Article I. On The Dominion Of Spouses

15. General Principles. A man and a woman contracting marriage enter into an undivided companionship of life, of which the man is the head. Nevertheless each one in the matrimonial society retains natural rights, as is clear of itself. Therefore each one remains capable of dominion. Both spouses must strive strongly for the suitable support of offspring; one must also suitably support the other. From these things it follows (however civil laws have been established and although the wife has contributed nothing to the material good of the family), nevertheless she has a strict right to suitable support according to her condition, or just as other women of the same condition.

16. The honorable support of a spouse comprises: a) suitable food and clothing (and probably also after the death of the other spouse).⁷ For the wife is not a maidservant but the companion of the husband. b) The faculty of spending certain things for honorable recreation, of giving small gifts, of giving alms, just as other spouses of the same condition are accustomed to do. Hence the wife does not sin against justice if she does all these things without consulting the husband or against his will. Nevertheless, in practice it is not expedient that a wife, against the husband's will, dispose thus of common goods (the matter stands otherwise if the wife disposes of her own peculiar goods), unless true necessity, at least moral, demands it; because otherwise great abuses and very many quarrels can easily arise between spouses. This indeed is especially valid if it is a matter of alms and gifts; for it is better to abstain from these than to procure discord. There is a greater difficulty if the wife is held to help her parents or sons perhaps had from a prior marriage. In which case, if the parents or those sons are in grave necessity, the wife is held to help them from her own goods, if she has any; but if she has no goods of her own, she can help them from common goods, but she must not notably exceed the quantity concerning which she can dispose as alms. Certain theologians⁸ permit the same toward brothers and sisters if they are very poor. In practice wives are to be exhorted first to make the husband more certain about extraordinary alms to be given; but if this cannot be done, then wives are to be induced to acquire for themselves, by special industry or extraordinary labor, certain goods from which they can licitly give those alms; or also, from those things which are granted to them by the husband for clothing, amusements, etc., to save money for giving these alms.

If the husband is too prodigal and dissipates the goods of the family, then the wife can laudably hide certain goods, lest they be dissipated. Generally speaking, since the wife is not the servant but the companion of the man, she can prudently dispose of small goods of the family, because the husband cannot reasonably be unwilling concerning such a manner of acting.

The administration of common goods pertains to the husband, since he is the head of the family; but if the husband by gravely bad administration, dissipation, gambling, drinking, etc., has brought grave damage upon the wife, he is held to restitution. Nevertheless, in practice it must be seen what system of goods has been established in the matrimonial contract; whence also in the forum of conscience those things must be attended to which will be said below concerning the diverse statutes of civil laws.

As to practice, let the confessor strongly insist that both spouses administer material goods with united strength and minds. Although sometimes the wife does not commit injustice strictly so called if she disposes of common goods, and therefore is not held to restitution, nevertheless such clandestine dispositions are accustomed to produce many inconveniences, as was already said. Since these things are so, in this matter not only the virtue of justice must be observed, but also the virtue of prudence and charity.

These are the things which are valid in general concerning the dominion of spouses. Older moralists in this matter attended only to Roman civil law. But since in our times Roman law has almost everywhere been removed by other civil laws, we touch only briefly upon the statutes of Roman law and insist more on modern laws.

⁷ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 1068.

⁸ Lessius, Lugo, St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 542), Aertnys, etc.