Dist. 36, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 36
Articulus I. De conditione servitutis.
Quaestio I. Utrum conditio servitutis cum contradictione domini impediat matrimonium.
Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod conditio cum contradictione domini impediat matrimonium:
1. Quia servus non potest intrare religionem, domino suo contradicente, sicut dicunt iura2, et si intrat, compellitur exire, et pro nullo habetur votum: si ergo non potest se obligare Deo per votum, multo minus nec mulieri per matrimonium.
2. Item, servus, contradicente domino, non potest ad sacros ordines promoveri3: ergo videtur, quod nec matrimonium contrahere pari ratione.
3. Item, in matrimonio transfertur potestas corporis viri in uxorem, et e converso4; sed servus non habet potestatem sui corporis, sed eius dominus: ergo non potest contra voluntatem domini contrahere.
4. Item, servus tenetur domino suo obedire, cum praecipit sibi aliquid; item tenetur uxori debitum reddere, cum petit; sed potest esse, quod p. 792 dominus petat servitium, et uxor tunc petat debitum; sed utrumque reddere est impossibile: ergo si nullus potest se obligare ad incompossibilia1, si est servus, non potest contrahere.
5. Item, conditio enumeratur inter impedimenta matrimonii2; sed haec est servitus: ergo etc.
Contra:
1. Ad Galatas tertio3: In Christo Iesu non est servus neque liber: ergo nec quantum ad Sacramenta Christi et Ecclesiae est distinctio servi et liberi: ergo nec in matrimonio.
2. Item, servus et dominus sunt pares in concupiscentiae morbo, ergo et in remedio; sed remedium concupiscentiae carnalis est matrimonium: ergo in hoc sunt pares: ergo unus non potest alterum impedire.
3. Item, servitus est de iure positivo4; sed matrimonium est de iure naturali: ergo si ius positivum non praeiudicat nec impedit ius naturale, nec servitus matrimonium.
4. Item, sicut servus tenetur obedire domino, ita et filius patri; sed in hoc filius non tenetur obedire patri, ut habitum est supra5 et ostensum quantum ad matrimonium contrahendum: ergo nec servus domino.
Conclusio. Conditio servitutis non impedit matrimonium, etiam contradicente domino.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod secundum ius novum6 conditio servitutis non impedit matrimonium, etiam domino contradicente, vel dominis, quia Sacramenta ecclesiastica omnibus sunt communia, et servus etiam coniugatus potest suo domino debita servitia exhibere; unde per matrimonium non subtrahitur a domini potestate.
Ad 1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de religione, dicendum, quod in religione religiosus omnino subest praecepto religionis quantum ad omne tempus, et ideo absolvitur ab omni alia potestate; et quia non potest nec debet auferri ius domini, quod habet in servum, ipso invito: ideo patet etc. Non sic in matrimonio, quia adhuc servus est. — Et per hoc patet illud de ordine, quia promotus ad ordines sacros hoc ipso efficitur liber7.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod transfertur in mulierem potestas viri; dicendum, quod non simpliciter transfertur — quia uxor non dicitur domina viri — sed quoad actum coniugalem, quantum ad quem nullam habebat potestatem dominus super servum; et ideo quantum ad illum actum transferre potest, licet non ita libere, sicut unus alius, ut videbitur8.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de redditione servitii, dicendum, quod servus aut contrahit, domino consentiente, aut contradicente. Si consentiente; cum concedens aliquid concedat et illa quae ad illius ius pertinent9, et ad matrimonium pertinet redditio debiti, cum uxor petat; uxore petente debitum, et domino aliud imperante, tenetur et debet non obedire domino, sed uxori. — Si autem, domino contradicente, contractum est; cum dominus suo iure privari non debeat, ex utraque parte pari imminente periculo, debet domino obedire. Quodsi maius periculum sit ex parte uxoris, quia timet lapsum in fornicationem et non timet graviter dominum offendere; debet secundum legem caritatis divinae debitum prius uxori reddere quam exsequi imperium domini sui. Regulariter tamen tenendum est, quod cum contrahit cum servo scienter, domino contradicente, vel e converso, sibi praeiudicat, ut ius petendi non habeat, quando10 obsequium postulabit; et ideo servus non obligatur hac repugnantia, quia tenetur debitum solvere, cum nullum praeiudicium domino generatur.
I. Non ipsa conditio servitutis, sed error circa hanc qualitatem personae est impedimentum dirimens, ut explicatur in tota 2. quaestione; infra autem in dubiis 1-4. plures casus huc spectantes solvuntur. A nonnullis illius aetatis auctoribus haec omnia diffusius tractantur.
De 1. et 2. quaestione et illis casibus: Scot., hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic a. 1-3; Suppl. q. 52. a. 1-3. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1-5. (in novem quaest.). — Durand., hic q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de his et de 3. q. hic q. unica.
II. De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2.
---
Article I. On the condition of servitude.
Question I. Whether the condition of servitude, with the master objecting, impedes marriage.
Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the [servile] condition, with the master objecting, impedes marriage:
1. Because a slave cannot enter religious life when his master objects, as the laws say2, and if he does enter, he is compelled to leave, and his vow is held for nothing: if therefore he cannot bind himself to God by a vow, much less to a woman by marriage.
2. Likewise, a slave, with his master objecting, cannot be promoted to sacred orders3: therefore it seems that neither [can he] contract marriage, by parallel reasoning.
3. Likewise, in marriage the power over the husband's body is transferred to the wife, and conversely4; but a slave does not have power over his own body — rather his master does: therefore he cannot contract against his master's will.
4. Likewise, a slave is bound to obey his master when he commands him something; likewise he is bound to render the debt to his wife when she asks; but it can happen that the master demands service and the wife then demands the debt; but to render both is impossible: therefore, if no one can bind himself to incompatible things1, then if he is a slave, he cannot contract.
5. Likewise, [servile] condition is numbered among the impediments of marriage2; but this is servitude: therefore, etc.
Contra:
1. To the Galatians, chapter three3: In Christ Jesus there is neither slave nor free: therefore, as regards the Sacraments of Christ and the Church, there is no distinction of slave and free: therefore neither in marriage.
2. Likewise, slave and master are equals in the disease of concupiscence, therefore also in its remedy; but the remedy of carnal concupiscence is marriage: therefore in this they are equals: therefore the one cannot impede the other.
3. Likewise, servitude is of positive law4; but marriage is of natural law: therefore, if positive law does not prejudice nor impede natural law, neither does servitude [impede] marriage.
4. Likewise, just as a slave is bound to obey his master, so too a son [is bound to obey] his father; but in this matter the son is not bound to obey his father, as was held above5 and shown as regards the contracting of marriage: therefore neither [is] the slave [bound to obey] his master.
Conclusion. The condition of servitude does not impede marriage, even with the master objecting.
I respond: It must be said that according to the new law6 the condition of servitude does not impede marriage, even with the master, or the masters, objecting, because the ecclesiastical Sacraments are common to all, and a slave, even when married, can render the due services to his master; hence through marriage he is not withdrawn from the master's power.
To the 1st and 2nd. To that, then, which is objected concerning religious life, it must be said that in religious life the religious is wholly subject to the precept of religion for all time, and therefore is absolved from every other power; and because the master's right, which he has over the slave, cannot and must not be taken away against his will: therefore it is clear, etc. It is not so in marriage, because he is still a slave. — And by this is made clear that [point] about orders, because one promoted to sacred orders is by that very fact made free7.
To the 3rd. To that which is objected, that the power of the husband is transferred to the woman; it must be said that it is not transferred absolutely — for the wife is not called the mistress of the husband — but as regards the conjugal act, over which the master had no power over the slave; and therefore as regards that act he can transfer [it], though not so freely as any other [free man], as will be seen8.
To the 4th. To that which is objected concerning the rendering of service, it must be said that the slave either contracts with the master consenting or objecting. If [the master is] consenting; since one who grants something grants also those things that pertain to that thing's right9, and to marriage pertains the rendering of the debt, when the wife asks; when the wife asks for the debt, and the master commands something else, he is bound and ought to obey not the master, but the wife. — But if it has been contracted with the master objecting; since the master ought not to be deprived of his right, when equal danger threatens on both sides, he ought to obey the master. But if the greater danger is on the wife's side, because she fears a lapse into fornication and does not gravely fear to offend the master; he ought, according to the law of divine charity, to render the debt to the wife first rather than carry out the command of his master. Yet as a rule it must be held that when someone knowingly contracts with a slave, the master objecting, or conversely, he prejudices himself, so that he does not have the right of demanding [the debt], whenever10 [the master] shall demand service; and therefore the slave is not bound by this conflict, because he is bound to pay the debt, since no prejudice is generated for the master.
I. Not the condition of servitude itself, but error concerning this quality of the person is a diriment impediment, as is explained in the whole of the second question; and below, in dubia 1–4, several cases pertaining to this are resolved. By some authors of that age all these matters are treated more diffusely.
On the first and second questions and those cases: Scotus, here, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here, a. 1–3; Supplement, q. 52, a. 1–3. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 1–5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 1, a. 1–3. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 1–5 (in nine questions). — Durandus, here, q. 1, 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on these and on the third question, here, a single question.
II. On the third question: St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 5, q. 2.
---
- 2Vide supra pag. 653, nota 4. — Superius post conditio edd. addunt servitutis.See above, p. 653, note 4. — Above, after conditio the editions add servitutis.
- 3Ut ostensum est supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 4. — Superius pro non potest cod. Z non debet.As was shown above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 4. — Above, for non potest codex Z reads non debet.
- 4Epist. I. Cor. 7, 4.Epistle, 1 Corinthians 7:4.
- 1Cfr. supra pag. 234, nota 6. — In maiori respicitur Eph. 6, 5. et 1. Cor. 7, 3. — Superius pro impossibile plures codd. incompossibile.Cf. above, p. 234, note 6. — In the major [premise] reference is made to Eph. 6:5 and 1 Cor. 7:3. — Above, for impossibile several codices read incompossibile.
- 2Supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXIV. c. 1, et Comment. a. 1. q. 2.Above, in the Master's text, d. 34, c. 1, and Commentary, a. 1, q. 2.
- 3Vers. 28.Verse 28.
- 4Cfr. tom. II. pag. 1008, nota 1. De minori vide supra d. 26. a. 1. q. 2. in corp.Cf. vol. II, p. 1008, note 1. On the minor [premise] see above, d. 26, a. 1, q. 2, in the body.
- 5Dist. 29. q. 3.Distinction 29, q. 3.
- 6Cfr. C. Dignum est (1.), X. de Coniugio servorum (lib. IV. tit. 9.).Cf. the canon Dignum est (1), in the Decretals (X), On the Marriage of Slaves (book IV, title 9).
- 7Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 4. circa finem.See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 4, near the end.
- 8In solut. ad 4. — Superius verbis potestas viri codd. L Y interserunt corporis.In the solution to [objection] 4. — Above, in the words potestas viri, codices L and Y insert corporis.
- 9Cfr. supra pag. 453, nota 4. — Superius pro contrahit cod. L contraxit.Cf. above, p. 453, note 4. — Above, for contrahit codex L reads contraxit.
- 10Cod. Y (E a secunda manu) supplet dominus.Codex Y (E by a second hand) supplies dominus. ---