Bibliotheca Catholicaa library of libraries
Support
Summa Theologiae · Suppl., q. 67, a. 6

Whether the reason for divorce was hatred for the wife?

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, question 67, Of the Bill of Divorce, article 6. About 3 min.

Read in the reading room → This article at New Advent

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.

One passage on this page is marked “OCR uncertain”; check it against the scan.

Objection 1: It would seem that the reason for divorce was hatred for the wife. For it is written (Mai. ii. 16): When thou shalt hate her put her away. Therefore, etc.

Obj. 2: Further, It is written (Deut. xxiv. 1): If... she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness, etc. Therefore the same conclusion follows as before.

Obj. 3: On the contrary, Barrenness and fornication are more opposed to marriage than hatred. Therefore they ought to have been reasons for divorce rather than hatred.

Obj. 4: Further, Hatred may be caused by the virtue of the person hated. Therefore, if hatred is a sufficient reason, a woman could be divorced on account of her virtue, which is absurd.

Obj. 5: Further, If a man marry a wife and afterwards hate her, and seek occasions to put her away"^ alleging that she was not a virgin when he married her, should he fail to prove this, he shall be beaten, and shall be condemned in a hundred sides of silver, and he shall be unable to put her away all the days of his life (Deut. xxii. 13-19). Therefore hatred is not a sufficient reason for divorce. [OCR uncertain: away"^. Check the scan, image 380.]

I answer that, It is the general opinion of holy men that the reason for permission being given to divorce a wife was the avoidance of wife-murder. Now the proximate cause of murder is hatred: wherefore the proximate cause of divorce was hatred. But hatred proceeds, like love, from a cause. Wherefore we must assign to divorce certain remote causes which were a cause of hatred. For Augustine says in his gloss (De Serm. Dom. in Monte, i. 14): In the Law there were many causes for divorcing a wife: Christ admitted none but fornication: and He commands other grievances to be borne for conjugal fidelity and chastity. Such causes are imperfections either of body, as sickness or some notable deformity,

♦ The rest of the passage is apparently quoted from mem ory.

I"- 5 24 or in soul, as fornication or the like which amounts to moral depravity. Some, however, restrict these causes within narrower limits, saying with sufficient probability that it was not lawful to divorce a wife except for some cause subsequent to the marriage; and that not even then could it be done for any such cause, but only for such as could hinder the good of the offspring, whether in body as barrenness, or leprosy and the like, or in soul, for instance if she were a woman of wicked habits which her children through continual contact with her would imitate. There is however a gloss on Deut. xxiv. 1, If.., she find not favour in his eyes, which would seem to restrict them yet more, namely to sin, by saying that there uncleanness denotes sin: but sin in the gloss refers not only to the morality of the soul but also to the condition of the body. Accordingly we grant the first two objections.

Reply Obj. 3: Barrenness and other like things are causes of hatred, and so they are remote causes of divorce.

Reply Obj. 4: No one is hateful on account of virtue as such, because goodness is the cause of love. Wherefore the argument does not hold.

Reply Obj. 5: The husband was punished in that case by being unable to put away his wife for ever, just as in the case when he had corrupted a maid (Deut. xxii. 28-30).

_______________________

Also online, linked only: the same translation at New Advent and the Latin text at Corpus Thomisticum. Neither is copied here.

Source: Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part. Internet Archive scans: Third Part, Fourth Number (QQ. LXXXIV to Suppl. XXXIII), 1917, Third Part (Supplement), QQ. XXXIV to LXVIII, 1922, Third Part (Supplement), QQ. LXIX to LXXXVI, 1921, and Third Part (Supplement), QQ. LXXXVII to XCIX and Appendices, 1922; two curled pages of the 1921 volume are read from another scan of the same printing. Public domain in the USA. Printed in 1917, 1921, and 1922, before 1931. Outside the U.S., check local copyright rules. Transcription, OCR file checksums, and method: source record.