta. Sed hoc non esset nisi mortaliter peccasset. Ergo, etc. Objection 1: It would seem that it is a mortal sin to ask for the debt at a holy time. For Gregory says (Dialogues 1) that the devil took possession of a woman who had intercourse with her husband at night and came in the morning to the procession. But this would not have happened had she not sinned mortally. Therefore, etc. Praeterea, quicumque facit contra praeceptum divinum, mortaliter peccat. Sed Dominus praecepit, Exodi 19, nolite appropinquare uxoribus vestris: quando scilicet erant legem accepturi. Ergo multo magis peccant mortaliter si tempore quo sacramentis novae legis intendendum est, cum uxoribus viri commisceantur. Obj. 2: Further, whoever disobeys a divine command commits a mortal sin. Now the Lord commanded: come not near your wives (Exod 19:15), namely, when they were about to receive the law. Much more, therefore, do husbands sin mortally if they have intercourse with their wives at a time when they should be intent on the sacred observances of the new law. Sed contra, nulla circumstantia aggravat in infinitum. Sed indebitum tempus est circumstantia quaedam. Ergo non aggravat in infinitum, ut faciat mortale quod alias esset veniale. On the contrary, No circumstance aggravates infinitely. But undue time is a circumstance. Therefore, it does not aggravate a sin infinitely, so as to make mortal what was otherwise venial. Respondeo dicendum quod debitum petere in die festivo non est circumstantia trahens in aliam speciem peccati. Unde non potest in infinitum aggravare. Et ideo non peccat mortaliter uxor vel vir si in die festo debitum petat. Sed tamen gravius est peccatum si sola delectationis causa petatur, quam si propter timorem quo quis sibi timet de lubrico carnis, debitum petat. I answer that, To ask for the debt on a feast day is not a circumstance drawing a sin into another species; wherefore it cannot aggravate infinitely. Consequently, a wife or husband does not sin mortally by asking for the debt on a feast day. It is, however, a more grievous sin to ask for the sake of mere pleasure than through fear of the weakness of the flesh. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non fuit punita mulier illa propter hoc quod debitum reddidit: sed quia postmodum se temere ad divina ingessit contra conscientiam. Reply Obj. 1: This woman was punished not because she paid the debt, but because afterwards she rashly intruded into the divine service against her conscience. Ad secundum dicendum quod ex auctoritate illa non potest probari quod esset peccatum mortale, sed quod sit incongruum. Multa enim ad munditiam carnis pertinentia exigebantur de necessitate praecepti in veteri lege, quae carnalibus dabatur, quae in nova lege non exiguntur, quae est lex spiritus. Reply Obj. 2: The authority quoted shows not that it is a mortal sin but that it is unbecoming. For under the old law which was given to a carnal people, many things were required under an obligation of precept for the sake of bodily cleanness which are not required in the new law, which is the law of the spirit. Articulus 9 Article 9 Utrum teneatur reddere tempore festivo Whether one is bound to pay the debt at a festal time? Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non teneatur reddere tempore festivo. Quia peccantes et consentientes pariter puniuntur, ut patet Rom. 1. Sed ille qui reddit debitum, consentit petenti, qui peccat. Ergo et ipse peccat. Objection 1: It would seem that neither are they bound to pay the debt at a festal time. For those who commit a sin as well as those who consent to it are equally punished (Rom 1:32). But the one who pays the debt consents with the one that asks, who sins. Therefore, he sins also. Praeterea, ex praecepto affirmativo obligamur ad orandum, et ita ad aliquod tempus determinatum. Ergo pro tempore illo in quo quis orare tenetur, debitum reddere non debet: sicut nec eo tempore quo tenetur temporali domino ad speciale obsequium. Obj. 2: Further, it is an affirmative precept that binds us to pray, and therefore we are bound to do so at a fixed time. Therefore, one ought not to pay the debt at a time when one is bound to pray, as neither ought one at a time when one is bound to fulfill a special duty towards a temporal master. Sed contra est quod dicitur 1 Cor. 7: nolite fraudari invicem, nisi communi consensu ad tempus, etc. Ergo, quando petit, reddendum est ei. On the contrary, It is written: defraud not one another, except by consent, for a time (1 Cor 7:5). Therefore, when one spouse asks, the other must pay. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum mulier habeat potestatem in corpore viri quantum ad actum generationis spectat, et e converso, tenetur unus alteri debitum reddere quocumque tempore et quacumque hora, salva debita honestate quae in talibus exigitur; quia non oportet quod statim in publico reddat debitum. I answer that, Since the wife has power of her husband’s body, and vice versa, with regard to the act of procreation, the one is bound to pay the debt to the other at any season or hour, with due regard to the decorum required in such matters, for this must not be done at once in public. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iste, quantum in se est, non consentit, sed id quod ab eo exigitur invitus et Cum dolore reddit. Et ideo non peccat. Hoc enim est propter lubricum carnis divinitus ordinatum, ut semper petenti debitum reddatur, ne aliqua occasio peccati detur. Reply Obj. 1: As far as he is concerned, he does not consent, but grants unwillingly and with grief that which is exacted of him; and consequently he does not sin. For it is ordained by God, on account of the weakness of the flesh, that the debt must always be paid to the one who asks, lest he be afforded an occasion of sin. Ad secundum dicendum quod non est aliqua hora ita determinata ad orandum quin possit postea recompensari in aliis horis. Et ideo obiectio non cogit. Reply Obj. 2: No hour is fixed for praying, but that compensation can be made at some other hour; wherefore the argument is not cogent. Articulus 10 Article 10 Utrum nuptiae certis quibusdam temporibus interdici debeant Whether marriage is forbidden during certain periods? Ad decem sic proceditur. Videtur quod nuptiae non sint interdicendae temporibus. Quia matrimonium sacramentum est. Sed in illis temporibus non interdicitur celebratio aliorum sacramentorum. Ergo nec celebratio matrimonii. Objection 1: Again, it seems that weddings are not forbidden during certain periods. For matrimony is a sacrament. But in those times the celebration of the other sacraments is not forbidden. Therefore, neither should the celebration of matrimony. Praeterea, magis incompetens est diebus festis petitio debiti quam celebratio nuptiarum. Sed in diebus illis potest debitum peti. Ergo et nuptiae celebrari. Obj. 2: Furthermore, the requesting of the debt is more unfitting for holy days than wedding celebrations. But in those days the marital debt can be requested. Therefore, so can weddings be celebrated. Praeterea, matrimonia quae fiunt contra statutum Ecclesiae, debent separari. Sed non separantur, si fiant nuptiae in talibus temporibus. Ergo non debet esse prohibitum per Ecclesiae statuta. Obj. 3: Furthermore, marriages which happen against the statutes of the Church should be dissolved. But they are not dissolved if the wedding happens during such periods. Therefore, neither should they be prohibited by the statutes of the Church. Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccles. 3, 5: tempus amplexandi, et tempus longe fieri ab amplexibus. On the contrary, There is what Ecclesiastes 3:5 says: a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces. Respondeo dicendum quod quando novae sponsae traduntur, animus conjugum magis ex ipsa novitate ad curam carnalium occupatur et ideo in nuptiis consueverunt signa multa laetitiae dissolutae ostendi; et propter hoc illis temporibus in quibus homines praecipue debent se ad spiritualia elevare, prohibitum est nuptias celebrari. Hoc autem est ab Adventu usque ad Epiphaniam propter communionem, quae secundum antiquos canones in nativitate fieri convenienter solet; et a septuagesima usque ad octavas Paschae, propter communionem Paschalem; et a tribus diebus ante Ascensionem usque ad octavas Pentecostes, propter praeparationem ad communionem illo tempore sumendam. I answer that, When new brides are given to their husbands, the souls of the spouses are more greatly occupied by the concern for carnal things in this very newness, and therefore in weddings many signs of wild rejoicing are wont to be shown; and because of this, in those times in which men should particularly elevate themselves to spiritual things, it is prohibited for weddings to be celebrated. Now this is from Advent until Epiphany because of the reception of communion, which, according to the ancient canons, is usually to be made appropriately during the period of the Nativity; and from Septuagesima until the octave of Easter, because of the Easter communion; and from three days before the Ascension until the octave of Pentecost, because of preparation for consuming communion at that time. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod celebratio matrimonii habet aliquam mundanam laetitiam et carnalem adjunctam, quod non est de aliis sacramentis. Et ideo non est simile. Reply Obj. 1: The celebration of matrimony has something of worldly and carnal rejoicing joined to it, which is not in the other sacraments. Therefore, it is not similar. Ad secundum dicendum, quod non fit tanta distractio animorum in redditione vel petitione debiti, sicut in celebratione nuptiarum. Et ideo non est simile. Reply Obj. 2: Such great distraction of souls does not occur in the rendering or requesting of the debt as in the celebration of a wedding, and therefore it is not similar. Ad tertium dicendum, quod cum tempus non sit de essentia matrimonii, si in tempore indebito contrahatur, nihilominus verum est sacramentum; nec separatur matrimonium simpliciter, sed ad tempus, ut poenitentiam agant de hoc quod statutum Ecclesiae sunt transgressi; et sic est intelligendum quod Magister dicit Littera, IV Sentent., dist. xxxiii. Reply Obj. 3: Since time is not of the essence of matrimony, if it is contracted at an improper time, nevertheless it is a valid sacrament; nor are the contractants separated simply, but for a time, that they may do penance for having transgressed the statutes of the Church; and in this way what the Master says is to be understood (Sentences IV, Dist. 33). Quaestio 65 Question 65 De bigamis Bigamy Deinde considerandum est de pluralitate uxorum. We must now consider the plurality of wives. Circa quod quaeruntur quinque. Under this head there are five points of inquiry: Primo: utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae. (1) Whether it is against the natural law to have several wives? Secundo: utrum aliquando fuerit licitum. (2) Whether this was ever lawful? Tertio: utrum habere concubinam sit contra legem naturae. (3) Whether it is against the natural law to have a concubine? Quarto: utrum accedere ad concubinam sit peccatum mortale. (4) Whether it is a mortal sin to have intercourse with a concubine? Quinto: utrum aliquando licitum fuerit habere concubinam. (5) Whether it was ever lawful to have a concubine? Articulus 1 Article 1