DIVORCE
56
DIVORCE
n. 7; Palniieri, " De matrimonio christ.", Rome, 1880,
133 sqq.; Wernz, "Jus decretalium", IV, n. 696, not.
12; etc.). This second opinion maintains and must
maintain that the expression "for some uncleanness"
(in Helirew -\21 ni"iv5 does not mean any shght cause,
but a grievous stain, something shameful directed
against the purpose of marriage or marital fidelity.
A separation at will, and for slight reasons, at the
pleasure of the husband, is against the primary prin-
ciples of the natural moral law, and is not subject to
Divine dispensation in such a way that it could be
made hcit in every case. It is different with separ-
ation in serious cases governed bj' special laws.
This, indeed, does not correspond perfectly with
the secondary purposes of marriage, but on that
account it is subject to Divine dispensation, since the
inconvenience to be feared from such a separation can
be corrected or avoided by Divine Providence. In
the time of Christ there was an acute controversy
between the recent, lax school of Ilillel and the
strict, conservative school of Schammai about the
meaning of the phrase ^3^ nnV- Hence the question
with which the Pharisees tempted Our Lord; "Is it
lawful . . . for every cause? " The putting-away of
the wife for frivolous reasons had been sharply con-
demned by God through the Prophets Micheas (ii, 9)
and Malachias (ii, 14), but in later days it became
very prevalent. Christ abolished entirely the per-
mission which Moses had granted, even though this
permission was strictly limited; He allowed a cause
similar to the "im niljj as reason for piitting away the
wife, but not for the dissolution of the marriage bond.
3. The Dogmatic Basis and Practical Application of
the Complete Indissolubiliti/ of Consummated Marriage
within the Catlwlic Church. — (a) Its Foundation in
Scripture. — The complete exclusion of absolute
divorce {dimrtium perfectum) in Christian marriage
is expressed in the words quoted above (Mark,
x; Luke, xvi; I Cor., vii). The words in St. Mat-
thew's Gospel (xix, 9), "except it be for fornica-
tion", have, however, given rise to the question
whether the putting-away of the wife and the dis-
solution of the marriage bond were not allowed on
account of adultery. The Catholic Chvirch and Cath-
olic theology have always maintained that by such an
explanation St. JIatthew would be made to contradict
Sts. Mark, Luke, and Paul, and the converts instructed
by these latter would have been brought into error in
regard to the real doctrine of Christ. As this is in-
consistent both with the infallibility of the Apostolic
teaching and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, the
clause in Matthew 7?(Hs< be explained as the mere dis-
missal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of
the marriage bond. Such a dismissal is not excluded
by the parallel texts in Mark and Luke, while Paul
(I Cor., vii, 11) clearly indicates the possibility of such
a dismissal: " And it she depart, that she remain un-
married, or be reconciled to her husband". Gram-
matically, the clause in St. Matthew may modify one
member of the sentence (that which refers to the put-
ting-away of the wife) without applying to the follow-
ing member (the remarriage of the other), though we
must admit that the construction is a little harsh. If
it means, " Whoever shall put away his wife, except it
be for fornication, and shall marry another, commit^
eth adultery", then, in case of marital infidelity, the
wife may be put away; but that, in this case, adultery
is not committetl by a new marriage cannot be con-
cludeil from these words. The following words,
".\nil he that sliall marry her that is put away" —
therefoi-e also the woman who is dismissed for adul-
tery — " cominitteth adultery", .say the contrary, since
tlicy suppo.se the permanence of the first marriage.
Moreover, the brevity of expression in Matthew, xix,
9, which seems to us harsh, is explicable, because the
Evangelist had previously given a distinct explana-
tion of the same subject, and exactly laid down what
was justified by the reason of fornication: "Whoso-
ever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause
of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he
that shall marry her that is put away, committeth
adultery" (Matt., v, 32). Here all excuse for remar-
riage or for the dissolution of the first marriage is ex-
cluded. Even the mere dismissal of the wife, if this is
done unjustly, exposes her to the danger of adultery
and is thus attributed to the husband who has dis-
missed her — "he maketh her to commit adultery".
It is only in the case of marital infidelity that com-
plete dismissal is justified — "excepting for the cause
of fornication". In this case not he, but the wife
who has been lawfully dismissed, is the occasion, and
she will therefore be responsible shoulil she commit
further sin. It must also be remarked that even for
Matthew, xix, 9, there is a variant reading supported
by important codices, which has " maketh her to
commit adultery" instead of the expression "com-
mitteth adultery". This reading answers the diffi-
culty more clearly. (Cf. Ivnabenbauer, "Comment,
in Matt.", II, 144.)
Catholic exegesis is unanimous in excluding the per- missibility of absolute divorce from Matthew, xix, but the exact explanation of the expressions, " except it be for fornication" and "excepting for the cause of for- nication", has given rise to various opinions. Does it mean the violation of marital fidelity, or a crime com- mitted before marriage, or a diriment impediment? (See Palmieri, "De matrim. clirist.", 178 sqq.; Sasse, "De sacramentis", II, 418 sqq.) Some have tried to answer the difficulty by casting doubt on the authen- ticity of the entire phrase of Matthew, xix, but the words are in general fully vouched for by the most reliable codices. Also, the greater number, and the best, have "committeth adultery". (See ICnaben- bauer, loc. cit., and Schanz, " Kommentar iiber das Evang. d. hi. Matth.", 191, 409.) That absolute divorce is never allowable is therefore clear from Scrip- ture, but the argument is cogent only for a con- summated marriage. For Clirist founds His law on the words: "They two shall be in one flesh", which are verified only in consummated marriage. How far divorce is excluded, or can be allowed, before the con- summation of the marriage must be derived from other sources.
(b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice. — The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church. The testimo- nies of the Fathers and of the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon a new marriage in case death intervenes.
We read in Hermas (about the year 150), " Pastor", mand. IV, i, 6: "Let him put her [the adulterous wife] away and let the husband abide alone; but if after putting away his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery" (ed. Funk, 1901). The expression in verse 8, " For the sake of her re- pentance, therefore, the husband ought not to marry", does not weaken the absolute command, but it gives the supposed reason of this great com- mand. St. Justin Martyr (tl. 17(i) says (.\polog., I, XV, in P. G., VI, 349), plainly and without exception: "He that marrietli lier that has been put away by another man committeth adultery." In like manner Athenagoras (about 177) in his "Legatio pro christ.", xxxiii (P. G., VI, 965): "For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committeth adulter\'"; TertuUian (d. 247), " De monogamia ", c. ix (P. 'L., II. 991): "They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put awaj' their wives;
