Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/80

 DIVORCE

56

DIVORCE

n. 7; Palniieri, " De matrimonio christ.", Rome, 1880, 133 sqq.; Wernz, "Jus decretalium", IV, n. 696, not. 12; etc.). This second opinion maintains and must maintain that the expression "for some uncleanness" (in Helirew -\21 ni"iv5 does not mean any shght cause, but a grievous stain, something shameful directed against the purpose of marriage or marital fidelity. A separation at will, and for slight reasons, at the pleasure of the husband, is against the primary prin- ciples of the natural moral law, and is not subject to Divine dispensation in such a way that it could be made hcit in every case. It is different with separ- ation in serious cases governed bj' special laws. This, indeed, does not correspond perfectly with the secondary purposes of marriage, but on that account it is subject to Divine dispensation, since the inconvenience to be feared from such a separation can be corrected or avoided by Divine Providence. In the time of Christ there was an acute controversy between the recent, lax school of Ilillel and the strict, conservative school of Schammai about the meaning of the phrase ^3^ nnV- Hence the question with which the Pharisees tempted Our Lord; "Is it lawful . . . for every cause? " The putting-away of the wife for frivolous reasons had been sharply con- demned by God through the Prophets Micheas (ii, 9) and Malachias (ii, 14), but in later days it became very prevalent. Christ abolished entirely the per- mission which Moses had granted, even though this permission was strictly limited; He allowed a cause similar to the "im niljj as reason for piitting away the wife, but not for the dissolution of the marriage bond. 3. The Dogmatic Basis and Practical Application of the Complete Indissolubiliti/ of Consummated Marriage within the Catlwlic Church. — (a) Its Foundation in Scripture. — The complete exclusion of absolute divorce {dimrtium perfectum) in Christian marriage is expressed in the words quoted above (Mark, x; Luke, xvi; I Cor., vii). The words in St. Mat- thew's Gospel (xix, 9), "except it be for fornica- tion", have, however, given rise to the question whether the putting-away of the wife and the dis- solution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery. The Catholic Chvirch and Cath- olic theology have always maintained that by such an explanation St. JIatthew would be made to contradict Sts. Mark, Luke, and Paul, and the converts instructed by these latter would have been brought into error in regard to the real doctrine of Christ. As this is in- consistent both with the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, the clause in Matthew 7?(Hs< be explained as the mere dis- missal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of the marriage bond. Such a dismissal is not excluded by the parallel texts in Mark and Luke, while Paul (I Cor., vii, 11) clearly indicates the possibility of such a dismissal: " And it she depart, that she remain un- married, or be reconciled to her husband". Gram- matically, the clause in St. Matthew may modify one member of the sentence (that which refers to the put- ting-away of the wife) without applying to the follow- ing member (the remarriage of the other), though we must admit that the construction is a little harsh. If it means, " Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commit^ eth adultery", then, in case of marital infidelity, the wife may be put away; but that, in this case, adultery is not committetl by a new marriage cannot be con- cludeil from these words. The following words, ".\nil he that sliall marry her that is put away" — therefoi-e also the woman who is dismissed for adul- tery — " cominitteth adultery", .say the contrary, since tlicy suppo.se the permanence of the first marriage. Moreover, the brevity of expression in Matthew, xix, 9, which seems to us harsh, is explicable, because the Evangelist had previously given a distinct explana- tion of the same subject, and exactly laid down what

was justified by the reason of fornication: "Whoso- ever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Matt., v, 32). Here all excuse for remar- riage or for the dissolution of the first marriage is ex- cluded. Even the mere dismissal of the wife, if this is done unjustly, exposes her to the danger of adultery and is thus attributed to the husband who has dis- missed her — "he maketh her to commit adultery". It is only in the case of marital infidelity that com- plete dismissal is justified — "excepting for the cause of fornication". In this case not he, but the wife who has been lawfully dismissed, is the occasion, and she will therefore be responsible shoulil she commit further sin. It must also be remarked that even for Matthew, xix, 9, there is a variant reading supported by important codices, which has " maketh her to commit adultery" instead of the expression "com- mitteth adultery". This reading answers the diffi- culty more clearly. (Cf. Ivnabenbauer, "Comment, in Matt.", II, 144.)

Catholic exegesis is unanimous in excluding the per- missibility of absolute divorce from Matthew, xix, but the exact explanation of the expressions, " except it be for fornication" and "excepting for the cause of for- nication", has given rise to various opinions. Does it mean the violation of marital fidelity, or a crime com- mitted before marriage, or a diriment impediment? (See Palmieri, "De matrim. clirist.", 178 sqq.; Sasse, "De sacramentis", II, 418 sqq.) Some have tried to answer the difficulty by casting doubt on the authen- ticity of the entire phrase of Matthew, xix, but the words are in general fully vouched for by the most reliable codices. Also, the greater number, and the best, have "committeth adultery". (See ICnaben- bauer, loc. cit., and Schanz, " Kommentar iiber das Evang. d. hi. Matth.", 191, 409.) That absolute divorce is never allowable is therefore clear from Scrip- ture, but the argument is cogent only for a con- summated marriage. For Clirist founds His law on the words: "They two shall be in one flesh", which are verified only in consummated marriage. How far divorce is excluded, or can be allowed, before the con- summation of the marriage must be derived from other sources.

(b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice. — The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church. The testimo- nies of the Fathers and of the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon a new marriage in case death intervenes.

We read in Hermas (about the year 150), " Pastor", mand. IV, i, 6: "Let him put her [the adulterous wife] away and let the husband abide alone; but if after putting away his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery" (ed. Funk, 1901). The expression in verse 8, " For the sake of her re- pentance, therefore, the husband ought not to marry", does not weaken the absolute command, but it gives the supposed reason of this great com- mand. St. Justin Martyr (tl. 17(i) says (.\polog., I, XV, in P. G., VI, 349), plainly and without exception: "He that marrietli lier that has been put away by another man committeth adultery." In like manner Athenagoras (about 177) in his "Legatio pro christ.", xxxiii (P. G., VI, 965): "For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committeth adulter\'"; TertuUian (d. 247), " De monogamia ", c. ix (P. 'L., II. 991): "They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put awaj' their wives;