Case 36. Cohabitation of Married People

Caia, a Catholic and the wife of Titius, a Protestant official in a certain colony, comes to her native country to supervise the education of their daughters in a convent of nuns and, led by this purpose, lives near the convent. After some months Titius asks, indeed orders, her to return to him; Caia, however, always excuses herself on the ground that she herself must care for the daughters who are to be educated, and at length Titius publicly takes a concubine for himself. Having heard this, Caia, anxious about the past and the future, asks a confessor whether she is bound to return to her husband. Hence it is asked:

1. What are the obligations of spouses with regard to cohabitation?

2. Is it lawful to institute a partial divorce by public or private authority?

3. Are husband and wife equal in rights with regard to a partial divorce?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What are the obligations of married people with regard to cohabitation?

From the nature of the marriage contract and to secure the ends of marriage those who are married are bound to live together, unless by mutual consent they agree to live apart for a time and there is no danger of scandal or incontinence. This obligation is one of justice and is grave in serious matter.¹

1 Génicot, vol. ii, n. 552 ff.

The second question was answered above, p. 266.

3. Are husband and wife equal in the matter of rights about separation?

In general, husband and wife are equal in the matter of conjugal rights, though the husband as head of the family has authority over her and is her superior. The causes then, such as adultery, on account of which one consort is allowed to separate from the other, favor husband and wife equally. Because the husband has the duty of providing for the family, lawful causes of absence from his wife will more frequently exist in his case than in hers, and because of this and of her inferior position the wife will be called upon in general to follow her husband, and not vice versa.

4. The case. Titius was a colonial official, and his wife Caia went to the mother country to see to the education of her daughters. She put her daughters in a convent and took up her residence in the neighborhood. Her husband sent for her but she refused to go, under the pretext that she had to look after the education of her daughters. She became uneasy in conscience when she heard that her husband was living with another woman.

Caia’s uneasiness was justified. Her husband bade her come out to him and she had no good reason for refusing. The education of her daughters would probably proceed better without her presence than with it. Objectively she committed a grave sin in not obeying her husband and exposing him to the danger of incontinence.

She is bound to do what she can to repair her fault and bring back her husband from his sinful course of life. But now on the supposition that Caia knows for certain that her husband has committed adultery she has the right to separate from him. Although her disobedience was the occasion of his sin, yet we must not presume that she acted as she did with the view of making him commit adultery, and on that supposition she did not lose her right to separate from her husband on account of his adultery.¹

1 Gasparri, De Matrim., vol. ii, n. 1113.