Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 61 [<< | >>]
St. Thomas Aquinas
The Summa Theologica
OF THE IMPEDIMENT TO MARRIAGE,
ARISING FROM A SOLEMN VOW (THREE ARTICLES)
We must next consider the
impediments which supervene to marriage. We shall consider (1) the impediment which
affects an unconsummated marriage, namely a solemn vow: (2) the impediment which affects a
consummated marriage, namely fornication. Under the first head there are three points of
inquiry:
(1)
Whether either party after the marriage has been consummated can enter religion without
the other's consent?
(2)
Whether they can enter religion before the consummation of the marriage?
(3)
Whether the wife can take another husband if her former husband has entered religion
before the consummation of the marriage?
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 61 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Whether one party after the
marriage has been consummated can enter religion without the other's consent?
Objection 1: It would seem that even
after the marriage has been consummated one consort can enter religion without the other's
consent. For the Divine law ought to be more favorable to spiritual things than human law.
Now human law has allowed this. Therefore much more should the Divine law permit it.
Objection 2: Further, the lesser good does not hinder the greater. But the married state is a lesser good than the religious state, according to 1 Cor. 7:38. Therefore marriage ought not to hinder a man from being able to enter religion.
Objection 3: Further, in every form
of religious life there is a kind of spiritual marriage. Now it is lawful to pass from a
less strict religious order to one that is stricter. Therefore it is also allowable to
pass from a less strict---namely a carnal---marriage to a stricter marriage, namely that
of the religious life, even without the wife's consent.
On the contrary, Married persons are
forbidden (1 Cor. 7:5) to abstain from the
use of marriage even for a time without one another's consent, in order to have time for
prayer.
Further, no one can lawfully do that
which is prejudicial to another without the latter's consent. Now the religious vow taken
by one consort is prejudicial to the other, since the one has power over the other's body.
Therefore one of them cannot take a religious vow without the other's consent.
I answer that, No one can make an
offering to God of what belongs to another. Wherefore since by a consummated marriage the
husband's body already belongs to his wife, he cannot by a vow of continence offer it to
God without her consent.
Reply to Objection 1: Human law
considers marriage merely as fulfilling an office of nature: whereas the Divine law
considers it as a sacrament, by reason of which it is altogether indissoluble. Hence the
comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: It is not
unreasonable that a greater good be hindered by a lesser which is contrary to it, just as
good is hindered by evil.
Reply to Objection 3: In every form
of religious life marriage is contracted with one person, namely Christ; to Whom, however,
a person contracts more obligations in one religious order than in another. But in carnal
marriage and religious marriage the contract is not with the same person: wherefore that
comparison fails.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 61 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Whether before the marriage has
been consummated one consort can enter religion without the other's consent?
Objection 1: It would seem that even
before the marriage has been consummated one consort cannot enter religion without the
other's consent. For the indissolubility of marriage belongs to the sacrament of
matrimony, inasmuch, namely, as it signifies the union of Christ with the Church. Now
marriage is a true sacrament before its consummation, and after consent has been expressed
in words of the present. Therefore it cannot be dissolved by one of them entering
religion.
Objection 2: Further, by virtue of
the consent expressed in words of the present, the one consort has given power over his
body to the other. Therefore the one can forthwith ask for the marriage debt, and the
other is bound to pay: and so the one cannot enter religion without the other's consent.
Objection 3: Further, it is said (Mt. 19:6): "What God hath
joined together let no man put asunder." But the union which precedes marital
intercourse was made by God. Therefore it cannot be dissolved by the will of man.
On the contrary, According to Jerome
[*Prolog. in Joan.] our Lord called John from his wedding.
I answer that, Before marital
intercourse there is only a spiritual bond between husband and wife, but afterwards there
is a carnal bond between them. Wherefore, just as after marital intercourse marriage is
dissolved by carnal death, so by entering religion the bond which exists before the
consummation of the marriage is dissolved, because religious life is a kind of spiritual
death, whereby a man dies to the world and lives to God.
Reply to Objection 1: Before
consummation marriage signifies the union of Christ with the soul by grace, which is
dissolved by a contrary spiritual disposition, namely mortal sin. But after consummation
it signifies the union of Christ with the Church, as regards the assumption of human
nature into the unity of person, which union is altogether indissoluble.
Reply to Objection 2: Before
consummation the body of one consort is not absolutely delivered into the power of the
other, but conditionally, provided neither consort meanwhile seek the fruit of a better
life. But by marital intercourse the aforesaid delivery is completed, because then each of
them enters into bodily possession of the power transferred to him. Wherefore also before
consummation they are not bound to pay the marriage debt forthwith after contracting
marriage by words of the present, but a space of two months is allowed them for three
reasons. First that they may deliberate meanwhile about entering religion; secondly, to
prepare what is necessary for the solemnization of the wedding. thirdly, lest the husband
think little of a gift he has not longed to possess (cap. Institutum, caus. xxvi, qu. ii).
Reply to Objection 3: The marriage
union, before consummation, is indeed perfect as to its primary being, but is not finally
perfect as to its second act which is operation. It is like bodily possession and
consequently is not altogether indissoluble.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 61 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Whether the wife may take another
husband if her husband has entered religion before the consummation of the marriage?
Objection 1: It would seem that the
wife may not take another husband, if her husband has entered religion before the
consummation of the marriage. For that which is consistent with marriage does not dissolve
the marriage tie. Now the marriage tie still remains between those who equally take
religious vows. Therefore by the fact that one enters religion, the other is not freed
from the marriage tie. But as long as she remains tied to one by marriage, she cannot
marry another. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, after entering
religion and before making his profession the husband can return to the world. If then the
wife can marry again when her husband enters religion, he also can marry again when he
returns to the world: which is absurd.
Objection 3: Further, by a new decree
(cap. Non solum, de regular. et transeunt.) a profession, if made before the expiry of a
year, is accounted void. Therefore if he return to his wife after making such a
profession, she is bound to receive him. Therefore neither by her husband's entry into
religion, nor by his taking a vow, does the wife receive the power to marry again.
On the contrary, No one can bind
another to those things which belong to perfection. Now continence is of those things that
belong to perfection. Therefore a wife is not bound to continence on account of her
husband entering religion, and consequently she can marry.
I answer that, Just as bodily death
of the husband dissolves the marriage tie in such a way that the wife may marry whom she
will, according to the statement of the Apostle (1 Cor. 7:39); so too after the
husband's spiritual death by entering religion, she can marry whom she will.
Reply to Objection 1: When both
consorts take a like vow of continence, neither renounces the marriage tie, wherefore it
still remains: but when only one takes the vow, then for his own part he renounces the
marriage tie, wherefore the other is freed therefrom.
Reply to Objection 2: A person is not
accounted dead to the world by entering religion until he makes his profession, and
consequently his wife is bound to wait for him until that time.
Reply to Objection 3: We must judge
of a profession thus made before the time fixed by law, as of a simple vow. Wherefore just
as when the husband has taken a simple vow his wife is not bound to pay him the marriage
debt, and yet has not the power to marry again, so is it in this case.
Electronic Format and
Graphics Copyright © by The Kolbe Foundation August 14, 1999 |
 |
|
www.kolbefoundation.org |