cormacburke.me.ke

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, 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]