Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 15: Whether a Consummated Matrimony of the Faithful Can Be Loosed as to the Bond: The Various Opinions Are Brought Forward
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).
We have come at last to the fourth and last question, on the loosing of a consummated Matrimony as to the bond; in which question we have many adversaries, Greeks, Latins, heretics and Catholics.
For they hold that for the cause of fornication the innocent spouse can be separated from the spouse not only as to bed but also as to the bond, and can enter another Matrimony: first the Greeks, who long ago separated themselves from the Roman Church. For Guido the Carmelite, in his Summa on heretics, numbers this among their errors; and in the Council of Florence, in the last session, Pope Eugenius himself told the Greeks that they were gravely accused by the Latins of dissolving marriages; nor did they dare to deny it, but answered that they had their reasons. Lastly it is well known that at this time the Greeks do in fact dissolve marriages, and give spouses the power of entering other marriages in the case of adultery.
Of the Latins, all the Lutherans and Calvinists, and the Anabaptists, are in the same error; but some err more, some less.
Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, dares to lay down nothing; yet he greatly desires it to be defined that not only for the cause of fornication, but also when one spouse goes away into another region and after ten years is never to return, it is lawful to contract another Matrimony. Where in passing Luther's contradiction on the same page is to be noted. For he writes that the pope errs when he grants divorce outside the cause of fornication, which alone the Lord excepted; and at once he adds that he wishes it to be defined that it is lawful to make a divorce on account of the long absence of the other spouse. For if it is an error to make a divorce for another cause than fornication, then Luther desires an error to be defined, when he desires it to be defined that divorce is lawful on account of the absence of a spouse.
And he adds that he would not have anything defined by the sole authority of the pope and the bishops; but if any two learned and good men agreed in the name of Christ and pronounced in the spirit of Christ, he would prefer their judgement to councils; which is certainly mere foolishness. For whence shall we know that those two men agreed more in the name of Christ, and pronounced more in the Holy Spirit, than so many bishops who come together lawfully from diverse provinces into one place to explain the Christian faith? Certainly in these fifteen hundred years the Church never preferred the judgements of any two men whatever to the councils of bishops.
The same Luther three years after, namely in the year 1523, having become more learned (for he had published the former book in the year 1520), wrote a book on chapter 7 of the first to the Corinthians, where he thinks that for many causes Matrimony can be loosed and another entered: as if not only a heathen deserts a Christian spouse, but also a false Christian a Christian spouse; or if a spouse induces the spouse to theft or another sin; or if on account of frequent quarrels living with the first spouse is burdensome; or if one spouse is long absent. In the book too on matrimonial causes, published in the year 1530: if a poor man contracts and consummates Matrimony with a rich woman, and then the poor man cannot keep the rich spouse, because the friends or relatives of the rich one prevent it, Luther judges that the poor man can pass to another Matrimony.
Martin Bucer, on chapter 19 of Matthew, surpasses Luther himself in impudence. For he contends that Matrimony can be loosed and another entered as often as the wife does not show herself agreeable to the husband, or the husband to the wife: for whatever cause, namely, the spouses displease each other. From which Tapper, in the explanation of article 18 of the Louvain theologians, rightly gathers that by Bucer's authority marriages are more easily dissolved than civil contracts; for civil contracts are never broken on account of the malice of the contracting parties alone.
Philip Melanchthon, in the Theological Commonplaces, under the title on marriage, permits another Matrimony to be entered in two cases only, namely if one of the spouses commits fornication, or if he unjustly deserts the spouse; he will have it lawful for the innocent party to celebrate another marriage. Yet in the annotations on chapter 5 of Matthew the same Melanchthon grants another Matrimony not only to the innocent party but also to the guilty, because (as he himself says) no penalty is to be laid on anyone which he cannot bear.
John Brenz, in the Württemberg Confession, the chapter on marriage, at the end of that chapter, says that he hopes pious bishops and princes will grant the right of contracting another Matrimony to those who have been separated by a just divorce on account of the adultery of the other spouse.
John Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, the last section, calls that law tyrannical which does not permit another marriage to him who has made a divorce from an adulterous spouse; and on chapter 19 of Matthew he will have the bond of Matrimony broken in the case of adultery, but does not admit other causes except the desertion of a believer by an unbelieving spouse.
Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 1249, follows Calvin most openly. For he will have there be only two cases in which it is lawful to enter another Matrimony, namely the adultery of the other spouse and the desertion of an unbeliever; where by unbeliever he does not understand any unjust deserter whatever, as Luther and Philip understood, but only him who is not a Christian but a gentile; of which case there is no question, as we saw above. Then on the following page, 1250, he explains that he speaks only of the innocent party when he grants another Matrimony on account of adultery. Wherefore neither does Philip agree in opinion with Luther, nor Chemnitz with Philip or Luther.
Erasmus followed the same opinion, who in the annotations on chapter 7 of the first to the Corinthians tries at great length to prove that on account of fornication it is lawful for the innocent spouse to pass to other marriages. And Erasmus first published these annotations in the year 1516, namely before Luther's faction arose; from which we understand that not Erasmus from Luther, but rather Luther from Erasmus, drew this error.
Of the Catholics there are two who are held by the same error: Cajetan, in the commentary on chapter 19 of Matthew, yet timidly, and touching the matter briefly; and Ambrose Catharinus, who in book 5 of the annotations on the commentaries of Cajetan, at the end, disputes this question, and at length concludes that it cannot be gathered from the Gospel and the Apostle that it is not lawful in the case of fornication to enter another Matrimony; yet that it is forbidden by various canons, and therefore ought not to be done except by the authority of the Church.
Further, these three, Erasmus, Cajetan and Catharinus, differ much from the heretics named above in this, that they subject themselves in express words to the judgement of the Church. And because the Church has now most openly brought forth her opinion, as is plain from canons 5 and 7 of session 24 of the Council of Trent, where anathema is pronounced on those who hold that Matrimony can be loosed as to the bond for any cause, therefore these too, and especially the two latter, seem by no means to be separated from the most common opinion of all the other Catholic theologians.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV. An Malrimoniibm (idclium consummalum , solu- bilc sil quoad vinculuin,vuriae scnlcnliac ad- jeriLnlur. Pcrvcnlum csl landcin ad quarlaiu cl ullimnm quaeslionem de soliilione Malrimonii consummali, quoad vinculum: iu qua quacslionc mullos liabc- mus advcrsarios, Graccos, Lalinos, Hacrclicos et calliolicos. Sculiunl cnim,in caussa fornicalionis posse con- jugcm iunoccnlcm non solum separari quoad Iho- rum, scd cliam quoad vinculum , a conjugc, ct a- liud Malrimoniuin inirc, in primis Graeci, qui sc lain dudum a romana Ecclcsia scparavcrunt. Id c- nim iiiler eorum crrorcs numeral Guido Carmelila, in sua summa dc liacrclicis; ot in concilio llorcn- lino scssione ull. ponlifex ipsc Eugciiius Graccis dixit,cos gravilcr a Lalinis accusari,quod Malrimo- nia dissolvcrcnl: neque illi negarc ausi sunl, scd rationes suas se habere rcspondcrunt.Denique no- lum cst, hoc tcmpore Graecos re ipsa 3Iatrimonia dissolvcre, et conjugibus alia Matrimonia incundi polcslulcm faccre in caussa adultorii. Ex Laliuis Lutherani omncs cl Calvinislae, alquc Anabaptislac in codcm crrorc vcrsanlur: scd alii magis, alii niinus crrant. Lulhcrus in libro de captivilalc babylonica,cap. de Matrimonio, nihil slalucre audel: tamcn cupil vchcmcnlcr dcliiiiri non soJum in caussa rornicatio- nis,scd cliam qunndo allcr coiijux rcccdil in nliaiii regioncm post dcccnnium, aut numquam rcvcrsu- riis, liciluin cssc aliiid Matrimoiiiuin conlrahcrc. Ubi obilcr anuotanda csl Lullicri contradictio in cadcm pagina. Nam scribit papam crrare, cum di- vortium conccdit extra caussam fornicalionis,quam solam Dominus cxccpit: cl staliiii adjungil, oplare se iit dcfiniatur, liccrc divorlium faccre ob abscn- liam diulurnam alterius conjugis.Si cnim crror cst, divorlium faccre oh aliani caussam, quarn forni(;a- tionis: crrorcm igilur dcfiniri cii[)il Lullicrus, ciim ob abscntiam conjngis divorlium cssc licitum dcli- niri cupil. Addilaulcm,sc nolh; (pjidcpuiin dcfiniri sola pa- pac ct cpisc.oporum nuclorilalc; scd si (]uo crudi- li el boni viri in nomine Christi conscnlircnl, el in spirilu Chrisli [)roiuiiiciar<'nt,coruiii jiKliciuiii sc coiiciliis i)raclalurum:(|uac san(i iiicra ialuitas c.sl. NaiM undc sci(;mus, duos illos homines in nomine Christi magis conscnsisse, ct in S[>irilu saiicto [>ro- niinciassc, quam tot cpiscopos,qui cx divcrsis |)ro- vinciis unuin in locum lcgitimc convcniunt ad 11- dem chriblianam cxiilicandam? Ccrto his millc et quingcnlis annis, numquam Ecclcsia duorum quo- rumlibct hominum judicia episcoporum conciliis anlcposuit. Idcm Lulhcrus post annos tres, anno videlicct i:)23. doctior faclus (nain priorcm librum anno 1520. edidcral) scripsil librum in capul 7. prioris ad Corinlh. ubi mullas ob caussas 3Lilrimoiiium solvi, et aliud iniri posse censel: ul, si non niodo elhnicus Christianam, scd cliam lalsus Chrisliauus chrislianam conjugcm dcserat; vcl si coiijux con- jugcm ad furtum aul aliud peccatum inducat, vcl siob frequcntcs rixas molcslia sit cohabilatio cuiii priore conjugc, vcl si diu absit allcr conjux. In li- 1)10 quoqu(3 de caussis matrimonialibus,edito anno 1530. Si paupcr cuin divilc Matrimonium conlra- liat et consummcl; ac deinde panper divitcm coii- jugcm rctincrc non possil, quod amici, vcl aniiics divitis impediaut, judicat Lulhcrus, posse paupc- rem ad aliud Matrimonium sc Iransfcrrc. Martinus Bucerus in cap. 19. 3Iallh. Lullicruin ipsum impudcntia supcrat. Contcndit cniin Malri- monium solvi possc, ct nliud iniri, quolies uxor non se commodam viro,aut vir non se commodum uxori pracbct: quacumquc vidclicct de caussa sibi inviccm conjuges dlspliceant. Ex quo rcclc coUi- gil Tappcrus in cxplicnlione art. 18. Lovan. faci- iius dissolvi Malrirnonia auclorc Buccro, quam ci- vilcs conlraclus; nequc enim contractus civiles ob solnm malitinm conlrnhcntium unquam dirimuntur. Philippus 3Iclanclillion in locis tlicologis, litulo dc conjuL^io, iii duohus tantum casibus pcrmittil a- liud Malriinonium iniri,nimirum si alter conjugum fornicctur; vcl si injustc conjugcm dcsernt, vult [inrli innoccnti liccrc aliud conjugium cclcbrarc: laincn iii annol. ad cap. 3. Matth. idcm Mclan- clhon non solum parti innoccnti,sed ctinm noccnli nliud Malrimonium concedit, quia (ut ipsc dicit) non cst ulli imponcnda pocna, quam fcrrc non possit. Jonnnes nrcnlius in conrcss. wirlcmbcrgcnsi, cnp. de conjugio, in fine illius cnp. spcrnrc sc di- cil, pios cpiscopus cl principcs conccssuios jiis contrahcnti nliud Matrimouium iis, qui ob adul- lcrium altcrius conjugis justo divorlio scparati sunt. Joanncs Calvinus lib. i. Instit. cap. 10. § ult. lyranuicnm lcgcin vocat, quae non pcrmiltit aliud conjugium ci, qui ah ndultcra conjugc divorliuiu fccil: et in cap. \\i. Matlh.vull qiudcm viiiculum Malrimouii diriini in caussa adullcrii, sed non ad- miltit alias caussas, nisi discrtioncm fidclis a con- jugc iiilidcli. Marlinus Kcmnilius in 2.par. examin. pag. 124^0. Calvinum apcrtissiiuc scquilur. Aam duns tnnlum casus cssc voliiiUin (|iio liccrcl aliud Malrimoiiiuiu iiiirc, nimirum ndiillcrium altcrius conjugis cl dc- siuMioiicm irilldclis, iihi pcr infidclcin non inlclli- gil c|ncinlil>ol iivjusliiiii (lcsc.rloriMn, iil Lullioriis ct l'liiii|)[)iis iiitclligcbanl, scd soluiii cuiu ([ui Chri- stianus non esl, scd gcnlilis;dc (luo casu nulla cst quacstio, ut su|)ra vidimus. Dcindc in se(|ucnli |)ag. 12.'J0. c\[)Iicat sc Innlum l()(|ni dc parlciimo- ccnlc, cum aliud Matriiiioniuiii ob adiillcrium cou- ccdit. (Iiiarc ncquc Phili|>pus cum Lulhcru, ncqiic SIO Di; S.V^UAMi:.\TO MAiniMOMI KiMiiiiilius ciiin IMiilippo, aiil Luihcro iii siMilcnlia conviMiil. Laniloin .scnlenliam scrulus csl Krasmus. qui in .•innolal. ad 7. o;ip. prioris ad Corinlli. fusissinie probarc conalur,proplor fornicalionom liccro con- juj,'i Innoccnli ad alias nuplias Iransirc. Edidil au- loui Erasmus primum lias .mnolalioncs anno 15 lo. hiiMinio scilicot nnicquam Lullicri factio cxorirc- tur: o\ quo intolli^imus, non Lrasmum a Lullicro, sed Lullicrum potius ab Lrasmo hunc errore hau- sisso. Kx calholicis duo sunt.qui codom crrore tonon- liir. Cajolanus in commentar. ad cap. 10. .Matih. liinido lamen, el brevitor rein allin^ons:cl Ambro- sius Catharinus. qui lib. j. annotal. in commenla- ria Cajclani, in iinc.dispuial quaeslicnom istam.ao iandcm concludil, cs. evangelio, el Aposlolo non jiossc colligi, non licoro in caussa fornicationis a- iiud M.ilrimonium iniro;id iamen variis canonibus ossc prohibitum, c( ideo non debere Ceri nisi ex Lcclcsiae auctoriiale. Porro ires isii. Erasmus. Ca;elanus, Cntharinus in hoc multum ab haerciicis supra nominaiis di- stanl.quod se Ecclosiae judicio disertis verbis sub- jiciunt.Et quia Ecdesia senicnliam suamjamapcr- lissiiue protulit. ut paiel ex can. G. el 7. sess. 24. Iriilenlini concilii ubi analhema dicilur iis, qui sonliuni JLUrimonium quoad vinculum ulla de ca- iissa solvi possc; ideo isli quoquc, ac praeserlim (luo postcriorcs, a rcliquorura omniuni thcologo- rum calholicorura communissima scnienlia scpa- randi minimc essc vidcnlur.