Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum aliquis fidelis possit contrahere matrimonium cum infideli Whether a member of the faithful may contract marriage with an unbeliever Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fidelis possit matrimonium cum infideli contrahere. Quia Joseph contraxit cum Aegyptia, et Esther cum Assuero. In utroque autem matrimonio fuit disparitas cultus: quia alter erat fidelis, alter infidelis. Ergo disparitas cultus praecedens matrimonium, ipsum non impedit. Obj. 1: To the first question, we proceed thus. It seems that a member of the faithful may contract marriage with an unbeliever. For Joseph contracted with an Egyptian woman, and Esther with Assuerus. But in both marriages there was disparity of cult: for one was a believer, the other an unbeliever. Therefore, disparity of cult preceding marriage does not impede it. Praeterea, eadem est fides quam docet vetus lex et nova lex. Sed secundum veterem legem poterat esse matrimonium inter fidelem et infidelem, ut patet Deut. 21, 10: si egressus ad pugnam . . . videris mulierem pulchram in medio captivorum, et adamaveris eam . . . introeas ad eam dormiens cum ea, et erit tibi uxor. Ergo et in nova lege licet. Obj. 2: Furthermore, the same faith is taught by the Old Law and the New Law. But according to the Old Law, a marriage could exist between a believer and an unbeliever, as is clear from Deuteronomy 21:10–13: if, having gone out to war against your enemies . . . you see a beautiful woman among the captives, and you fall in love with her . . . you may go into her and sleep with her, and she will be your wife. Therefore, it is also allowed in the New Law. Praeterea, sponsalia ad matrimonium ordinantur. Sed inter fidelem et infidelem possunt in aliquo casu contrahi sponsalia cum conditione futurae conversionis. Ergo sub eadem conditione matrimonium potest contrahi inter eos. Obj. 3: Furthermore, a betrothal is ordered to a marriage. But in some cases between a believer and an unbeliever there can be a betrothal with the condition of future conversion. Therefore, under the same condition a marriage can be contracted between them. Praeterea, omne impedimentum matrimonii est aliquo modo contra matrimonium. Sed infidelitas non est contraria matrimonio: quia matrimonium est in officium naturae, cujus dictamen fidem excedit. Ergo disparitas fidei non impedit matrimonium. Obj. 4: Furthermore, every impediment to marriage is in some way contrary to marriage. But unbelief is not contrary to marriage, for marriage is in the office of nature, and faith goes beyond the mandate of nature. Therefore, a disparity of faith does not impede marriage. Praeterea, disparitas fidei est etiam quandoque inter duos baptizatos, sicut quando aliquis post baptismum in haeresim labitur; et si talis cum aliqua fideli contrahat, nihilominus est verum matrimonium. Ergo disparitas cultus matrimonium non impedit. Obj. 5: Furthermore, sometimes disparity of faith also exists between two baptized people, as when one has lapsed into heresy after baptism; and if such a person contracts with some member of the faithful, it is a valid marriage nonetheless. Therefore, disparity of cult does not impede marriage. Sed contra est quod dicitur 2 Corinth. 6, 14: quae conventio lucis ad tenebras? Sed maxima conventio est inter virum et uxorem. Ergo ille qui est in luce fidei, non potest contrahere matrimonium cum illa quae est in tenebris infidelitatis. On the contrary (1), it says in 2 Corinthians 6:14: what concord has light with darkness? But there is the greatest concord between husband and wife. Therefore, someone who is in the light of faith cannot contract marriage with someone who is in the darkness of unbelief. Praeterea, Malach. 2, 2, dicitur: contaminavit Judas sanctificationem domini, quam dilexit, et habuit filiam Dei alieni. Sed hoc non esset, si inter eos posset verum matrimonium contrahi. Ergo disparitas cultus matrimonium impedit. Furthermore (2), it says in Malachi 2:11, Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which he loved, and has married the daughter of a foreign god. But this would not be, if between them a valid marriage could be contracted. Therefore disparity of cult impedes marriage. Respondeo dicendum, quod principalius bonum matrimonii est proles ad cultum Dei educanda. Cum autem educatio fiat communiter per patrem et matrem, uterque secundum fidem intendit ad cultum Dei prolem educare; et ideo si sint diversae fidei, intentio unius alterius intentioni contraria erit; et ita inter eos non potest esse conveniens matrimonium; et propter hoc disparitas cultus praecedens matrimonium, impedit ipsum ne contrahi possit. I answer that, the more principal good of marriage is offspring to be educated to the worship of God. But since education is done by the father and mother together, each one intends to educate the children to the worship of God according to his own faith. And thus if they are of diverse faiths, the intention of one will be contrary to the intention of the other. And so between them there can be no fitting marriage. And because of this, disparity of cult preceding marriage impedes it from being contracted. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in veteri lege de aliquibus infidelibus erat permissum quod cum eis possent inire conjugia, et de aliquibus prohibitum. Specialiter quidem erat prohibitum de infidelibus habitantibus in terra Chanaan: tum quia dominus praeceperat eos occidi propter eorum obstinationem: tum quia majus periculum imminebat ne conjuges aut filios ad idolatriam perverterent: quia filii Israel ad ritus et ad mores eorum proniores erant propter conversationem cum eis. Sed de aliis gentibus permisit, praecipue quando non poterat esse timor pertrahendi ad idolatriam; et sic Joseph et Moyses et Esther cum infidelibus matrimonia contraxerunt. Sed in nova lege quae per totum orbem diffunditur, similis ratio prohibendi est de omnibus infidelibus; et ideo disparitas cultus praecedens matrimonium impedit contrahendum, et dirimit contractum. Reply Obj. 1: In the Old Law it was permitted to enter into marriage with certain unbelievers, and with others it was prohibited. In particular it was prohibited with the unbelievers living in the land of Canaan: both since the Lord commanded them to be killed for their obstinacy, and because there was a greater danger that they would pervert their spouses or children to idolatry, for the children of Israel were more prone to their rites and customs because of their interaction with them. But it was permitted with other nations, especially when there could not be the fear of being drawn away into idolatry; and this is how Joseph and Moses and Esther contracted marriages with unbelievers. But in the New Law, which is diffused throughout the world, there is a similar reason for prohibiting marriage with all unbelievers; and thus disparity of cult preceding marriage impedes it from being contracted, and invalidates the contract. Ad secundum dicendum, quod lex illa vel loquitur de aliis nationibus cum quibus licite poterant inire connubia; vel loquitur quando illa captiva ad fidem et cultum Dei converti volebat. Reply Obj. 2: That law either speaks of other nations with whom they could licitly enter into marriages, or it speaks about when the captive woman was willing to be converted to the faith and worship of God. Ad tertium dicendum, quod eadem est habitudo praesentis ad praesens, et futuri ad futurum; unde sicut quando matrimonium in praesenti contrahitur, requiritur unitas cultus in utroque contrahentium; ita ad sponsalia, quibus fit sponsio futuri matrimonii, sufficit conditio apposita de futura unitate cultus. Reply Obj. 3: The relation of the present to the present is the same as the relation of the future to the future; and so just as when marriage is contracted in the present, unity of cult is required in both of the contractants, so also in the betrothal, in which a pledge of future marriage is made, a condition appertaining to future unity of cult suffices. Ad quartum dicendum, quod jam ex dictis patet quod disparitas cultus contraria est matrimonio ratione principalioris boni ipsius, quod est bonum prolis. Reply Obj. 4: From what has been said it is already clear that disparity of cult is contrary to marriage by reason of its more principal good, which is the good of offspring. Ad quintum dicendum, quod matrimonium sacramentum est; et ideo quantum pertinet ad necessitatem sacramenti, requirit paritatem quantum ad sacramentum fidei, scilicet baptismum, magis quam quantum ad interiorem fidem; unde etiam hoc impedimentum non dicitur disparitas fidei, sed disparitas cultus qui respicit exterius servitium, ut in 3 Lib., dist. 9, quaest. 1, art. 1, quaestiunc. 1, in corp., dictum est; et propter hoc, si aliquis fidelis cum haeretica baptizata matrimonium contrahit, verum est matrimonium, quamvis peccet contrahendo, si sciat eam haereticam; sicut peccaret, si cum excommunicata contraheret; non tamen propter hoc matrimonium dirimeretur; et e contrario si aliquis catechumenus habens rectam fidem, sed nondum baptizatus, cum aliqua fideli baptizata contraheret, non esset verum matrimonium. Reply Obj. 5: Marriage is a sacrament; and thus as far as the necessity of the sacrament goes, it requires parity in the sacrament of the faith, namely baptism, more than in interior faith. For this reason this impediment is not called disparity of faith but disparity of cult, which regards external service, as was said in the corpus of Book III, Distinction 9, Question 1, Article 1, Quaestiuncula 1. And because of this, if some member of the faithful contracts marriage with a baptized heretic, it is a valid marriage, although he would sin in contracting it, if he knows his spouse to be a heretic, just as he would sin if he contracted with someone excommunicated; nevertheless this marriage would not be rendered invalid on this account, and by the same token, if some catechumen, having right faith, but not yet baptized, should contract with some baptized member of the faithful, it would not be a valid marriage. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum inter infideles sit matrimonium Whether marriage exists between unbelievers Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inter infideles non possit esse matrimonium. Matrimonium enim est sacramentum Ecclesiae. Sed baptismus est janua sacramentorum. Ergo infideles, qui non sunt baptizati, matrimonium contrahere non possunt, sicut nec alia sacramenta suscipere. Obj. 1: To the second question, we proceed thus. It seems that there can be no marriage between unbelievers. For marriage is a sacrament of the Church. But baptism is the door to the sacraments. Therefore, unbelievers, who have not been baptized, cannot contract marriage, as neither can they receive the other sacraments. Praeterea, duo mala sunt magis impeditiva boni quam unum. Sed infidelitas unius tantum impedit matrimonii bonum. Ergo multo fortius infidelitas utriusque; et ita inter infideles non potest esse matrimonium. Obj. 2: Furthermore, two evils impede the good more than one. But unbelief in only one party impedes the good of marriage. Therefore, the unbelief of both is even stronger; and thus there can be no marriage among unbelievers. Praeterea, sicut inter fidelem et infidelem est disparitas cultus, ita interdum inter duos infideles; ut si unus sit gentilis, et alter Judaeus. Sed disparitas cultus impedit matrimonium, ut dictum est. Ergo ad minus inter infideles qui habent cultum disparem, non potest esse verum matrimonium. Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as there is disparity of cult between a believer and an unbeliever, so there can be between two unbelievers; for example, when one is a gentile and the other a Jew. But disparity of cult impedes marriage, as was said. Therefore, at least between unbelievers who have disparate religions there cannot be valid marriage. Praeterea, in matrimonio est vera pudicitia. Sed sicut dicit Augustinus, et habetur 28, quaest. 1, non est vera pudicitia infidelis cum uxore sua. Ergo non est verum matrimonium. Obj. 4: Furthermore, in marriage there is true chastity. But as Augustine says, and as is found in Distinction 28, Question 1, the chastity of an unbeliever with his wife is no true chastity. Therefore, it is not a true marriage. Praeterea, matrimonium verum excusat carnalem copulam a peccato. Sed hoc non potest facere matrimonium inter infideles contractum: quia omnis vita infidelium peccatum est, ut dicit Glossa Rom. 14. Ergo inter infideles non est verum matrimonium. Obj. 5: Furthermore, valid marriage excuses physical intimacy from sin. But marriage contracted between unbelievers cannot do this: for the whole life of an unbeliever is a sin, as the Gloss on Romans 14:23 states. Therefore, there is no valid marriage between unbelievers. Sed contra est quod dicitur 1 Corinth. 7, 12: si quis frater habet uxorem infidelem, et haec consentit habitare cum illo, non dimittat illam. Sed uxor non dicitur nisi propter matrimonium. Ergo inter infideles est verum matrimonium. On the contrary (1), it says in 1 Corinthians 7:12: if some brother has an unbeliever for a wife, and she consents to live with him, he may not send her away. But ‘wife’ is only said because of marriage. Therefore, between unbelievers there is true marriage. Praeterea, remoto posteriori non removetur prius. Sed matrimonium pertinet ad officium naturae, quae praecedit statum gratiae, cujus principium est fides. Ergo infidelitas non facit quin sit inter infideles matrimonium. Furthermore (2), what is first is not removed by what comes after. But marriage pertains to the office of nature, which precedes the state of grace, whose principle is faith. Therefore, unbelief does not prevent marriage from existing among unbelievers. Respondeo dicendum, quod matrimonium principaliter institutum est ad bonum prolis, non tantum generandae, quia hoc sine matrimonio fieri posset, sed etiam promovendae ad perfectum statum: quia quaelibet res intendit effectum suum naturaliter perducere ad perfectum statum. Est autem in prole duplex perfectio consideranda; scilicet perfectio naturae non solum quantum ad corpus, sed etiam quantum ad animam, per ea quae sunt de lege naturae; et perfectio gratiae; et prima perfectio est materialis et imperfecta respectu secundae. Et ideo, cum res quae sunt propter finem, sint proportionatae fini; matrimonium quod tendit ad primam perfectionem, est imperfectum et materiale respectu illius quod tendit in perfectionem secundam. Et quia prima perfectio communis esse potest fidelibus et infidelibus, secunda autem est tantum fidelium; ideo inter infideles est quidem matrimonium, sed non perfectum ultima perfectione, sicut est inter fideles. I answer that, marriage was chiefly instituted for the good of offspring, not only for their generation, since this can happen without marriage, but also for their upbringing to maturity: since everything naturally intends its effect to arrive at its perfect state. But in children two kinds of perfection must be considered: first, the perfection of nature not only as to the body, but also as to the soul, through those things which are of natural law; second, the perfection of grace. And the first perfection is material and imperfect in relation to the second. And therefore, since things that are for the sake of an end are proportionate to that end, a marriage which tends to the first perfection is imperfect and material as compared with the marriage that tends to the second perfection. And since the first perfection can be common to both members of the faithful and unbelievers, but the second only exists among the faithful, in this way there is a certain marriage among unbelievers, but not completed by the last perfection, as it is among the faithful. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod matrimonium non tantum est institutum in sacramentum, sed in officium naturae; et ideo, quamvis infidelibus non competat matrimonium, secundum quod est sacramentum in dispensatione ministrorum Ecclesiae consistens; competit tamen eis, inquantum est in officium naturae. Et tamen etiam matrimonium tale est aliquo modo sacramentum habitualiter, quamvis non actualiter, eo quod actu non contrahunt in fide Ecclesiae. Reply Obj. 1: Marriage was not only instituted as a sacrament, but also as a duty of nature; and thus, although unbelievers do not have marriage inasmuch as it is a sacrament in the dispensation of the ministers of the Church, still they have it insofar as it is a duty of nature. And nevertheless, this kind of marriage is also a sacrament in a certain way habitually, although not actually, due to the fact that they do not in actuality contract it in the faith of the Church. Ad secundum dicendum, quod disparitas cultus non impedit matrimonium ratione infidelitatis, sed ratione disparitatis in fide. Disparitas enim cultus non solum secundam perfectionem prolis impedit, sed etiam primam, dum parentes ad diversa prolem trahere intendunt; quod non est quando uterque est infidelis. Reply Obj. 2: Disparity of cult does not impede marriage by reason of unbelief, but by reason of disparity in belief. For disparity of cult is not only an impediment according to the second perfection of children, but also the first, as long as parents intend to draw their children to different things; which does not happen when both are unbelievers. Ad tertium dicendum, quod inter infideles est matrimonium, ut dictum est, prout matrimonium est in officium naturae. Ea autem quae pertinent ad legem naturae, sunt determinabilia per jus positivum; et ideo si prohibentur ab aliquo jure positivo apud eos infideles contrahere matrimonium cum infidelibus alterius ritus, disparitas cultus impedit matrimonium inter eos. Ex jure enim divino non prohibentur: quia apud Deum non differt qualitercumque aliquis a fide deviet quantum ad hoc quod est a gratia alienum esse: similiter, nec aliquo Ecclesiae statuto, quae non habet de his quae foris sunt, judicare. Reply Obj. 3: Between unbelievers there is marriage, as was said, as marriage exists in the office of nature. But those things that belong to the law of nature can be determined by positive law; and thus if some infidels are prohibited by a certain positive law of their own from contracting marriage with infidels of another rite, disparity of cult impedes marriage between them. For they are not prohibited by divine law, for before God it does makes no difference how someone strays from the faith as regards the fact that he is estranged from grace; likewise, neither are they prohibited by any statute of the Church, which does not have to judge those who are outside it. Ad quartum dicendum, quod pudicitia et aliae virtutes infidelium dicuntur non esse verae, quia non possunt pertingere ad finem verae virtutis, quae est vera felicitas; sicut dicitur non esse verum vinum quod non habet effectum vini. Reply Obj. 4: Purity and other virtues of unbelievers are said to be not true, because they cannot attain the end of true virtue, which is true happiness; just as something is said not to be true wine which does not have the effect of wine. Ad quintum dicendum, quod infidelis cognoscens uxorem suam, non peccat, si propter bonum prolis, aut fidei qua tenetur uxori, debitum reddat, cum hoc sit actus justitiae et temperantiae, quae in delectabilibus tactus debitas circumstantias servat; sicut non peccat faciens alios actus politicarum virtutum. Nec dicitur omnis vita infidelium peccatum, quia quolibet actu peccent; sed quia per id quod agunt, a servitute peccati non possunt liberari. Reply Obj. 5: An unbeliever who knows his wife does not sin, if, for the sake of the good of children or of the fidelity by which he is bound to his wife, he renders her the debt, since this would be an act of justice and temperance, which preserves the due circumstances in sensual delights, just as he does not sin by doing other acts of political virtue. Nor is the whole life of unbelievers a sin because they sin by every act they commit, but because they cannot be freed from slavery to sin by anything that they do. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum si alter conjugum infidelium convertatur ad fidem sine altero, possit in eodem matrimonio commanere If one of two unbelieving spouses should convert to the faith without the other, whether he may remain in the same marriage Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod conjux conversus ad fidem non possit commanere cum uxore infideli nolente converti, cum qua in infidelitate contraxerat. Ubi enim est idem periculum, debet eadem cautela adhiberi. Sed propter periculum subversionis fidei prohibetur ne fidelis cum infideli contrahat. Cum ergo idem periculum sit, si fidelis commaneat cum infideli, cum qua prius contraxerat, et adhuc majus, quia neophiti facilius pervertuntur quam illi qui sunt nutriti in fide; videtur quod fidelis post conversionem non possit commanere cum uxore infideli. Obj. 1: To the third question, we proceed thus. It seems that a husband who has converted to the faith cannot remain with an unbelieving wife who does not wish to convert, with whom he contracted during his unbelief. For where there is the same danger, the same precautions should be applied. But because of the danger of subversion of the faith, it is forbidden that a member of the faithful should contract with an unbeliever. Therefore, since there is the same danger if a member of the faithful remains with an unbeliever with whom he contracted before, and even more so, since neophytes are more easily subverted than those who are nourished in the faith; it seems that a member of the faithful cannot remain with an unbelieving wife after his conversion. Praeterea, causa 28, qu. 1, dicitur: non potest infidelis in ejus conjunctione permanere quae jam in Christianam translata est fidem. Ergo fidelis habet necesse uxorem infidelem dimittere. Obj. 2: Furthermore, in Case 28, Question 1, it says, an unbeliever cannot remain in a union with a woman who has already converted to the Christian faith. Therefore, a member of the faithful must necessarily send away an unbelieving wife. Praeterea, matrimonium quod inter fideles contrahitur, est perfectius quam illud quod contrahitur inter infideles. Sed si fideles contrahant in gradu prohibito ab Ecclesia, dissolvitur eorum matrimonium. Ergo et infidelium; et ita vir fidelis non potest commanere cum uxore infideli, ad minus quando cum ea in infidelitate contraxit in gradu prohibito. Obj. 3: Furthermore, a marriage that is contracted between members of the faithful is more perfect than one that is contracted between unbelievers. But if the faithful contract marriage in a degree [of consanguinity] prohibited by the Church, their marriage is dissolved. Therefore, also among unbelievers; and so a believing man cannot remain with an unbelieving wife, at least when he has contracted with her in a prohibited degree of consanguinity. Praeterea, aliquis infidelis habet quandoque plures uxores secundum ritum suae legis. Si ergo potest commanere cum illis cum quibus in infidelitate contraxit, videtur quod possit etiam post conversionem plures uxores retinere. Obj. 4: Furthermore, sometimes a certain unbeliever has multiple wives according to the rite of his own law. Therefore, if he can remain with the woman with whom he contracted in his unbelief, it seems that after his conversion he could also retain several wives.