Dist. 35, Art. 1, 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/35/q/bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether anyone may dismiss an adulterous wife on his own authority.*

Thirdly it is asked whether anyone may dismiss an adulterous wife on his own authority, without the judgment of the Church. And that he may, it seems:

1. Because the Lord gives a just sentence when he commands [a wife] to be dismissed for the cause of fornication: therefore if this is a matter of justice, and what has been judged by God does not need any further judgment: therefore without any other judgment he can dismiss her.

2. Likewise, in Matthew, chapter one: *Joseph, since he was a just man, thought to dismiss Mary secretly;*

the Gloss says that he was «*just* and *merciful*: *just*, because he willed to dismiss her; *merciful*, because he was unwilling to make it public»: therefore since Joseph is praised because he willed to dismiss her secretly; it is therefore permitted to dismiss [a wife] without the judgment of the Church.

3. Likewise, it is possible that the fornication is known to the husband alone, but nonetheless the husband is bound to correct his wife; but divorce was for the correction of the adulteress: therefore, since he cannot prove this before the Church, at least he is bound, if he cannot dismiss her publicly, to dismiss her secretly.

4. Likewise, if a husband, after knowing of the fornication, voluntarily has knowledge of his wife, he contracts an irregularity and also loses his action against the adulteress: therefore if he is not bound to this, he can deny his wife the [conjugal] debt, and thus he can dismiss her.

**On the contrary:**

1. No one ought to avenge himself, because *vengeance is mine, says the Lord,* to the Romans, chapter twelve: therefore if a wife has sinned against her husband, the husband cannot dismiss her on his own authority.

2. Likewise, no one in the same case can be both plaintiff and judge; but the husband is the plaintiff: therefore he ought not to be the judge.

3. Likewise, in the [Old] Law repudiation was not permitted to take place except by the authority of the judges of the city, with the giving of a bill [of divorce]: therefore much more so [is it not permitted] in the new law.

4. Likewise, if a husband on his own authority dismisses a wife who protests, he is compelled to take her back: therefore he dismissed her outside the order of law, therefore it does not seem [lawful], etc.

5. Likewise, matrimony cannot be contracted in secret without sin; but it is easier to contract it than to dissolve it: therefore in secret it cannot be dissolved without sin.

> **Conclusion.** When adultery is known with certainty, the innocent party can on his own authority separate himself in secret from the bed only; but a manifest divorce cannot take place except in the judgment of the bishop.

**I respond:** It must be said that it happens that a wife is dismissed by her husband in two ways: either as regards the *bed*, so that they are not joined carnally; or as regards the bed and mutual cohabitation. If in the *first* way; thus I say that the husband, having discovered and known with certainty that his wife commits fornication, or vice versa, can deny the [conjugal] debt, nor is he bound to this, unless he is compelled by ecclesiastical censure; and then, if when compelled he has rendered the debt, no prejudice is generated against him. — The reason for this is that he is bound and ought to correct his spouse or consort in secret.

But if we are speaking of separation in the *second* way; thus it is called divorce, and this, because it is in the open, ought not to be done in secret, but before the Church; and because matrimony *is a great Sacrament*, [it is] not [to be dissolved] under any judge whatever, but before the bishop. And this is what is said in Cause thirty-three, question two, chapter one, *Saeculares* etc.; which was promulgated in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was present, where it is said: «If, before they have stated the causes of their disagreement to the provincial bishops, and before they are condemned in court, they cast off their wives; let them be separated from the communion of the Church and the holy assembly of the people, because they defile their marriages». And again, in the same question, Pope Nicholas: Let it not be permitted to anyone to dismiss his wife on his own authority. — Hence, according to the common law, he is bound to take her back again, because those unjustly despoiled ought to be restored before the joining of issue; and this I say, unless he objects fornication against her, which he is willing to prove immediately, or something similar.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that the Lord passed sentence; it must be said that this is false, because he did not *pass sentence,* but *declared* [it]; and according to that law he left to the bishops the power of passing sentence.

2. To that which is objected concerning Joseph, it must be said that it is not similar: because then, on account of fornication, there was not divorce but death, and Joseph, as a merciful man, feared the death of Mary.

3. To that which is objected, that if the fornication is known to the husband alone; it must be said that then he ought to correct his wife in secret, not by divorce.

4. To that which is objected, that he contracts an irregularity and loses his action, if he knowingly and voluntarily

[has intercourse]; it must be said that he is not bound to have knowledge of her, nor yet on account of this ought he to dismiss her on his own authority.

The arguments to the opposite prove that divorce cannot take place except before the Church, since it is public; and this is true.

---