Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 1
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/37/q/bon-sent-IV-d37-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On uxoricide.*

Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning uxoricide. And concerning this, three things are asked. First it is asked, whether it is licit to kill an adulterous wife. Second, which is the graver sin: whether to kill a wife, or a mother. Third, whether this sin simply impedes marriage.

### Question I. *Whether it is licit to kill an adulterous wife.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that it is licit to kill an adulterous wife:

1. *First*, by the text of sacred Scripture, Exodus twenty-two: *Thou shalt not suffer evildoers to live*; this is moral, therefore it still stands. *If you should say* that this was judicial, and such things have been abrogated; *on the contrary*: it is in human law that an adulteress is to be killed, and the adulterer too; but the Church approves and upholds such laws: if therefore the Church ought not to approve except what is licit, it seems that for a husband to kill an adulterating wife is licit.

2. *Likewise*, this is proved by the canon, Cause thirty-three, question two: « *Those who slay their own spouses without judgment — when you do not add "adulterous" — what else are they than homicides* »? Therefore if *adulterous* is added, they do not seem to be homicides.

3. *Likewise*, it belongs to the husband to correct his wife, and according as she sins more gravely, he ought the more gravely to punish her: if therefore the woman who commits adultery is worthy of death, if the husband kill her, it does not seem that he incurs any offense.

**On the contrary:** 1. John eight: *He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her*: the Lord therefore did not will that anyone should kill a woman caught in adultery, unless he had a conscience clean of fault: therefore it does not seem that this is licit for anyone.

2. *Likewise*, the canon says, Cause thirty-three, question two, *Inter haec sanctitas vestra*, and further below: « *The holy Church of God is never constrained by worldly laws; it has no sword but the spiritual one* »: therefore etc.

3. *Likewise*, it seems so *by reason*: because as to the fault of fornication they are judged equal; but it is licit for no woman to kill an adulterous husband: therefore neither is it licit for any husband to kill an adulterous wife.

> **Conclusion.** *It is not licit to kill one's own adulterous wife, according to divine and canon law.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the slayer of his own spouse, if he does it from certain knowledge, sins, however much she be an adulteress. — But he sins not only against the *canons*, but also against the *civil law*: against the *civil law*, because he kills her with the order of law passed over, unless perhaps he find her in the very evil act, in which case human laws grant it. — But against *divine* and *canon* law he sins in the very deed, since he ought not to kill the adulteress herself, but to correct her, since God is ready to spare the sinner under the law of grace, as is plain in the example of the adulterous woman, John eight. And since marriages and matrimonial cases ought to be handled by the law of heaven (*poli*), and not by the law of the forum (*fori*); therefore it is not licit to do this which the *civil* law dictates — although the Church *upholds* it for the terror of the wicked — but rather what *holy Church* declares, namely that the adulterous wife is not to be killed, but rather dismissed.

1. To that which is objected concerning the Law, it must be said that it was *judicial*, and judicial precepts do not remain, because that was a law of rigor, whereas this is one of gentleness. — To that which is objected concerning the civil law, it must be said that there are certain things there which the Church *approves*, certain which it *upholds*, and certain which it *revokes*. And this judgment concerning the killing of a fornicatress or adulteress it either *upholds* for the terror of others, or else *retracts*, when it forbids, in the aforesaid canon, that a wife be killed by any judgment, however much she be caught in the crime.

2. To that which is objected concerning that canon: *Those who slay their own* etc.; it must be said that it was said according to human laws; for such a man, since he kills *without cause* and *apart from judgment*, is punished under the civil laws as a homicide; but if he acts *through judgment* and *cause*, he is not judged a homicide according to human laws. But according to *canon law*, also according to that whereby marriages ought to be governed, and according to the mandate of the Church, not of princes, it is not licit to kill; nay rather he is judged a homicide, as the following chapter concerning Nicholas expressly attests.

3. To that which is objected, that he can correct her; it must be said that this is true; but the correction ought to be so great and of such a kind that it does not take away the place for repentance; and therefore, when it exceeds the limits, so as to kill, it is no longer the zeal of correction, but the fury of slaying.