Marriage and Virginity (continued)
she will be called an adulteress (Rom 7:3), if indeed the first man is no longer the woman's husband because the marriage bond has been broken by her adultery? If it is not her own husband, who is the husband still alive, how is she called an adulteress if she goes with someone else? If he has already ceased to be her husband, there is no way she can be called an adulteress for going with another man while she has a husband still living; but, as she has no husband, when she marries she will be with her husband. Do you not perceive how anyone who sees it this way sees it differently from the apostle? This is not how you actually see it, of course, but it follows from the way you see it. If, therefore, you want to avoid the conclusion, change the premise; do not say that in this text a husband who is dead or a wife who is dead means also one who commits adultery.
4. It follows that the rational doctrine is this: A woman is bound to her husband, as long as he lives (1 Cor 7:39), that is, as long as he has not departed from the body. A woman subject to a husband is bound by the law while he is alive, that is, while he is still in the body. If, however, he dies, that is, departs from the body, she is freed from the law of her husband. Therefore, If she goes with another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she becomes free from the law, and she is not an adulteress if she goes with another man (Rom 7:2-3). These words of the apostle, so often repeated, so often insisted on, are true. They are alive. They are sound. They are clear. A woman does not begin to be the wife of any second husband, unless she has ceased to be the wife of the first. She ceases to be the wife of the first, however, if her husband dies, not if he commits adultery. It is not wrong, therefore, for a wife to be divorced for adultery; but her obligation of chastity remains, and this makes anyone who marries a divorced woman guilty of adultery, even in this case of divorce because of adultery.
The Marriage Bond Lasts Until Death
5. When someone guilty of some crime is excommunicated, the sacrament of rebirth remains present in that person, and that person does not lose that sacrament even if he or she is never reconciled with God. In the same way, when a wife is divorced for committing adultery, the bond of the marriage union remains in her, and she does not lose that bond even if she is never reconciled with her husband. She will lose it, however, if her husband dies. The person who suffers the penalty of excommunication, on the other hand, will never lose the sacrament of rebirth, even if he or she is never reconciled, because God never dies. It has to be said, therefore, that if we want to be guided by the apostle in our thinking, we must not say that a husband who commits adultery is to be considered as dead and therefore it is not wrong for his wife to marry someone else. Although adultery is a death (not death of the body but death of the soul, which is worse), nevertheless when the apostle said, But if her husband dies, she may marry as she chooses (1 Cor 7:39), he was not speaking of this death, but only of the one whereby we leave the body. If the marriage bond is dissolved by the adultery of husband or wife, the consequence is that perversion that I showed we must avoid, that by her own unchaste conduct the woman too is released from that bond. If she is released, she will be free from the law of her husband; and so—a ridiculous thing to say—she will not commit adultery if she goes with another man, because she has been liberated from her first husband by her adultery. If that is such an aberration from the truth that no human mind, let alone a Christian one, can accept it, then assuredly A woman is bound to her husband, as long as he lives (1 Cor 7:39), or, to make it more explicit, as long as her husband has a bodily existence. The rule is the same for the husband too; he is bound to his wife, as long as she lives in the body. Hence, if he chooses to divorce an adulteress, he may not marry anyone else; otherwise he himself will commit the sin he condemns in her. Similarly, if a wife divorces an adulterer, she too may not enter a union with anyone else; for she is bound as long as her husband is alive, and only if he dies is she freed from the law of her husband and so able to be with another man without being an adulteress.
Christ Forgives the Sin of Adultery
6, 5. You think it is difficult for a husband or wife to be reconciled with the other partner after adultery, but it will not be difficult, if there is faith. In fact why do we still call them adulterers, when we believe they have been either cleansed by baptism or healed by penance?
In God's old law these crimes, which without question have been washed away by the blood of the New Testament, were not washed away by any sacrifices. In those times, therefore, it was absolutely forbidden to take a wife contaminated by another man. Although David unhesitatingly accepted back the daughter of Saul, whose own father had taken her from him and given her to another man, he did this as a sign of what was to come in the New
Now, however, Christ has said to the woman who committed adultery, Neither do I condemn you; go now and sin no more (Jn 8:11). After that, is there anyone who does not understand that a husband should forgive what the Lord, the Lord of both of them, has forgiven, and a woman one believes has repented and had her crime wiped away by the divine mercy should no longer be called an adulteress?
To Withhold Forgiveness Shows a Lack of Faith
7, 6. Clearly this is abhorrent to the minds of unbelievers, so much so that some people of limited faith, or rather, I believe, enemies of the true faith, fearful of giving their wives the license to commit sin, expunge from their manuscripts that incident of the Lord showing forgiveness to the woman who committed adultery.†3 This is like saying that he who said, Go now and sin no more, gave permission to commit sin, or that the divine doctor should not have healed the woman by granting forgiveness of that sin, for fear that persons with diseased minds might be offended. It is not that those who are displeased by what the Lord did on that occasion are themselves pure, and it is their chastity that makes them strict. Rather they belong to that class of person to whom the Lord said, Let whoever is without sin among you cast the first stone (Jn 8:7). The difference is that those people were frightened by their consciences and withdrew and desisted from testing Christ and persecuting the woman who had committed adultery,†4 whereas the people we are talking about are not only sick persons finding fault with their doctor, but also adulterers raging against adulteresses. If one said to these people, not the words those others heard, Whoever is without sin (for who indeed is without sin?), but rather "Whoever is without the same sin, cast the first stone," then perhaps they would stop and think how great was God's mercy toward those people who were upset because they had not killed the adulteress, since he allowed them to go on living even though they were adulterers.
Christian Men Are Required to Be as Chaste as Women
8, 7. When we say this to them, not only do they refuse to retract any of their severity, but they become angry at the truth, and they say in reply: "We are men. Must the honor of our sex endure this insult of being put on the same level as women with regard to the punishment deserved for taking liberties with women other than our wives?" As if they ought not restrain unlawful passion with more manly vigor because they are men! As if their obligation to be a model of this virtue for their wives is not greater because they are men! As if they would not be expected to capitulate less easily to lust because they are men! As if being men does not require them to be less enslaved to the excesses of the flesh! Despite this they become indignant if they hear of men who commit adultery receiving the same penalties as women who commit adultery. In fact they ought to have been punished more severely, since it is their role to surpass women in virtue and guide them by example. I am speaking, of course, to Christian men, who listen with faith to the words, The man is the head of the woman (Eph
5:23), and so acknowledge that they are the leaders, and women their companions. It follows that in the way he lives a man must be careful not to go down any path where he is frightened his wife might follow by imitating him.
The people we are speaking about, however, are not happy to have the same rule of chastity apply to husband and wife, but prefer to be subject to the laws of the world rather than those of Christ, because in the matter of chastity the laws of the courts do not seem to place the same restrictions on men as they do on women. Let them read, however, what the emperor
Antoninus, certainly no Christian, decreed about this.†5 A husband is not allowed to bring a charge of adultery against his wife, unless he himself in his conduct has given her the example of chastity, and if the hearing establishes that both alike have been unchaste, both will be convicted. These are the words of that emperor, as we read them in the Gregorian Codex:†6
My rescript will not prejudice the case in any way. If it was your fault the marriage was dissolved and in accordance with the Julian law†7 your wife Euphasia married, she will not be condemned for adultery because of this through my decree, unless there is proof that she committed it. They will have it before their minds to investigate this, to see whether, while you yourself lived chastely, you also led her to cultivate good habits. It seems iniquitous to me that a man should demand from his wife chastity that he himself does not practice. This can be a reason for condemning the man too, and not deciding the case between them, on the ground that the two offenses cancel each other, or extinguishing the grounds for the action.
If these are the rules that have to be observed for the honor of the earthly city, how much more must the heavenly nation and the community of angels require its citizens to be chaste?
This being so, is the unchastity of men therefore less serious, rather than worse and more serious, in the light of the superior qualities they flaunt with such licentious arrogance? So let men not be horrified because Christ pardoned the woman who committed adultery; instead let them recognize their own peril too, and struggling with the same infection let them have recourse with humble devotion to the same savior. When they read what was done for her, let them acknowledge that they need that too; let them take the medicine to cure their adulteries; let them commit adultery no more; let them praise God for his patience with them; let them do penance; let them adopt a forgiving attitude; and let them change their opinion about the punishment due to women and their own immunity from it.
If Reconciliation Is Refused, One Must Adopt Celibacy
9, 8. After discussing and considering these points, if in faith and humility thought is given to the condition they share, the peril they share, the injury they share, the salvation they share, reconciliation between husbands and wives, even after adultery has been committed and expiated, will not be degrading or difficult. There is no doubt that sins are forgiven through the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the effect of this is not that an adulteress is taken back after being divorced by her husband, but that after being in the company of Christ she is no longer called an adulteress. It is true, we see, that sometimes this cannot be done; no one forces anyone to do it. There may be some secular law that forbids it, as is the way in the earthly city where there is no thought of crimes being washed away by the sacred blood. In this case one must adopt a life of celibacy, which is not prohibited by any law, and not enter into another adultery. Why are we concerned if a woman who commits adultery is not reunited with her husband, even after she has been cleansed by the divine mercy, when at least adulteresses who are not reunited with their husbands do not have any other marital relationships. As we have demonstrated, those relationships constitute adultery. A woman is bound to her husband, as long as he lives (1 Cor 7:39). It follows from this that a man too is bound to his wife, as long as she lives. The effect of this bond is that there can be no union with anyone else other than an adulterous relationship. If both the wife marries another man, and the husband marries another woman, the unavoidable consequence is that from two married persons there result four adulterers. Although the adultery committed by the man who marries someone else after divorcing his wife for some reason other than her adultery is worse, and this is the kind of adultery Matthew referred to, nevertheless he is not the only one who commits adultery. As we find in Mark, Anyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery in relation to her, and if a wife divorces her husband and marries someone else, she commits adultery (Mk 10:11-12); and in Luke, Everyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery, and everyone who marries a woman divorced by her husband commits adultery (Lk 16:18). I have already discussed the testimony of these witnesses sufficiently in the previous book.
Pollentius Objects That Celibacy Should Not Be Compulsory
10, 9. In reply to this you say to me: "The celibate life is only for the few. Therefore, those who divorce partners who commit adultery, because there is no possibility of reconciliation, see themselves put so much at risk that they proclaim that Christ's law is not human but a law of death." My brother, as far as concerns those who are not continent, they may well have their numerous complaints about Christ's law being a law of death and not human. Just the same, we must not change or pervert Christ's gospel because of them. You yourself would be inclined to respond only to the complaints of those who divorce their wives on the grounds of adultery, if they are not allowed to remarry. Celibacy, you would say, is only for the few, and they ought to be encouraged to undertake it by praising it, not forced to it by law. You think, therefore, that if there is no remarrying after a wife has been divorced, the complaint about human celibacy is legitimate. Pay attention, though, to how often we shall have to allow adultery to be committed, once we choose to accede to the complaints of the unchaste. What if a spouse is afflicted by a lasting and incurable disease, and this prevents the partners from having intercourse? What if imprisonment or some other external force keeps them apart, so that the husband knows that his wife is still alive, but he is denied access to her? Do you think the mumbling of the unchaste should be acknowledged and adultery permitted in that case? What about the very case the Lord was asked about, when he answered that it ought not be done, and said that because of the hardness of their hearts
Moses had allowed them to give a bill of divorce and put aside their partner for any reason at all?†8 Is not Christ's law distasteful to men who are unable to be celibate, but whose wives are quarrelsome, hurtful, bossy, fussy, and reluctant to comply with their marital obligation, and they would like to get rid of them by divorcing them and marry someone else? Since
Christ's law is abhorrent to them because of their inability to be celibate, does this become a reason for changing Christ's law to suit their wishes?