Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod aliquis implens aliquod praeceptum potest reddi inhabilis ad aliquod officium sacrum exequendum, sicut judex qui hominem ad mortem condemnat, praeceptum implens irregularis efficitur; et similiter etiam ille qui praeceptum implens, debitum solvit, redditur ineptus ad divina officia exequenda; non quod ille actus sit peccatum, sed ratione carnalitatis illius actus; et sic, secundum quod Magister dicit, Hieronymus loquitur tantum de ministris Ecclesiae, non autem de aliis qui sunt suo judicio relinquendi: quia possunt et ex devotione dimittere, et sumere corpus Christi absque peccato. Reply Obj. 1: Someone fulfilling a certain precept can be rendered incapable of carrying out a certain sacred office, as a judge who condemns a man to death is made irregular by fulfilling a precept. Likewise too that man who, fulfilling a precept, pays the debt, is made unfit for executing the divine office; not because that act is a sin, but by reason of the carnality of the act. Thus, as the Master says, Jerome speaks only about the ministers of the Church, but not about others who are to be left to their own judgment: for they can either forego out of devotion, or consume the body of Christ without sin. Ad secundum dicendum, quod uxor non habet potestatem in corpus viri nisi salva consistentia personae ipsius, ut dictum est; unde si ultra exigat, non est petitio debiti, sed injusta exactio; et propter hoc vir non tenetur ei satisfacere. Reply Obj. 2: The wife’s power over the body of the man does not extend to the endangerment of his person, as was said. For this reason if she should make demands beyond this, it is not a requesting of a debt, but an unjust exaction from him, and for this reason, the man is not bound to satisfy her. Ad tertium dicendum, quod si aliquis reddatur impotens ad debitum solvendum ex causa ex matrimonio consecuta, puta cum prius debitum redditur, et est impotens ad debitum solvendum ulterius, mulier non habet jus plus petendi, et in petendo ulterius se magis meretricem quam conjugem exhibet. Si autem reddatur impotens ex altera causa; si illa est licita, sic iterum non tenetur, nec potest mulier exigere: si non est, tunc peccat; et peccatum uxoris, si in fornicationem propter hoc labatur, aliquo modo sibi imputatur; et ideo debet quantum potest operam dare ut uxor contineat. Reply Obj. 3: If someone should be rendered incapable of paying the debt because of something following upon marriage, for instance, when the debt is rendered beforehand, and he is incapable of paying it further, the woman does not have the right to ask for it again, and she shows herself to be more of a harlot than a wife in asking for it further. If, though, he is rendered incapable by another cause, and it is a licit one, then again he is not bound, nor can the woman demand it. If it is not licit, then he sins, and the sin of his wife, if she should lapse into sexual sin because of it, in some way would be imputed to him, and therefore he should take pains as much as he can so that his wife may remain in continence. Ad quartum dicendum, quod lepra solvit sponsalia, sed non matrimonium; unde uxor etiam viro leproso tenetur reddere debitum, non tamen tenetur ei cohabitare: quia non ita cito inficitur ex coitu sicut ex frequenti cohabitatione; et quamvis proles generetur infirma, tamen melius est ei sic esse quam penitus non esse. Reply Obj. 4: Leprosy dissolves a betrothal, but not a marriage; and for this reason, even the wife of a leprous man is bound to render the debt to her husband, though she is not bound to cohabit with him; for one is not so quickly infected by intercourse as by frequent cohabitation, and although a sickly child may be generated, nevertheless it is better for it to exist diseased like this than not to exist at all. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum debeat aliquando reddere non poscenti Whether one should sometimes not render to the one asking Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod vir non teneatur reddere debitum uxori non petenti. Praeceptum enim affirmativum non obligat nisi ad tempus determinatum. Sed tempus determinatum solutionis debiti non potest esse, nisi quando debitum petitur. Ergo alias solvere non tenetur. Obj. 1: To the second question, we proceed thus. It seems that a man is not bound to render the debt to a wife who does not ask for it. For an affirmative precept does not oblige except at a determined time. But the time determined for the payment of the debt can only be when it is asked for. Therefore, one is not otherwise bound to pay it. Praeterea, de quolibet debemus praesumere meliora. Sed melius est etiam conjugibus continere quam matrimonio uti. Ergo nisi expresse debitum petat, debet praesumere vir quod ei placeat continere; et sic non tenetur ei debitum reddere. Obj. 2: Furthermore, we should presume the best of anyone. But it is even better for spouses to restrain themselves than to make use of matrimony. Therefore, unless she should expressly request her due, the man should presume that she would rather be continent, and thus he is not bound to render the debt to her. Praeterea, sicut uxor habet potestatem in virum, ita dominus in servum. Sed servus non tenetur domino servire nisi quando ei a domino imperatur. Ergo nec vir uxori tenetur reddere debitum nisi quando ab ea exigitur. Obj. 3: Furthermore, the wife has power over the husband as a master over his slave. But a slave is not bound to serve his master except when the master commands. Therefore, neither is the husband bound to render the debt to his wife except when required by her. Praeterea, vir potest aliquando uxorem exigentem precibus avertere ne exigat. Ergo multo magis potest non reddere, si non exigat. Obj. 4: Furthermore, a man can sometimes turn aside his demanding wife with entreaties that she not demand. Therefore, even more can he not render if she does not demand. Sed contra, per redditionem debiti medicamentum praestatur contra uxoris concupiscentiam. Sed medicus cui est infirmus aliquis commissus, tenetur morbo ejus subvenire, etiam si ipse non petat. Ergo vir uxori non petenti tenetur debitum reddere. On the contrary (1), by rendering the debt, the husband offers the wife a medicine against her concupiscence. But a doctor to whom someone sick has been committed is bound to relieve his sickness, even if the invalid does not ask. Therefore, the man is bound to render the debt to the wife who does not ask. Praeterea, praelatus tenetur correctionis remedium contra peccatum subditorum adhibere, etiam eis contradicentibus. Sed redditio debiti in viro est ordinata contra peccata uxoris. Ergo tenetur vir debitum reddere quandoque etiam non petenti. Furthermore (2), a prelate is bound to apply the remedy of correction against the sin of those placed under him, even if they oppose it. But the rendering of the debt by a husband is ordained against the sins of his wife. Therefore, the man is bound to render the debt sometimes even if she does not request it. Quaestiuncula 2 Quaestiuncula 2 Ulterius. Videtur quod liceat mulieri menstruatae debitum petere. Sicut enim in lege mulier menstruata erat immunda, ita et vir fluxum seminis patiens. Sed vir seminifluus potest debitum petere. Ergo pari ratione et mulier menstruata. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is licit for a menstruating woman to request the debt. For under the Old Law, just as a menstruating woman was unclean, so also was a man suffering an outflowing of semen. But a man suffering in this way can request the debt. Therefore, by the same reasoning, during menstruation a woman can as well. Item, major infirmitas est lepra quam passio menstruorum; et majorem, ut videtur, corruptionem causat in prole. Sed leprosa potest debitum petere. Ergo, etc. Obj. 2: Again, leprosy is a greater infirmity than suffering a menstrual period. And it seems that it causes a greater corruption in the child. But a leper may request the debt. Therefore, etc. Item, si menstruatae non licet petere debitum, hoc non est nisi ratione defectus qui timetur in prole. Sed si mulier sit sterilis, non timetur talis defectus. Ergo videtur quod saltem sterilis menstruata possit petere. Obj. 3: Again, if a menstruating woman is not permitted to request the debt, this is only because of a defect that is feared in the child. But if the woman were barren, such a defect would not be feared. Therefore, it seems that at least a barren woman may request the debt during menstruation. Sed contra, Levit. 18, 19: ad mulierem quae patitur menstruum, non accedes: ubi Augustinus: cum sufficienter prohibuisset, hic etiam repetit, ne forte in superioribus videretur figurative accipiendum. On the contrary (1), Leviticus 18:19 says: you shall not approach a woman . . . while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. To which Augustine adds, although he had sufficiently prohibited it, here again he repeats, so that it would not perhaps seem to be taken figuratively about higher things. Item Isa. 64, 6: omnes justitiae vestrae quasi pannus menstruatae; ubi Hieronymus: tunc viri abstinere debent a mulieribus, quoniam concipiuntur membris damnati, caeci, claudi, leprosi; ut quia parentes non erubuerunt in conclavi commisceri, eorum peccata pateant cunctis, et apertius redarguantur in parvulis. Et sic idem quod prius. Again (2), according to Isaiah 64:6: all of your justices are like the rags of a menstruous woman. About which Jerome says: during that period men were supposed to abstain from their wives, because the children conceived are damaged in their members—blind, lame, leprous; so that since the parents were not ashamed to commingle in their chamber, their sins might be evident to all, and that they might be more openly rebuked in their little ones. And thus the same conclusion as above. Quaestiuncula 3 Quaestiuncula 3 Ulterius. Videtur quod mulier menstruata non debeat reddere debitum petenti. Levit. 20, dicitur quod si aliquis ad menstruatam accesserit, uterque morte est puniendus. Ergo videtur quod tam reddens quam exigens debitum mortaliter peccet. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a menstruating wife should not render the debt to a husband who asks. In Leviticus 20:18, it says that if someone approaches a menstruating woman, both are to be punished by death. Therefore, it seems that a woman rendering the debt sins mortally as much as the one demanding the debt. Item, Rom. 1, 32: non solum qui faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt, digni sunt morte. Sed exigens debitum scienter a menstruata mortaliter peccat. Ergo et mulier consentiens ei in redditione debiti. Obj. 2: Again, Romans 1:32 says: not only they that do them, but they also who consent to them that do them, deserve to die. But someone who knowingly demands the debt of a menstruating woman sins mortally. Therefore also, the woman consenting to him in the rendering of the debt. Item, furioso non est gladius reddendus, ne se vel alium interficiat. Ergo eadem ratione nec uxor tempore menstruorum debet viro corpus suum exponere, ne spiritualiter occidat. Obj. 3: Again, a sword is not to be given to someone who is insane, lest he kill himself or someone else. Therefore, by the same reasoning neither should a woman expose her body to her husband in the time of menstruation, lest he should spiritually kill himself. Sed contra, 1 Corinth. 7, 4: mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir. Ergo petenti viro mulier etiam menstruata debet debitum reddere. On the contrary (1), 1 Corinthians 7:4 says: the woman does not rule over her own body, but the man does. Therefore, the woman must render the debt to her husband requesting it even during the time of menstruation. Item, mulier menstruata non debet esse viro peccandi occasio. Sed si viro petenti debitum, debitum ipsa non redderet, etiam tempore menstruorum, esset viro peccandi occasio: quia forte fornicaretur. Ergo, etc. Again (2), a menstruating woman must not be an occasion of sin for her husband. But if the husband should ask for his rights and she should not render the debt even in the time of her menstruation, she would be an occasion of sin to her husband, for perhaps he would fall into fornication. Therefore, etc. Quaestiuncula 1 Response to Quaestiuncula 1 Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod petere debitum est dupliciter. Uno modo expresse, ut quando verbis invicem petunt. Alio modo est petitio debiti interpretata, quando scilicet vir percipit per aliqua signa quod uxor vellet sibi debitum reddi, sed propter verecundiam tacet; et ita etiam si non expresse verbis debitum petat, tamen vir tenetur reddere, quando expressa signa in uxore apparent voluntatis debiti reddendi. I answer that, there are two ways of requesting the debt. In one way, explicitly, as when the two ask each other in words. In another way, the requesting of the debt can be understood when, for example, the man perceives by certain signs that the wife wishes the debt to be rendered to her, but because of modesty she is silent. And in that case even if she did not explicitly request the debt in words, her husband is still bound to render it to her, when express signs appear in his wife of her will to have the debt rendered. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod tempus determinatum non est solum quando petitur, sed quando timetur ex aliquibus signis periculum (ad quod vitandum ordinatur debiti redditio) nisi tunc reddatur. Reply Obj. 1: The time is not only determined by when it is requested, but whenever there are signs of that danger to be feared which rendering the debt is ordered toward avoiding, and which might occur if it is not rendered at that time. Ad secundum dicendum, quod vir potest talem praesumptionem de uxore habere, quando in ea signa contraria non videt; sed quando videt, esset stulta praesumptio. Reply Obj. 2: A man can make this assumption about his wife when he does not see in her signs to the contrary. But when he does see them, it would be a stupid assumption. Ad tertium dicendum, quod dominus non ita verecundatur a servo petere debitum servitutis, sicut uxor a viro debitum conjugii. Si tamen dominus non peteret propter ignorantiam, vel alia de causa, nihilominus servus teneretur implere, si periculum immineret: hoc enim est non ad oculum servire, quod apostolus servis mandat. Reply Obj. 3: A master is not so embarrassed to ask from a slave what is due from his servitude as a wife is to ask her husband for the conjugal debt. If, however, the master did not ask because of ignorance or another cause, nevertheless the servant would be bound to fulfill it, if danger were imminent: for this would be ‘not to serve the eye,’ which the Apostle commands to slaves. Ad quartum dicendum, quod non debet vir uxorem avertere ne petat debitum, nisi propter aliquam rationabilem causam; et tunc non debet cum magna instantia averti propter pericula imminentia. Reply Obj. 4: A man should not turn aside his wife when she requests the debt, unless for some good reason; and then he should not turn her aside with much insistence, on account of the dangers that threaten. Quaestiuncula 2 Response to Quaestiuncula 2 Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod accedere ad menstruatam in lege prohibitum erat duplici ratione; tum propter immunditiam; tum propter nocumentum quod in prole ex hujusmodi commixtione frequenter sequebatur. Et quo ad primum, praeceptum erat caeremoniale, sed quantum ad secundum erat morale: quia cum matrimonium sit ad bonum prolis principaliter ordinatum, ordinatus est omnis matrimonii usus quo bonum prolis impenditur; et ideo hoc praeceptum obligat etiam in nova lege propter secundam rationem, etsi non propter primam. To the second question, it should be said that to approach a menstruating woman was prohibited under the Law for two reasons: both because of uncleanness as well as because of the harm which frequently resulted in the children from this kind of commingling. And so as to the first, this precept was ceremonial, but as to the second, it was moral; for since marriage is principally ordered to the good of children, that use of marriage is ordered which promotes the good of children; and therefore, this precept also obliges under the New Law because of the second reason, even if not for the first. Fluxus tamen menstruorum potest esse naturalis et innaturalis. Naturalis quidem, quando scilicet mulieres patiuntur temporibus determinatis, quando sunt sanae. Innaturalis autem quando inordinate et quasi continue ex aliqua infirmitate fluxum sanguinis patiuntur. In fluxu ergo menstruorum innaturali non est prohibitum ad mulierem menstruatam accedere in lege nova: tum propter infirmitatem, quia mulier in tali statu concipere non potest; tum quia talis fluxus est perpetuus et diuturnus; unde oporteret quod vir perpetuo abstineret. Sed quando naturaliter mulier patitur fluxus menstruorum, potest concipere; et iterum talis fluxus non durat nisi ad modicum tempus. Unde prohibitum est ad talem accedere; et similiter prohibitum est mulieri in tali fluxu debitum petere. The menstrual flow can, however, be natural or unnatural. It is natural when women suffer it at the regular times, when they are healthy. However, it is unnatural when they suffer a flow of blood inordinately and almost incessantly because of some infirmity. Therefore, in an unnatural menstrual flow it is not prohibited to approach the menstruating woman under the New Law: both because of the infirmity, since a woman cannot conceive in such a state, and also since such an issue of blood is perpetual and long-lasting, and thus it would be necessary for her husband to abstain perpetually. But when the woman naturally undergoes the menstrual flow, she can conceive; and again such a period lasts only a short while. Thus it is prohibited to approach a woman in this state, and likewise it is prohibited for the woman in such a period to request the debt. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod fluxus seminis in viro ex infirmitate procedit, nec semen sic fluens est aptum ad generationem; et praeterea talis passio est diuturna vel perpetua, sicut lepra. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply Obj. 1: The flow of semen in a man proceeds from an infirmity, and semen flowing like that is not suitable for generation. Furthermore, such a condition is long-lasting or perpetual, like leprosy; so there is no similar argument. Et per hoc solvitur etiam secundum. And by this the answer the second objection is also resolved.