Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 12: That the Matrimony of Unbelievers Can Be Loosed Even as to the Bond; and On a Matrimony Ratified but Not Consummated
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The Fourth Controversy: On the Firmness of Matrimony
There follows the fourth controversy, which is on the firmness of Matrimony. Where it is to be observed at the beginning that one judgement must be made of the marriage of the faithful, another of the marriage of unbelievers; and again one of the marriage of the faithful ratified and not consummated, another of the marriage of the faithful ratified and consummated; and lastly one of the consummated marriage of the faithful as to separation, another as to divorce. From which four questions arise concerning the firmness of Matrimony; but the last is most proper to this place, and moreover very grave and difficult; therefore we shall touch the first three briefly.
The first question, then, on the marriage of unbelievers, will be very short. For that the marriage of unbelievers can be loosed even as to the bond, if one of the spouses is converted to the faith and the other will not live with him without injury to the Creator, is beyond controversy from the teaching of blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 7: “But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart,” and so on; and from the teaching of the Church, cause 28, question 2, canon Si infidelis, and the chapter Quanto and the chapter Gaudemus, on divorces.
Nor does that stand in the way, “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder,” Matthew 19; nor that, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,” and so on, in the same place; nor this, that the bond of Matrimony is not loosed on account of heresy, although heresy is a species of unbelief.
For to the first it must be answered that this Matrimony is not broken by man but by God, whose interpreter we have in the apostle Paul.
To the second Cajetan, in the commentary on chapter 7 of the first to the Corinthians, answers that Christ gave to husbands alone the liberty of putting away their wives for the cause of fornication, but not to wives of putting away their husbands; and that Paul spoke of a cause which is common to husband and wife, and meant this to be the conversion of one of the spouses from unbelief.
But this solution does not seem to satisfy the argument. For, first (as we shall show below), the Lord speaks of putting away as to bed, not as to the bond; and in that matter husband and wife are equal; for both the husband can leave an adulterous wife and the wife an adulterous husband.
Nor does Chemnitz rightly reconcile these places, who writes, in the second part of the Examination, page 1248, that Christ speaks of him who puts away unjustly, and Paul of him who is unjustly put away. For, as Augustine notes in the book On Adulterous Marriages, chapters 2 and 3, Paul not only permits the spouse deserted by the unbeliever to enter another Matrimony, but also permits him simply to put away the unbeliever, even if he is willing to live with him; for he only counsels, and does not command, that the believing spouse not put away the unbelieving spouse if he is willing to live with him; and therefore, if anyone puts away one willing to live with him, he does not sin against any precept. Moreover, if the unbeliever does not desert the believer, but will live with him with injury to the Creator, namely by constantly urging a return to unbelief and blaspheming Christ, certainly he can be put away by the believer, according to that saying, “He that hateth not father and mother, wife, children, and so on, for my sake,” Luke 14. This, then, is the sense of the Apostle: “If the unbeliever depart,” namely being unwilling to live together, or unwilling to do so without injury to the Creator, “let him depart,” and so on.
It must be said, then, with Augustine, book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, chapters 1 and 2, that Christ speaks of Matrimony between the faithful, Paul of Matrimony contracted between unbelievers; which Paul himself declares sufficiently. For when he had said, “I command, not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband,” he adds: “For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away,” and so on. Where by “the rest” he understands those who contracted Matrimony before the faith, of whom the Lord had commanded nothing; of these, then, Paul gives counsel, that the husband not put away the unbelieving wife if she will live with him without injury to the Creator. But because this is a counsel, not a precept, therefore it is lawful also to put away the unbelieving wife, and most of all then if she will not live with him.
To the third it must be said that there is a great difference between marriages contracted in unbelief and marriages contracted after Baptism. For the former, although they are ratified and firm by their nature, yet are not sacraments, and therefore lack the chief reason of insolubility. But the latter are sacraments, and so have a twofold reason of insolubility. What, then, the Apostle taught about marriages contracted in unbelief ought not to be extended to marriages contracted after Baptism; and therefore, if one of the spouses turns to heresy and the other will not live with him without injury to the Creator, the Matrimony is not loosed as to the bond; not because heresy is not a species of unbelief, but because that Matrimony had been contracted after Baptism, and for that cause was a sacrament. And likewise, if one of Christian spouses becomes not only a heretic but even an apostate, a heathen, an atheist, yet the bond of Matrimony is never loosed, because it is a sacrament.
And hence is solved also the doubt which might arise: why, if a believing spouse will not live with a spouse, even a believing one, except with injury to the Creator, namely by constantly soliciting to evil, why, I say, the Matrimony cannot be loosed. For the cause has already been given: that such a Matrimony, contracted in the Church, is a sacrament.
Chapter 13. That a Matrimony Ratified but Not Consummated Is Loosed Even as to the Bond by Entrance into Religion
The second question, on the Matrimony of the faithful ratified but not consummated, has been treated by us in the second book On Monks, chapter 38. And so we have thought the reader should be sent back to it.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CONTROVERSIA IV. Be Matrimonii firmilale. c.\PUT xir. Malrimoninm inlidelium solubile csse, cliim quoad vinculum. Scquilur conlrovcrsia Ouarta, quoc cst dc 3Iiilri- nionii lirmilale.Ubi est initio obscrvandum , aliud judicium cssc (lebere dc conjugio lidclium, aliiid de conjugio inlnlelium: el rursus aliud dc conju- gio lidclium rato cl non consummalo, et aliud dc conjugio ndclium ralo et consummalo : deniqnc aliud de conjugio ndidium coiisummato quoad di- vartium, aliud (juoad rcpiiilium. Ivx quo quntuor quaeslioncs existunt de Malrimonii nrmilatc; sed uliima cst hujus loci inaximc propria, ct praeterca gravis admoclum el dirficilis: ideo priores tros breviler perslringcraus. UeLLAIOIINI. V(»I. III. Prima igitur quaeslio dc conjugio infidelium , brf.vissima crit. Conjiigium cnim inlidelium solvi possc, cliam quoad vinculnm , si alter conjugum convertatur ad Hdcm, ct allcr nolit ci cohabilarc siue injuria crcaloris: extra conlrovcrsiam cst, cx doctrina b. Pauli, 1. Corinlh. 7. Siinlidelis discc- dit, discedat elc. Et cx doclrina Ecclesiac 28. quaest. 2. can. Siinfidclis, ct Ci\[^.Quanto, el cap. Gaudemus, dd divort. Neque obstat illud: Quod Deus conjunxil,homo nonseparet. Mlh. 11). ncqiie illud:'(//a dimise- ril uxorein , excepta caussa furnicationis etc. Ibidcm, iieque illud, quod proplcr hacresim non solvitur vinculuin Matrimonii, cum tamen haeresis species inndelitatis sit. i^am ad Primum rcspondcri dcbel,!ioc Malrimo- nium non dirimi ab homiuc, sed a Deo , cujus in- lcrprclem habemus aposlolum Pauhim. Ad Secundum Cajclonus in connncnt. cap. 7. prioris ad Corinth. rcspondct, Christum dedisse li- bprlalem solis viris, dimitlcndi, caussa foriiicatio- iiis, uxores; non autcm uxoribus dimiltcndi viros. Paulura aulcm loquulum essc de caussa , quae sit communis viro et uxori, ct hanc csse voluisse , convcrsioncm alterius coniugis ab infidclilale. Sed haec solulio non vidctur salisfacerc argu- mento. Nam in primis (ul infra oslcnsuri sumus) Dominus loquilur de dimissionc quoad Ihorum , non quoad vinculum: in illa aulem re parcs sunt vir et uxor: polcst enim, el vir uxorcm adultcram, ct uxor virum adulterum relinquere. Sed neque haec loca recte conciliat Kemnilius, qui scribil in 2. par. cxamin. pag. 1248. Chrislum loqui de eo, qui dimittit injusle,"Paulum autem de co qui injuste dimitlitur. Nam ut Augustiniis nolal in lib. de adulterinis conjugiis, cap.2. ct 3.PauIus non tantum pcrmillit conjiigi dcscrto ab iiifidcli , aliud Malrimoniura inire, sed eliain permitlit sim- plicilcr, dimitterc infidelom , clinmsi cohnbilare velit: solum enini consulit, non aulem praccipit, ut conjux fidclis non dimittal conjugcm iiifidclcm, si is vclit cohabilarc;et idco si quisdimiltat volen- lcm cohabilarc, non pcccat conlra iillnm praecc- plum. Praetcrea, si infidclis non descrat fidclem , sed vclit ci cohabilare cuin injuria crcaloris, per- pcluo scilicet pcrsuadcndo rcditum ad infidelila- tem, et Christum blasphcmando, cerle poleril a fi- deli dimitti, juxta illud: Qui non odil palrem , el matrem, uxorcm, (ilios etc. propter vic, Luc. l'i. Ilaec igilur esl Apostoli senlcnlia. Si inlldehs di- scedil, nimirum nolons coIiabitarc,aul nolcns sinc injiiria creatoris, discedat clc. Dicenduin cst igiliir cuin Augiistiiio. lih. 1. dc adulteriiiis conjugiis. cap. 1. et 2. Clirisluin lo^pii dc Matrimonio inler ndelcs.Paiilum dc Jlatrimonio contraclo inlcr inlidclcs, id (luod Piiiilus ipsc salis dcclarat. N;im cuin dixissct: Vraecipio. non erjo . sed Dominns, tixorcm a viro non discedcrc, siih- jiingil: Caeteris autem ct/o dico,non Domiiius; si quis lui.l)Cl iixorem inliilclem , ct hacc conscntit habitarc cum iilo, non diinillat illamctc.Viln pcr caeleros,intcIligileos,qui Matrimoniuin antc lldcm conlraxcrunl, dc qiiihiis Domimis nihil pracccpe- ral: d(; liis crgo Pauliis (•onsilium 'd;il , ul vir ikmi SOi hl". SAi.llAMMMc» MMUIMOMl (liniill.il uxnioiu iuliilcIiMU . si oii velil coliiibilnrc siiie iujuiia iTtMluris. Sod quia lioc osl rousilium, non pniocoplmn; iiloo liocl cliiini (liMiillcrc u\o- rcm iniurclcm, ct lunc nuiximc. si nolil coli;il)i- l.irc. A(l Tcrlium tliccndum, m;ij:jiuun c.-jsc discrimcn inlcr coujui^iii conlr;Ki;i in iutidcIiUilc. cl coujui*i;i conlr;icl;i post IJaplismum. Priorii ciiim , clsi r;ila sinl cl lirma cx iuilur;i sua: lamcn siicramonla non snnl. cl idco dccsl illis polissim;i ralio insolubili- liilis. Al poslcriora, sacr;niicula suul , cl proiiidc dupliccm liiihciil riilioniMii insolubililiilis. Qiu^xl cr- £^0 .\posloIus docuil de Malriiuoniis in inridolilaic conlraclis, noii didicl cxlciidi iul Malrimonia con- Ir.Kia posl Uaplisuuim: cl idcirco si altcr conju- jium couvcrlaiiir ;>b hacrcsi. cl allcr nold cohabi- tiirc sine injuria creatoris . non solvilur M;ilrimo- nium quoiid vinculum. non rpiia hacrcsis non sil spocies iuti(Ielit;ilis . scd qui;i .M;ilriinouiuiu illiid poi-t Baplisuium contraclum fueral cl e;i dc caussa sacrniucutum criil: (i similitcr si altcr conjiif^iim (Ihrislianorum, lial uon tantum liacrelicus, .seil et- iam aposlala, cthnicus, alheus , tiimen numquam solvitur vinculum Matrimonii , quia sacramenturn csl. El liino solvitur eliain dubitatio, quae nasci pos- &el, cur vidcliccl si conjux fidclis nolil cohabitaro cuin conjiii:;e etiam Qileli. nisi cum iujuria crcato- ris, cum scilicct perpcluo ad maluin soUicitando, cur, inquam non possil Matrimonium solvi? caussa cnim jam rcddita est,quod cjusniodi Matrimonium in Ecclcsi;i contractum, sacramculum sil. C.\PLT .XIIl. IHalrimoiiiuin raiinn . non consummaium , solvi eliam quoad vinculuni, per ingrcssum in rcli- gionem. .Mtera quaeslio, de Matrimonio fidclium ralo , non autcni consummato. Iriictata csl a nobis in 2. lib. dc monachis, cap. .3S. Ilaque ad eam lectorcm rcmitlendum putavimus.