From the Supplement, compiled after Aquinas’s death from his Commentary on the Sentences and transcribed here from the 1917 to 1922 printings. About the Supplement.
Text: Summa Theologiae, Supplement to the Third Part (Supplementum Tertiae Partis), transcribed from Internet Archive scans, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. The Supplement, compiled after Aquinas’s death from his earlier Commentary on the Sentences, in the same English Dominican translation as the Gutenberg Parts. Transcribed by Bibliotheca Catholica from the OCR of four Internet Archive scans of the pre-1931 printings (Questions 1 to 33 from the 1917 Washbourne and Benziger volume, 34 to 68 from the 1922 volume, 69 to 86 from the 1921 volume, and 87 to 99 from the 1922 Benziger volume), with OCR errors corrected and doubtful passages marked, not rewritten. 99 questions and 446 articles. The two appendices printed after Question 99 are not included. Sources, SHA-256 of each OCR file, and the method are in the source record. Rights: Public domain (US)
The Supplement is not a Project Gutenberg text. It is Bibliotheca Catholica’s transcription of public-domain scans at the Internet Archive; obvious OCR errors were corrected, and passages marked “OCR uncertain” could not be confidently corrected, so check them against the linked scan page.
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 favourable to spiritual things than human law. Now human law has allowed this. Therefore much more should the Divine law permit it.
Obj. 2: Further, The lesser good does not hinder the greater. But the married state is a lesser good than the religious state, according to i Cor. vii. 38. Therefore marriage ought not to hinder a man from being able to enter religion.
Obj. 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 (i Cor. vii. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 the comparison fails.
_______________________
Also online, linked only: the same translation at New Advent and the Latin text at Corpus Thomisticum. Neither is copied here.