Dist. 33, Art. 3, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/33/q/bon-sent-IV-d33-a3-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether a wife after repudiation ought to be reconciled to her husband.*

In the third place inquiry is made concerning reconciliation, and it is asked whether a wife after repudiation ought to be reconciled to her husband. And that she ought, it seems:

1. Because it was a sin to dismiss a wife, as was shown above: therefore it is just to take her back.

2. Likewise, a woman, when repudiated, if she contracts [marriage] with another, either *sins*, or *does not*. If *she does not sin*; then, since she was repudiated for no sin of hers, and a penalty ought not to be inflicted except for a fault, it is manifest, etc. If *she sins*; then the bond with the former [husband] remains, therefore she is still his wife; but the Lord wills that a wife be with her husband: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, of every evil it is lawful to repent; but repentance retracts the evil deed: therefore, since to repudiate a wife is an evil, therefore it is lawful to repent, therefore also to retract: therefore also to reconcile the wife to oneself.

4. Likewise, a woman divided by divorce can be reconciled: therefore also [one repudiated] by repudiation.

**On the contrary:**
1. In Deuteronomy chapter twenty-four it is said that she is not to be taken back after repudiation, *lest she cause the land to sin*: therefore he who takes her back makes the land to sin, therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in Jeremiah chapter three: *It is commonly said: If a man put away his wife, and she departing marry another man, shall he return to her again?* as if to say *no*: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this man, by repudiating his wife, as far as in him lies, has lost his right over her as over a wife: therefore if he takes her back, he receives what is not his own.

4. Likewise, the sentence of a judge according to law ought to be observed irretractably — for a just sentence is not to be retracted — but when a wife was being dismissed, a bill of repudiation having been given, the repudiation was made in the sight of the Church by the sentence of the law: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> *It was permitted that after repudiation a wife be reconciled to her husband, unless the fault of adultery had intervened.*

**I respond:** It must be said that after repudiation something was *lawful* and *conceded*, namely that both, that is, the man and the woman, remain unmarried, or even, before [any new] nuptials, be reconciled to one another. — Something was *unlawful*, but *permitted*, namely that a man, his wife having been repudiated, take another as wife; for it was not prohibited, since it was not prohibited to have several wives. — Something was *unlawful* and *prohibited*, namely that a repudiated wife, her husband living, marry another. For since it was never lawful for one wife to have several husbands; since the first husband of the repudiated woman is living, it is not lawful for her to have a second. This, however, was not prohibited *directly*, but imposed *obliquely* as a penalty upon her, that she might never be able to return to the former husband, because she voluntarily defiled herself with the second; and therefore it is said in Deuteronomy chapter twenty-four and Jeremiah chapter three, that *that woman is polluted and contaminated*, namely on account of the adultery which she committed with the second. — It must therefore be conceded that it was lawful, after repudiation, for a wife to be reconciled to her husband, unless the fault of adultery intervene; for the punishing of which she is prohibited from returning to her husband, because at that time divorce was lawfully made. Hence in a wonderful way, though secretly, yet truly the Law itself judged the Sacrament of marriage to be inseparable; and this Jeremiah touches more expressly in chapter three.

1. 2. As to what the Law says, that she is not to be taken back; it is understood on account of the adultery committed, not because she is not a wife, but because she acted against the marriage. But the woman is punished more than the man for the aforesaid reasons, because in the Law she was inferior.

3. To that which is objected, that in no way

is it lawful, since he has lost his right; it must be said that he does not have the right of reclaiming, after he has repudiated [her]. If, however, the wife wishes, by her will and consent it can lawfully be done again.

4. To that which is objected, that a sentence passed according to law is not to be retracted; it must be said that a certain law *commands*, a certain [law] *permits*. A sentence passed according to a *commanding* law is wholly just and is not to be retracted; if according to a *permitting* law, since there is in it something of injustice, it can be revoked without any sin, indeed meritoriously and lawfully.

---