D. 39 - On mixed marriages

After the Master has considered impediments to marriage that make a person ineligible for marriage simply speaking with respect to any other person, here he determines the impediment that makes someone ineligible for marriage with respect to certain persons, and not with respect to all. And this is divided into two parts. In the first he considers the impediment that makes a person ineligible in relation to some other person because of distance from her, namely, disparity of cult; (In canon law, the impediment to marriage between a baptized and non-baptized person is called “disparity of cult.” A mixed marriage is technically a marriage between a Catholic and baptized Christian of some other denomination, which is addressed in D39.Q1.A1, objection 5. Disparity of cult prevents a marriage from being contracted, while a mixed marriage is not permitted to be contracted, but once contracted remains valid.) in the second he considers the impediment that makes a person ineligible in relation to another person because of closeness to her, Distinction 40, where he says: now it remains to say something about relationship. (Sententiae IV, 40.1 (224). 1.)

The first part is in two parts: in the first he considers the marriage that exists in the disparity of cult between a member of the faithful and an unbeliever; in the second, the marriage that is between two unbelievers, saying there: yet there are some who say that there is no marriage between infidels. (Sent. IV, 39.6 (222). 1.)

The first part of this is divided into two parts: in the first he shows that disparity of cult preceding marriage impedes it from being contracted, and invalidates the contract; in the second he objects to the contrary, saying there: but this seems to be contradicted by what the Apostle says concerning unequal marriages. (Sent. IV, 39.2 (218). 1.) And this is divided into two parts: in the first he raises an objection from the words of the Apostle; in the second, he resolves it, saying there: but Augustine clearly shows that “this is one thing, and that is another.” (Sent. IV, 39.2 (218). 2, Augustine, De adulterinis coniugiis, bk 1 c21 nn25–26.)

And concerning this he does three things: first he shows that the word of the Apostle, namely, that a believer has the power of remaining together or not remaining together with an unbeliever, is understood concerning the disparity of cult that follows matrimony; second, he inquires whether a wife can be sent away on account of other sins, like unbelief, where he says: but if you ask whether dismissal is possible for any vice other than rejection of the faith or idolatry, see what Augustine says; (Sent. IV, 39.4 (220). 1.) third, he inquires whether a member of the faithful who puts away his non-believing wife may marry another, here saying: here it is asked, whether, if a believer dismisses an unbeliever, or the unbeliever departs from the believer, it is lawful for the believer to marry another. (Sent. IV, 39.5 (221). 1.)

And concerning this he does three things: first he cites the authority for the negative side; second, for the affirmative, where he says: on the contrary, Ambrose attests; (Sent. IV, 39.5 (221). 3.) third, he resolves it, saying: note that this seems to contradict what was set out earlier. (Sent. IV, 39.5 (221). 4.)

Question 1

Disparity of cult

Here six questions arise:

first, whether a member of the faithful may contract marriage with an unbeliever;

• second, whether marriage exists between unbelievers;
• third, if one of two unbelieving spouses should convert to the faith without the other, whether he may remain in the same marriage;
• fourth, whether one may leave an unbelieving wife;
• fifth, whether, having put her away, one may marry another;
• sixth, whether a man may put away his wife because of other sins, as for unbelief.
• Article 1

Whether a member of the faithful may contract marriage with an unbeliever

Obj. 1: To the first question, we proceed thus. (Parallel: Super I Cor. 7, lec. 2.) 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. (See Genesis 41:45 and Esther 2:16–18.) 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.

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.

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. (See Gratian, Decretals, pt. 2, cause 28, q. 1, can. 16.) Therefore, under the same condition a marriage can be contracted between them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: (See Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:2–3.) 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. (See Genesis 41:45, Numbers 12:1, and Esther 2:16.) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Article 2

Whether marriage exists between unbelievers

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.

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.

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. (In the first article.) Therefore, at least between unbelievers who have disparate religions there cannot be valid marriage.

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. (Augustine, De adulterinis coniugiis, Bk. 1, ch. 18 (CSEL 41:367).) Therefore, it is not a true marriage.

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. (Glossa ordinaria (VI, 30 B); Glossa Lombardi (PL 191:1520); cf. Prosper of Aquitaine, Sent., sent. 106 (PL 51:441).) Therefore, there is no valid marriage between unbelievers.

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.

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.

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.

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. (Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 4, tit. 19, ch. 8, ‘Gaudemus.’)

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.

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. (See 1 Corinthians 5:12–13.)

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.

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.

Article 3

If one of two unbelieving spouses should convert to the faith without the other, whether he may remain in the same marriage

Obj. 1: To the third question, we proceed thus. (Parallel: Super I Cor. 7, lec. 2.) 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.

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. (Gratian, Decretals, pt. 2, cause 28, q. 1, can. 10.) Therefore, a member of the faithful must necessarily send away an unbelieving wife.

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.

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.

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.

On the contrary (1), in 1 Corinthians 7:12, the Apostle counsels that they remain together.

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.

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, (In the preceding article.) 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. (See Gratian, Decretals, pt. 2, cause 28, q. 1, can. 5.) 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. (Namely, in 1 Corinthians 7:12. See Gratian, Decretals, pt. 2, cause 28, q. 1, can. 8 and can. 9; Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 4, tit. 19, ch. 8, ‘Gaudemus.’)

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.

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.

Reply Obj. 3: Unbaptized non-believers are not bound by the statutes of the Church, (See Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 4, tit. 19, ch. 8, ‘Gaudemus.’) 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, (Ibid.) if both converted, or if one converted and there was hope of the other’s conversion.

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. (Ibid.) 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. (In article 5.)

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. (See Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 4, tit. 19, ch. 8, ‘Gaudemus.’)

Article 4

Whether one may leave an unbelieving wife

Obj. 1: To the fourth question, we proceed thus. (Parallel: Super I Cor. 7, lec. 2.) 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.

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.

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. (See Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 4, tit. 9, ch. 4, ‘Ad nostram.’) 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.

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.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, an adulterous man cannot put away an adulterous woman, even after he has done penance for the adultery. Therefore, if the same judgment be made of the adulterer and the unbeliever, (See Gratian, Decretals, pt. 2, cause 27, q. 1, can. 5.) then neither may an unbeliever send away an unbeliever, even after he has converted to the faith.

On the contrary (1), there is what the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

Furthermore (2), spiritual adultery is graver than carnal adultery. But because of carnal adultery, a man can cease to live with his wife. Therefore, even more so because of unbelief, which is spiritual adultery.

I answer that, different things are fitting and expedient for a man according to one life than according to another. And so one who dies to the first life is not bound to those things that he was bound to in the first life; and so it happens that a man who vows certain things while living a secular life is not bound to fulfill those things when he dies to the world by assuming religious life. But someone who receives baptism is regenerated in Christ and dies to the previous life, since the generation of one is the corruption of the other. And thus he is freed from the obligation by which he is bound to render the debt to his wife, and he is not bound to live with her if he does not wish, once he has converted, although in some cases he might freely do so, as was said; just as a religious might freely fulfill vows he made while in the world, if they are not against his religious life, although he is not bound to fulfill them, as was said in the preceding distinction.

Reply Obj. 1: To be a slave is not something incompatible with the perfection of the Christian religion, which professes the greatest humility. But the obligation of marriage detracts something from Christian perfection, whose highest state of life is possessed by those who are continent. And thus the two things are not similar. And furthermore one spouse is not obliged to the other like his possession, as a slave is to his master, but in the mode of a partner of sorts, which is not a suitable way for a believer to relate to an unbeliever, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 7; (See rather 2 Corinthians 6:14ff.) and therefore what concerns a slave and a spouse are not the same.

Reply Obj. 2: The wife did not have the right to the body of her husband except for as long as he remained in that life in which he had contracted with her; for also when a husband dies, the wife is freed from the rule of her husband, as is clear from Romans 7:2. And therefore, if after a man changes life, dying to his previous life, he should go away from her, no detriment is done to her. But by entering religious life, he dies only a spiritual death, but not a bodily one. And so, if the marriage has been consummated, a man cannot enter religious life without the consent of his wife. But he can before the physical union, when there is only a spiritual union. But someone who receives baptism is buried in death with Christ, even bodily; and thus he is also absolved from rendering the debt even after the marriage is consummated. Or it can be said that the wife who holds the convert in contempt suffers detriment by her own fault.

Reply Obj. 3: Disparity of cult makes a person incapable of marriage simply speaking, but the condition of servitude does not, except when it is unknown; (See Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 4, tit. 9, ch. 4, ‘Ad nostram.’) and so there is not the same reasoning about an unbeliever as about a slave-girl.

Reply Obj. 4: The children have either arrived at the age of maturity, and then are able to freely follow either their believing father or their unbelieving mother; or else they are considered to be in the age of minority, and then they should be given to the believing parent, notwithstanding that their mother’s submission is necessary for their education. (See Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 3, tit. 33, ch. 2, ‘Ex litteris.’)

Reply Obj. 5: An adulterer does not embark upon another life by penance, as an unbeliever does by baptism; and thus the argument is not similar.

Article 5

Whether, having put his wife away, one may marry another

Obj. 1: To the fifth question, we proceed thus. (Parallel: Super I Cor. 7, lec. 3.) It seems that a believer who leaves his unbelieving wife may not take another wife. For the indissolubility of marriage comes from its very nature, since the divorce of one’s wife is against the law of nature, as was said above in Distinction 33, Question 1, Article 1. But between unbelievers there was a valid marriage. Therefore, in no way can that marriage be dissolved. But as long as the bond of marriage to one person remains, a person cannot contract with another. Therefore, a believer who leaves cannot contract with another.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, crime happening during the marriage does not dissolve marriage. But if the wife wishes to live together without affront to the Creator, the bond of marriage is not dissolved; for the man cannot take another wife. Therefore, the sin of the wife who does not wish to live together without affront to the Creator does not dissolve marriage such that a man might take another wife.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, man and wife are equals in the marriage bond. Therefore, since it is not permitted to an unbelieving wife to take another husband while her first husband is still alive, it seems that neither should it be permitted to the believing man.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, a vow of continence is more favorable than a contract of marriage. But as it seems, it is not permitted for the believing husband of an unbelieving wife to take a vow of continence: for then the wife is defrauded of her marriage, if afterward she should be converted. Therefore, much less is it permitted for him to contract marriage with another.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, a son who remains in unbelief once his father has converted loses the right of paternal inheritance; and nevertheless, if afterward he converts, his inheritance is restored to him, even if another person has come into possession of it. Therefore, it seems that similarly, if the wife of a believer converts afterward, her own husband is to be restored to her, even if he has since contracted with another; which could not be the case, if the second marriage were valid. Therefore he cannot contract with another.

On the contrary (1), marriage is not ratified without the sacrament of baptism. (See Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 4, tit. 19, ch. 7, ‘Quanto te.’) But what is not ratified can be dissolved. Therefore, marriage contracted in unbelief can be dissolved; and thus once the marriage bond is dissolved, it is permitted for a man to take another wife.

Furthermore (2), a man should not live together with an unbelieving wife who does not wish to live together without affront to the Creator. If therefore it were not permitted to him to take another wife, he would be forced to keep continence, which seems unfitting, for it would mean that his conversion worked to his own disadvantage.

I answer that, when one spouse is converted to the faith, while the other remains in unbelief, a distinction must be made. For if the unbeliever wishes to live together without affront to the Creator, or without provoking the other to unbelief, the believer can freely leave, but he cannot marry another. But if the unbeliever, breaking forth in words of blasphemy and refusing to hear the name of Christ, does not wish to live together without affront to the Creator, then if she should endeavor to bring him back to unbelief, the believing husband can leave and be united with another in marriage. (See Gratian, Decretals, pt. 2, cause 28, q. 2, can. 2; Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 4, tit. 19, ch. 7, ‘Quanto te’ and ch. 8, ‘Gaudemus.’)

Reply Obj. 1: The marriage of unbelievers is incomplete, as was said in Article 2 of this question. But the marriage of believers is complete, and as such it is firmer. But the stronger bond always dissolves the less strong, if it be at odds with it. And thus the marriage that is contracted afterward in the faith of Christ dissolves the marriage that had been contracted first in unbelief. For which reason, marriage of unbelievers is not absolutely firm and ratified. But it is ratified afterward by faith in Christ.

Reply Obj. 2: The crime of a wife who refuses to live together without affront to the Creator absolves the man of the servitude by which he was bound to his wife which prevented his marrying another while she lived. But it still does not dissolve the marriage: for if the blasphemous one were converted before he had contracted another marriage, her husband would be restored to her; (See Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 4, tit. 19, ch. 8, ‘Gaudemus.’) but it is dissolved by the subsequent marriage, which the believing man could not enter upon if he were not freed from servitude to his wife by her own fault.

Reply Obj. 3: After the believer contracted, the bond of marriage was cut loose from both sides: for marriage cannot limp on one foot with regard to the bond, but sometimes it does limp as regards the effect. (See Glossa ordin. in Decretum, pt. 2, cause 28, q. 2, can. 2, ‘Si infidelis’ (II, 1449b).) For this reason it is appointed that the unbelieving wife may not contract with another, more in penalty to her than from the strength of the preceding marriage. But if afterward she should convert, a dispensation can be granted to her to marry another, if her husband has taken another wife.

Reply Obj. 4: If after the conversion of the man there should be some probable hope of the conversion of his wife, the man cannot take a vow of continence, nor may he enter upon another marriage: for it would be more difficult for the wife to be converted if she knew that she had lost her husband. But if there were no hope of her conversion, he could enter religious life or holy orders, after having asked his wife to convert. And then after the man has received holy orders, if the wife should convert, her husband would not be restored to her; but it should be imputed to her as a penalty for her late conversion that she has been deprived of her husband.

Reply Obj. 5: The bond of paternity is not dissolved by disparity of cult, as the bond of marriage is; and therefore it is not the same concerning one’s inheritance and one’s wife.

Article 6

Whether a man may put away his wife because of other sins, as for unbelief

Obj. 1: To the sixth question, we proceed thus. (Parallel: above, d. 35, q. 1, ad 3.) It seems that other vices dissolve marriage, just as unbelief does. For adultery seems to be more directly opposed to marriage than unbelief. But unbelief in some cases dissolves the marriage, such that one is permitted to enter upon another marriage. Therefore, adultery also does the same thing.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as unbelief is a spiritual fornication, (Gratian, Decretals, pt. 2, cause 28, q. 1, can. 5.) so is any other kind of sin. Therefore, if unbelief, which is a spiritual fornication, dissolves marriage on this account, any other sin would dissolve marriage by the same reasoning.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, it says in Matthew 5:30, if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it from you; and it says in the Gloss that ’hand’ and ‘right eye’ can be taken as meaning brothers, wife, neighbors, and children. (Glossa ordin. (V, 21 B); cf. Jerome, On Matthew, Bk. 1, on 5:29 (PL 26:40).) But they become an impediment to us by any sort of sin. Therefore, marriage can be dissolved because of any sin.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, avarice is an idolatry, as it says in Ephesians 5:5. But because of idolatry a woman can be put away. Therefore, by the same reasoning she can be put away on account of avarice, and in the same way because of other sins, which are greater than avarice.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, the Master expressly says this in the text.

On the contrary (1), it says in Matthew 5:32: whoever puts away his wife, except because of fornication, commits adultery.

Furthermore (2), according to this, separations would be happening every day, for a marriage is rare in which one of the spouses or the other has not fallen into sin.

I answer that, bodily fornication and unbelief are especially contrary to the goods of marriage, as can be seen from what has been said, which is why they especially possess the force to separate marriages. But nevertheless it must be understood that a marriage is dissolved in one of two ways. In one way, on the part of the bond, and in this way it cannot be dissolved after the marriage has been ratified, neither by unbelief nor by adultery. But if it is not ratified, the bond is dissolved if the one of the spouses persists in unbelief and the other, who has converted, enters a new union. But the bond is not dissolved by adultery; otherwise an unbeliever could easily give a writ of divorce to an adulterous wife, and once she is put away he could marry another; which is false. In another way, marriage is dissolved as to its act; and in this way it can be dissolved both by unbelief and by physical fornication, as was said above in Distinction 35. But marriage cannot be dissolved on account of other sins, even as to its act, unless perhaps the man wishes to remove himself for a time from the company of his wife for her reproof, by removing the comfort of his presence from her.

Reply Obj. 1: Although adultery is more directly opposed to marriage than unbelief is, insofar as marriage is an office of nature, yet the reverse is true insofar as marriage is a sacrament of the Church, from which it gains complete firmness, insofar as it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the Church. And thus a marriage that is not ratified can be dissolved more easily by unbelief than by adultery, as to its bond.

Reply Obj. 2: The first union of the soul to God is by faith; and thus the soul is espoused, as it were, to God, as is clear from Hosea 2:20: I will espouse you to me in faith. For which reason, in Sacred Scripture idolatry and unbelief are particularly designated by ‘fornication’; but other sins are called spiritual fornications by a more remote signification.

Reply Obj. 3: This is to be understood as applying when a woman presents a great occasion of sin to her husband, so that he has a probable fear of danger to himself. For then a man can remove himself from interaction with her, as was said.

Reply Obj. 4: Avarice is called idolatry by a certain similarity of slavery, for both the greedy man and the idolater would rather serve a created thing than the Creator, but not by the likeness of unbelief; for the corruption of unbelief is in the intellect, but avarice resides in the affections.

Reply Obj. 5: The words of the master are to be taken as concerning betrothed couples, for a betrothal can be broken because of sins committed afterward. Or if we should speak of marriage, it is to be understood about a separation for a time from shared interaction, as was said, or when the wife does not wish to live together unless under a sinful condition, as when she says, “I will not be your wife unless you acquire wealth for me by stealing,” for then he should rather put her away than engage in theft.

Exposition of the Text

“Or a foreigner, that is, a heretic.” (Sententiae IV, 39.1 (217). 3, Ambrose, De Abraham patriarcha, bk 1 c9 n84.) The sin of heresy always impedes marriage from being contracted, but it does not invalidate the contract, unless she were a heretic of such a kind that she did not accept the sacrament of baptism, or was not baptized in the form of the Church.

“But if both should believe, their marriage is approved by their acknowledgment of God.” (Sent. IV, 39.5 (221). 3, Ambrosiaster, In Epistolas sancti Pauli, 1 Cor. 7, 15.) But to the contrary. If a woman had fornicated before her conversion, her husband is bound to take her back, if he also wanted to convert, as it seems. And it must be said that if a woman who has converted seeks out her husband, who has converted, the man cannot hold it against her that she had formerly committed fornication, if he himself gave her the occasion for fornicating; for example, if he refused to live together with her, and she wanted to live together without affront to the Creator. Otherwise he could take exception; and nevertheless the marriage is ratified, so that it may no longer be dissolved on the part of the bond, such that the man would be allowed to take another wife, although it might be dissolved as to the act.