Part 1 of 3.
I will take advantage of this thread to share the study that I have just done of this subject. The criteria I followed was:
- Church Magisterium trumps St. Thomas.
- St. Paul trumps St. Thomas.
- Use logic and reason to interpret authoritative sources, e.g. St. Paul.
First of all, there are two Thomasian texts that deal with this subject:
a. Question 49 of the Summa Theologica Supplement to the Third Part.
newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm
Regarding this text, we should keep in mind the corresponding Editor’s comment:
“The remainder of the Summa Theologica, known as the Supplement, was compiled probably by Fra Rainaldo da Piperno, companion and friend of the Angelic Doctor, and was gathered from St. Thomas’s commentary on the Fourth Book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
This commentary was written in the years 1235-1253, while St. Thomas was under thirty years of age. Everywhere it reveals the influence of him whom St. Thomas always called the Master. But that influence was not to be always supreme. That the mind of the Angelic Doctor moved forward to positions which directly contradicted the Master may be seen by any student of the Summa Theologica.
The compiler of the Supplement was evidently well acquainted with the commentary on the Sentences, which had been in circulation for some twenty years or more, but it is probable that he was badly acquainted with the Summa Theologica. This will be realized and must be borne in mind when we read the Supplement, notably TP, Q[62], A[1]; also Q[43], A[3], ad 2 of the Supplement.”
b. The Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SS1Cor.htm#71
While the base for the Supplement was an early Thomasian work, the commentaries on the Pauline Epistoles were composed in the latter half of St. Thomas career. The “Tabula chronologica operum D. Thomae” dates the commentary on the Fourth Book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard to 1254-1256, and the commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to 1269-1273.
I begin my study by presenting an article on the subject by Mgr Cormac Burke, a recognized orthodox theologian who specializes in the area of marriage and has served as Judge of the Roman Rota: “A Postscript to the `remedium concupiscentiae´”. «The Thomist» 70/4 (2006) 481–536.
cormacburke.or.ke/node/932
While the section 3 of the above article, which I quote below, is available separately in this page:
cormacburke.or.ke/node/965
the whole article is needed to look up the references in the text.
[start of quote]
3. Saint Paul and 1 Corinthians 7:1-9
The first verses of this chapter have had extraordinary (and possibly disproportionate) importance in the development of Christian moral thought concerning conjugal relations. Bringing the full text before our mind can help us consider to what extent Augustine’s and parallel subsequent interpretations are justified. Augustine of course wrote in Latin, so for key passages we reproduce parenthetically the Latin version which has been in common use over the ages - the Vulgate translation of his contemporary, St. Jerome.
“It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality [fornicationes], each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. I say this by way of concession, not of command [Hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam, non secundum imperium]. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” [Melius est enim nubere quam uri]. (1 Cor 7:1-9 [RSV])
Our attention for the moment centers on the words “Hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam, non secundum imperium.” Augustine translates as “secundum veniam” what Jerome renders as “secundum indulgentiam,” and understands “venia” in the sense of pardon or forgiveness for what carries guilt.[29] Augustine’s argument in fact rests wholly on this rendering, for he holds that if something requires a “venia” it necessarily involves a fault that qualifies as a sin.[30]
It is not clear, however, that Augustine is justified in his ren-dering; if he is not, his whole argument can of course be questioned. To suggest that in this passage St. Paul proposes to condone sin seems by all lights to force the original text. The Greek word used by St. Paul, suggnome, means “allowance” or “concession.”[31] Saint Paul’s mind is surely not that concession can be made to people so as to sin, but rather that allowance can be made to follow a less perfect way. This is precisely what he goes on to say in the following verse: “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” It is clear that Paul regards the celibacy he has chosen as a more desirable way; at the same time, however, he presents marriage too as a “gift of God.”
The thrust of St. Paul’s thought seems rather to pass from a simple ascetical counsel for married people (it could be good to abstain for a time from conjugal relations), to a clarification that he regards his own choice of celibacy for God as higher than the married state, to the concession (with an “indulgent” outlook) that those who choose marriage also choose a gift of God.
If we turn to Saint Thomas, we find that he reads 1 Corinthians 7:6 according to the Vulgate “secundum indulgentiam” and not “secundum veniam,” but seems to interpret the passage in much the same way as Augustine.[32] Elsewhere, however, he modulates his position more. Quietly observing that the Apostle appears to be expressing himself “a bit carelessly” (inconvenienter), inasmuch as he seems to imply that marriage is sinful,[33] Thomas comes up with two possible readings. In one “secundum indulgentiam” would refer to a permission not for sin but for what is less good; that is, Paul says it is good to marry, but less good than to remain celibate.[34] This seems to me the better interpretation. However, Thomas does allow another reading according to which sin may be present in marital intercourse: namely, when it is engaged in out of lust, albeit lust restricted to one’s spouse. In this case there is venial sin, which would become mortal if one were indifferent whether the object of one’s lust were one’s spouse or not.[35]
[end of quote]
References [33] and [34] come from St. Thomas’ Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from which I quote (emphasis mine):
[start of quote]
328. – But the Apostle seems to be speaking in an unsuitable manner, for concessions are concerned only with sin. Therefore, by the fact that the Apostle says he is speaking by way of concession, he seems to express that marriage is a sin. But this can be answered in two ways. In one way so that the concession is taken for permission. But there are two kinds of permission: one is concerned with a lesser evil, as in Matthew (19:8): “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives,” that is, to avoid the murder of one’s wife, to which they were prone. Such a permission is not found in the New Testament on account of its perfection, according to Hebrews (6:1): “Let us go on to perfection.”
Another permission is about the lesser good, namely, when a man is not compelled by precept to a greater good. This is the sense in which the Apostle makes a concession here, that is, permits matrimony, which is a lesser good than virginity, which is not commanded and is a greater good. In another way, concession can be taken as regarding guilt, as Isaiah (26:15) says: “But thou hast increased the nation, O LORD, thou hast increased the nation.” In this sense, concession refers to the conjugal act, accordingly as it has venial guilt attached to it along with the good of matrimony, without which it would be mortal.
[end of quote]
Thus, St. Thomas himself in a later work offered an alternative to the view presented in ST Suppl. Q. 49.
Look – there’s more to it than those two reasons! The obligation “to pay the debt” does not mean “want to prevent your spouse from cheating”!
