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. Praeterea, potest contingere quod repudiata una uxore aliam duxerit, et in illo matrimonio existens convertatur. Ergo videtur quod saltem in hoc casu non possit cum uxore quam de novo habet, commanere. Obj. 5: Furthermore, it can happen that having divorced one wife, a man takes another, and while he remains in that marriage, he is converted. Therefore, it seems that at least in this case he cannot remain with his new wife. Sed contra est quod apostolus, 1 Corinth. 7, consulit quod commaneant. On the contrary (1), in 1 Corinthians 7:12, the Apostle counsels that they remain together. Praeterea, nullum impedimentum superveniens matrimonio, tollit ipsum. Sed matrimonium erat verum, cum uterque infidelis erat. Ergo quando alter convertitur, non dirimitur matrimonium per hoc; et ita videtur quod possint licite commanere. Furthermore (2), no impediment arising after marriage can destroy it. But the marriage was valid when both were unbelievers. Therefore, when one or the other is converted, the marriage is not invalidated by that fact; and so it seems that they can licitly remain together. Respondeo dicendum, quod fides ejus qui est in matrimonio, non solvit, sed perficit matrimonium. Unde cum inter infideles sit verum matrimonium, ut ex dictis patet, per hoc quod alter convertitur ad fidem, non ex hoc ipso vinculum matrimonii solvitur; sed aliquando, vinculo matrimonii manente, solvitur matrimonium quantum ad cohabitationem et debiti solutionem; in quo pari passu currunt infidelitas et adulterium, quia utrumque est contra bonum prolis. Unde sicut se habet in potestate dimittendi adulteram vel commanendi cum ea; ita se habet in potestate dimittendi infidelem vel commanendi cum ea. Potest enim vir innocens libere cum adultera commanere spe correctionis; non autem si in adulterii peccato fuerit obstinata, ne videatur patronus turpitudinis, ut supra, dist. 35, qu. 1, art. 2, dictum est, quamvis etiam cum spe correctionis possit eam libere dimittere. Similiter fidelis conversus potest cum infideli manere cum spe conversionis si eam in infidelitate obstinatam non viderit, et bene facit commanendo; tamen non tenetur; et de hoc est consilium apostoli. I answer that, the faith of the one who is in the marriage does not dissolve, but rather perfects the marriage. For this reason, since there is a valid marriage between unbelievers, as is clear from what has been said, the marriage bond is not dissolved by the fact that one converts to the faith. But sometimes, although the marriage bond endures, the marriage is dissolved as far as living together and rendering the debt are concerned; for unbelief and adultery parallel each other, for either one is against the good of children. Therefore, just as a man has the power to put away an adulterous wife or to remain with her, so also someone has the power of sending away an unbelieving wife or remaining with her. For an innocent man can freely remain with an adulterous wife in the hope of correction, but not if she was obstinate in the sin of adultery, or he might seem to approve her baseness, as was said above in Distinction 35, Question 1, Article 2; although he is also free to put her away with the hope of correction. In the same way, a believer who has converted can remain with an unbeliever in the hope of conversion, if he has not seen her obstinate in her unbelief, and he does well to remain. However, he is not bound to, and this is what the counsel of the Apostle concerns. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod facilius impeditur aliquid fiendum quam destruatur quod rite factum est; et ideo multa sunt quae impediunt matrimonium contrahendum, si praecedant, quae tamen ipsum non possunt dissolvere, si sequantur; sicut de affinitate patet; et similiter dicendum est de disparitate cultus. Reply Obj. 1: It is easier to prevent something from being done than to destroy what was done correctly; and therefore there are many things that impede marriage from being contracted, if they precede it, which nevertheless are not able to dissolve it, if they follow it, as is clear in the case of affinity; and the same thing is to be said of disparity of cult. Ad secundum dicendum, quod in primitiva Ecclesia tempore apostolorum passim convertebantur ad fidem et Judaei et gentiles; et ideo tunc vir fidelis poterat habere probabilem spem de conversione uxoris, etiam si conversionem non promitteret. Postmodum autem, tempore procedente, Judaei sunt magis obstinati, et gentes adhuc intrabant ad fidem; sicut tempore martyrum, et temporibus Constantini imperatoris, et circa tempora illa; et ideo tunc non erat tutum fideli cum uxore infideli Judaea cohabitare; nec erat spes de conversione ejus, sicut erat spes de conversione uxoris gentilis; et ideo tunc fidelis conversus poterat cohabitare cum gentili, sed non cum Judaea, nisi conversionem promitteret; et secundum hoc loquitur decretum illud. Sed nunc pari passu ambulant utrique, scilicet gentiles et Judaei, quia utrique obstinati sunt; et ideo nisi uxor infidelis converti velit, non permittitur ei cohabitare, sive sit gentilis, sive Judaea. Reply Obj. 2: In the primitive church at the time of the apostles, both Jews and gentiles were everywhere converted to the faith; and thus at that time a believing man could have probable hope of his wife’s conversion, even if she did not promise to convert. Afterward, however, as time went on, the Jews became more obstinate, and gentiles still entered the faith, as in the time of the martyrs, and the time of Emperor Constantine, and those times around then. And so at that time it was not safe for a believer to live together with an unbelieving Jewish wife; nor was there the same hope for her conversion as there was hope for the conversion of a gentile wife. And therefore, at that time a converted believer could live together with a gentile, but not with a Jewish wife, unless she promised to convert; and it is according to this that the decree speaks. But now both Jews and gentiles tread the same path, for both are obstinate; and therefore unless an unbelieving wife wants to convert, it is not permitted to live together with her, whether she be gentile or Jewish. Ad tertium dicendum, quod infideles non baptizati non sunt astricti statutis Ecclesiae, sed sunt astricti statutis juris divini; et ideo si contraxerint aliqui infideles in gradibus secundum legem divinam prohibitis, Levit. 18, sive uterque, sive alter ad fidem convertatur, non possunt in tali matrimonio commanere; si autem contraxerint in gradibus prohibitis per statutum Ecclesiae, possunt commanere, si uterque convertatur, vel si uno converso spes sit de conversione alterius. Reply Obj. 3: Unbaptized non-believers are not bound by the statutes of the Church, but they are bound by the statutes of divine law; and so if certain unbelievers had contracted in degrees prohibited by divine law in Leviticus 18, and either one or both had converted to the faith, they could not remain in such a marriage. If, however, they had contracted in degrees prohibited by the statute of the Church, they could remain together, if both converted, or if one converted and there was hope of the other’s conversion. Ad quartum dicendum, quod habere plures uxores est contra legem naturae, ut supra, dist. 33, qu. 1, art. 1, dictum est, cui etiam infideles sunt astricti; et ideo non est verum matrimonium infidelis, nisi cum illa cum qua primo contraxit. Unde si ipse cum omnibus suis uxoribus convertatur, potest cum prima cohabitare, et alias debet abjicere. Si autem prima converti noluerit, et aliqua aliarum convertatur, idem jus habet contrahendi cum illa de novo, quod cum alia haberet; de quo post dicetur. Reply Obj. 4: As was said above in Distinction 33, Question 1, article 1, to have many wives is against the law of nature, which unbelievers are also bound by. And therefore, the only valid marriage that an unbeliever has is with the woman with whom he first contracted. Thus, if he is converted with all of his wives, he can live together with the first, and he must abjure the others. But if the first refused to be converted, and some one of the others did convert, he has the same right to contract with her anew that he had of contracting with the other; and we will speak of this further on. Ad quintum dicendum, quod repudium uxoris, ut supra, dist. 33, dictum est, est contra legem naturae; unde non licet infideli uxorem repudiare. Et ideo si convertatur postquam una repudiata alteram duxit, idem judicium est de hoc, et de illo qui plures uxores habebat; quia tenetur primam quam repudiaverat, accipere, si converti voluerit, et aliam abjicere. Reply Obj. 5: Divorcing one’s wife is against the law of nature, as was said above in Distinction 33. And therefore it is not permitted to an unbeliever to divorce his wife. And so, if he is converted after he has divorced one wife and married another, the same judgment is made of him as of someone who had several wives. For he is bound to take back the first wife whom he divorced, if she wishes to convert, and to abjure the other. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum possit uxorem infidelem relinquere Whether one may leave an unbelieving wife Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fidelis conversus non possit uxorem infidelem dimittere, volentem cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris. Majus enim est vinculum viri ad mulierem quam servi ad dominum. Sed servus conversus non absolvitur a vinculo servitutis, ut patet 1 Cor. 7, et 1 Timoth. 6. Ergo et vir fidelis non potest uxorem infidelem dimittere. Obj. 1: To the fourth question, we proceed thus. It seems that a believer who has converted may not send away an unbelieving wife who wishes to live together without offense to the Creator. For the bond of a man to his wife is greater than that of a slave to his master. But a slave who has converted is not absolved of the bond of his servitude, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 7:21 and 1 Timothy 6. Therefore, neither can a believing man send away his unbelieving wife. Praeterea, nullus potest alteri praejudicium facere sine ejus consensu. Sed uxor infidelis habebat jus in corpore viri infidelis. Si ergo per hoc quod vir ad fidem convertitur, mulier praejudicium pati posset, ut libere dimitteretur; non posset vir converti ad fidem sine consensu uxoris, sicut nec potest ordinari, aut vovere continentiam, sine consensu uxoris. Obj. 2: Furthermore, no one can prejudice the good of another without that person’s consent. But an unbelieving wife had the right to the body of her unbelieving husband. Therefore, if by the fact that her husband converted to the faith the wife could suffer detriment, such that she might freely be sent away, then a man could not convert to the faith without his wife’s consent, as neither can he be ordained, or vow continence, without his wife’s consent. Praeterea, si aliquis contrahat cum ancilla scienter, sive sit servus sive liber, non potest propter diversam conditionem ipsam dimittere. Cum ergo vir quando contraxit cum infideli, sciverit eam esse infidelem; videtur a simili quod non possit eam propter infidelitatem dimittere. Obj. 3: Furthermore, if someone knowingly contracts with a slave-girl, whether he be a slave or a free man himself, he cannot put her away because of that very difference of condition. Therefore, since the man knew the woman to be an unbeliever when he contracted with her, it seems that by the same token he may not send her away because of her unbelief. Praeterea, pater tenetur ex debito procurare salutem prolis. Sed si discederet ab uxore infideli, filii communes matri remanerent, quia partus sequitur ventrem; et sic essent in periculo salutis. Ergo non potest uxorem infidelem licite dimittere. Obj. 4: Furthermore, a father is bound in duty to attend to the salvation of his children. But if he left his unbelieving wife, their sons would remain with their mother, for “birth follows the womb.” And thus their salvation would be in danger. Therefore, he cannot licitly send away an unbelieving wife.