Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 40
Articulus Unicus. De cognatione carnali sive consanguinitate.
Quaestio II. Utrum consanguinitas matrimonio praestet impedimentum.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum consanguinitas matrimonio praebeat impedimentum. Et quod non, videtur.
1. Genesis secundo1: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea; sed nulla persona potest alteri magis alligari, quam ut sit de carne et de ossibus: ergo si propter hoc non est matrimonium Adae impeditum, immo propter hoc est mulier de latere sumta; videtur, quod consanguinitas non impediat, sed expediat.
2. Item, Ecclesiastici decimo tertio2: Omne animal diligit simile sibi, et volatilia ad sibi similia conveniunt: ergo quanto aliquae personae magis similes sunt et coniunctae, tanto magis natae sunt invicem convenire et copulari; sed ad matrimonium est copula et coniunctio: ergo consanguinitas magis expedit, quam impediat.
3. Item, firmiori vinculo iunguntur qui natura et voluntate alligantur, quam qui voluntate tantum, et melius invicem cohabitant et conversantur; sed sic est, cum aliqui iunguntur vinculo carnali et foedere matrimoniali: ergo magis deberent homines coniungi propinquis quam extraneis, cum voluntas habeat naturam sibi conformem, et natura voluntatem adiuvet: ergo magis praestat consanguinitas matrimonio solatium et fulcimentum quam impedimentum.
4. Item, si aliquid repugnat matrimonio et impedit, hoc non facit, nisi quia alicui bono matrimonii repugnat et aliquid adimit; sed si consanguinei iungantur, salvantur ibi tria bona matrimonii: fides, proles et Sacramentum: ergo consanguinitas, ut videtur, nullum praestat impedimentum matrimonio.
Contra:
1. Genesis secundo3: Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem etc.; constat, quod istud non intelligitur de derelictione quantum ad cohabitationem: ergo intelligitur de derelictione quantum ad matrimonii contractionem: ergo pater et mater non sunt legitimae personae ad contrahendum respectu filiae et filii; hoc autem non est ob aliud nisi ob vinculum consanguinitatis: ergo etc.
2. Item, Levitici decimo octavo4: Ego Dominus Deus vester. Omnis homo ad proximam sanguinis sui non accedet, ut revelet turpitudinem eius: ergo si contra Domini praeceptum est proximam sanguinis sui cognoscere; cum matrimonium sit ordinatum ad actum illum, nullus cum proxima sua potest contrahere matrimonium: ergo proximitas sanguinis praestat matrimonio impedimentum.
3. Item, quod est contra bonum prolis impedit matrimonium; sed contrahere cum consanguinea est contra bonum prolis: ergo etc. Probatio minoris: Gregorius dicit, et habetur in littera5: «Quaedam lex Romana permittit, ut duorum fratrum aut duarum sororum filius et filia sibi matrimonialiter copulentur; sed experimento didicimus, ex tali copula sobolem non posse succrescere».
4. Item, matrimonium est vinculum honestatis, sicut supra6 ostensum est; sed naturalis honestas refugit revelare ignominiam et turpitudinem propinqui: si ergo haec turpitudo revelatur in coitu; quicumque cognoscit propinquam, facit contra honestatem naturalem. Si ergo matrimonium honestum est; cum consanguinitas sit contra honestatem, consanguinitas impedit matrimonium.
Conclusio. Consanguinitas impedit matrimonium in aliquo propter dictamen legis naturae, in aliquo propter prohibitionem legis divinae, in aliquo propter statutum Ecclesiae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod vinculum consanguinitatis impedit matrimonium in aliquo1 propter dictamen legis naturae, in aliquo vero propter prohibitionem legis divinae, in aliquo propter statutum Ecclesiae. — Vinculum consanguinitatis, quod est stipitis ad prolem, impedit propter dictamen naturae; unde et naturale apud omnes, quod filius non coniungatur matri, et quod filia non coniungatur patri. — Et si quaeratur ratio huius; dicendum, quod hoc est2 propter reverentiam et honorem, qui debet exhiberi patri et matri, et ideo non debent commisceri; vel etiam propter generationis successionem, quae debet procedere, non retrocedere; unde non debet proles genita coniungi suo principio, ut gignat. Et hinc est, quod natura dictat, quod alio affectu tractandi sunt parentes, alio affectu tractari debent coniuges3. Ideo propter dictamen naturae impeditur matrimonium per consanguinitatis primum vinculum, quod est prolis genitae ad suum principium.
Propter prohibitionem legis divinae impeditur matrimonium per consanguinitatem usque ad secundum gradum, sicut patet per Levitici decimum octavum capitulum, ubi fit prohibitio usque ad secundum gradum. — Et si quaeratur ratio huius; dicendum, quod hoc est propter honestatem; qui enim mulierem cognoscit revelat eius turpitudinem et discooperit ignominiam; et hoc inhonestum est facere propinquae, maxime cum honestas dictet, quod soror non est tractanda ut uxor. Et hinc est, quod in praecepto suo Dominus dicit: Non discooperies turpitudinem eius4.
Ulterius, propter statutum Ecclesiae impeditur matrimonium a secundo gradu et deinceps. — Et si quaeratur ratio huius; dicendum, quod hoc statutum fuit propter dilectionem dilatandam. Quia enim homo pronus est ad diligendum sibi propinquum; et matrimonium aggenerat propinquitatem et dilectionis mutuae praestat fomentum: hinc est, quod Ecclesia statuit, ut amor ad extraneos extenderetur, quod matrimonia extra propriam parentelam contraherentur; et ita non solum in secundo, sed etiam deinceps, propter dilatandam caritatem et propter ampliandam honestatem. — Et sic patet, quod consanguinitatis vinculum ob diversas causas habet impedire matrimonium; et hoc concedendum.
Ad obiecta:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Eva et Adam, quod fuerunt os et caro, dicendum, quod quamvis Eva et Adam fuerint os et caro; non tamen sic fuit tunc, quemadmodum nunc est: quoniam nunc eadem est via propagationis et commixtionis, sed Eva non exiit ab Adam per viam generationis, sed per modum supernaturalem, non per coitum, immo de latere; qualis modus producendi peroptime competebat coniugio, tum propter figuram, tum etiam, ut significaretur vinculi matrimonialis aequalitas, quia de latere et adhaerentia5. Unde quia non similiter modo alii sibi attinent, ideo modus ille ad consequentiam trahi non potest nec debet.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne animal diligit sibi simile; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de similitudine secundum speciem; vel si intelligatur de similitudine secundum carnis proximitatem, adhuc habet veritatem, quod diligit. Sed alius est modus affectionis, quo diligenda est uxor, alius, quo diligenda est soror; et ideo coniunctio affectionis naturalis repugnat copulae matrimoniali: ergo6 si copuletur per affectionis vinculum, non sequitur, quod debeat copulari per matrimonium.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod natura firmitatem praestat vinculo voluntatis; dicendum, quod verum est, ubi7 affectio voluntaria ad id dirigitur, ad quod inclinat natura; et quoniam natura bene ordinata non inclinat ad coeundum cum sorore, et affectio matrimonialis inclinat ad cognoscendum uxorem: hinc est, quod naturalis affectio non praestat voluntati fulcimentum, sed potius impedimentum.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non repugnat alicui bono matrimonii; dicendum, quod hoc solvi potest per interemptionem8, quoniam Gregorius dicit, quod «experimento didicit, ex tali copula non posse sobolem succrescere». — Potest tamen et aliter dici, quod impedit maius bonum, quod est vinculum affinitatis, quae, exinde contracta, est occasio mutuae dilectionis.
Quod patet: si aliquis accipiat filiam patris sui et exinde generet prolem, idem est socer et pater, et eadem mulier est socrus et mater, et idem filius et gener, eadem nurus et filia, et idem vir et frater, et eadem uxor et soror: ita respectu necessitatis1, quae poterat esse in octo, sicut in quatuor; similiter respectu prolis. Ut istae alligationes diffunderentur, et caritas mediante vinculo matrimonii mutuo conservaretur; statuit Ecclesia, matrimonium ad remotas personas protendi, non quia in proximis impediretur matrimonium, sed quia perderetur maius bonum. Et sic patet totum2.
---
Article Unique. On carnal kinship, that is, consanguinity.
Question II. Whether consanguinity poses an impediment to marriage.
Secondly it is asked whether consanguinity affords an impediment to marriage. And that it does not, seems to be the case.
1. Genesis 21: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; but no person can be bound more closely to another than by being of that one's flesh and of that one's bones: therefore, if on this account Adam's marriage was not impeded — nay rather, on this very account was the woman taken from his side — it seems that consanguinity does not impede but rather furthers [marriage].
2. Likewise, Ecclesiasticus 132: Every animal loves its like, and birds flock to those like themselves: therefore, the more like and conjoined any persons are, the more are they born to come together and be joined to one another; but marriage is directed to a joining and a conjunction: therefore consanguinity rather furthers than impedes.
3. Likewise, those who are bound both by nature and by will are joined by a firmer bond than those who are bound by will alone, and they dwell together and converse with one another better; but such is the case when some are joined by a carnal bond and by the marriage covenant: therefore men ought rather to be joined to kin than to strangers, since the will has nature conformed to it, and nature assists the will: therefore consanguinity affords marriage solace and support rather than an impediment.
4. Likewise, if something is repugnant to marriage and impedes it, it does this only because it is repugnant to some good of marriage and takes something away; but if blood-relations are joined, the three goods of marriage are preserved there: fidelity, offspring, and the Sacrament: therefore consanguinity, as it seems, poses no impediment to marriage.
On the contrary:
1. Genesis 23: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother etc.; it is agreed that this is not understood of a leaving in respect of cohabitation: therefore it is understood of a leaving in respect of the contracting of marriage: therefore father and mother are not lawful persons for contracting [marriage] with respect to daughter and son; but this is for no other reason than the bond of consanguinity: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, Leviticus 184: I am the Lord your God. No man shall approach to her that is near of kin to him, to uncover her nakedness: therefore, if it is against the Lord's precept to know one near of one's own blood; since marriage is ordered to that act, no one can contract marriage with one near to him: therefore nearness of blood poses an impediment to marriage.
3. Likewise, what is against the good of offspring impedes marriage; but to contract with a blood-relation is against the good of offspring: therefore etc. Proof of the minor: Gregory says, and it is had in the text5: «A certain Roman law permits that the son and the daughter of two brothers, or of two sisters, be joined to one another in marriage; but we have learned by experience that from such a union offspring cannot thrive».
4. Likewise, marriage is a bond of decency, as was shown above6; but natural decency shrinks from uncovering the shame and nakedness of a kinsman: if therefore this nakedness is uncovered in intercourse, then whoever knows a kinswoman acts against natural decency. If therefore marriage is a decent thing, then, since consanguinity is against decency, consanguinity impedes marriage.
Conclusion. Consanguinity impedes marriage in one respect on account of the dictate of the law of nature, in another on account of the prohibition of the divine law, in another on account of the statute of the Church.
Respondeo: It must be said that the bond of consanguinity impedes marriage in one respect1 on account of the dictate of the law of nature, in another indeed on account of the prohibition of the divine law, in another on account of the statute of the Church. — The bond of consanguinity which is that of stock to offspring impedes on account of the dictate of nature; whence it is natural among all men that a son not be joined to his mother, and that a daughter not be joined to her father. — And if the reason for this be sought, it must be said that this is2 on account of the reverence and honor which ought to be shown to father and mother, and therefore they ought not to mingle; or else on account of the succession of generation, which ought to proceed forward, not backward; whence offspring once begotten ought not to be joined to its own principle in order to beget. And hence it is that nature dictates that parents are to be treated with one affection, and spouses ought to be treated with another affection3. Therefore, on account of the dictate of nature, marriage is impeded through the first bond of consanguinity, which is that of the offspring begotten to its own principle.
On account of the prohibition of the divine law, marriage is impeded through consanguinity as far as the second degree, as is plain from the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, where the prohibition is made as far as the second degree. — And if the reason for this be sought, it must be said that this is on account of decency; for he who knows a woman uncovers her nakedness and lays bare her shame; and it is indecent to do this to a kinswoman, especially since decency dictates that a sister is not to be treated as a wife. And hence it is that in his precept the Lord says: Thou shalt not uncover her nakedness4.
Further, on account of the statute of the Church, marriage is impeded from the second degree onward. — And if the reason for this be sought, it must be said that this statute was made for the widening of love. For since man is prone to love the one near to him, and marriage generates nearness besides and affords fuel for mutual love: hence it is that the Church has established that love should be extended to those outside, namely that marriages be contracted outside one's own kindred; and thus not only in the second degree, but also onward, for the widening of charity and for the enlarging of decency. — And so it is plain that the bond of consanguinity has to impede marriage for diverse causes; and this must be conceded.
To the objections:
Ad 1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Eve and Adam, that they were bone and flesh, it must be said that, although Eve and Adam were bone and flesh, nevertheless it was not then as it now is: for now the way of propagation and commingling is one and the same, but Eve did not come forth from Adam by way of generation, but in a supernatural manner, not by intercourse, but rather from his side; which manner of production was most fitting for wedlock, both on account of the figure, and also that the equality of the marriage bond might be signified, since [she was] from the side and adhering to it5. Whence, because others do not belong to one another in the same manner now, therefore that manner cannot and ought not to be drawn into a precedent.
Ad 2. To that which is objected, that every animal loves its like, it must be said that this is understood of likeness according to species; or if it be understood of likeness according to nearness of flesh, it still holds true that it loves. But there is one mode of affection by which a wife is to be loved, and another by which a sister is to be loved; and therefore the conjunction of natural affection is repugnant to the marital union: therefore6, if there be a union through the bond of affection, it does not follow that there ought to be a union through marriage.
Ad 3. To that which is objected, that nature affords firmness to the bond of the will, it must be said that this is true where7 voluntary affection is directed to that to which nature inclines; and since nature well ordered does not incline to intercourse with a sister, whereas marital affection inclines to knowing a wife: hence it is that natural affection does not afford the will a support, but rather an impediment.
Ad 4. To that which is objected, that it is not repugnant to any good of marriage, it must be said that this can be resolved by way of destruction8, since Gregory says that «he has learned by experience that from such a union offspring cannot thrive». — Yet it can also be said otherwise, that it impedes a greater good, which is the bond of affinity, which, being contracted thereby, is the occasion of mutual love.
Which is plain: if someone should take the daughter of his own father and thereby beget offspring, the same man is both father-in-law and father, and the same woman is both mother-in-law and mother, and the same man is both son and son-in-law, the same woman both daughter-in-law and daughter, and the same man both husband and brother, and the same woman both wife and sister: thus, with respect to the bond1 which could have existed among eight persons, [it exists] only among four; and likewise with respect to offspring. In order that these bindings might be spread abroad, and that charity might be mutually preserved through the bond of marriage, the Church established that marriage be extended to remote persons — not because marriage would be impeded among those near of kin, but because a greater good would be lost. And thus the whole is plain2.
---
- 1Vers. 23. — Inferius respicitur Gen. 2, 21. seq.: Tulit unam de costis eius etc.Verse 23. — Below, reference is made to Gen. 2, 21 f.: He took one of his ribs etc.
- 2Vers. 19. — Seq. locus est ibid. 27, 10. — Inferius ante matrimonium cod. K (E I a secunda manu) omittit ad.Verse 19. — The following passage is ibid. 27, 10. — Below, before matrimonium, cod. K (E I by a second hand) omits ad.
- 3Vers. 24: Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem etc.Verse 24: Wherefore a man shall leave his father and mother etc.
- 4Vers. 5. seq. Vulgata habet Deus vester tantum in v. 4.Verse 5 f. The Vulgate has your God only in v. 4.
- 5Hic c. 4. In fine pro succedere ex cod. A cum textu originali substituimus succrescere, quod etiam infra in solut. ad 4. praeter cod. A exhibent codd. E L V W.Here c. 4. At the end, in place of succedere, we have substituted succrescere from cod. A together with the original text; the same is also exhibited below, in the solution to the fourth objection, besides cod. A, by codd. E L V W.
- 6Dist. 31. a. 1. q. 1. — Inferius pro quicumque codd. vel qui vel cum. Subinde pro cum consanguinitas cod. U cum cognoscere consanguineam, et post honestatem edd. addunt matrimonii: ergo.Dist. 31, a. 1, q. 1. — Below, in place of quicumque, the codices have either qui or cum. Thereupon, in place of cum consanguinitas, cod. U has cum cognoscere consanguineam, and after honestatem the editions add matrimonii: ergo.
- 1In edd. additur sui gradu.In the editions sui gradu is added.
- 2Codd. F G I L V aa subiungunt tum, ex quibus codd. F G inferius pro vel etiam substituunt tum etiam.Codd. F G I L V aa subjoin tum, of which codd. F G below substitute tum etiam for vel etiam.
- 3Cfr. supra d. 37. a. 2. q. 2, et III. Sent. d. 29. q. 4. — Inferius pro vinculum, quod codd. S T intellectum, qui.Cf. above, d. 37, a. 2, q. 2, and III Sent. d. 29, q. 4. — Below, in place of vinculum, quod, codd. S T have intellectum, qui.
- 4Ut dicitur Lev. 18, 7. seqq. — Superius pro qui enim multi codd. quia enim, inter quos codd. F I immediate post pro cognoscit substituunt cognoscens.As is said in Lev. 18, 7 ff. — Above, in place of qui enim, many codices have quia enim, among which codd. F I, immediately after, substitute cognoscens for cognoscit.
- 5Cfr. II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 1. — De ultima propos. solut. vide supra pag. 825, nota 3. Modo stat pro nunc.Cf. II Sent. d. 18, a. 1, q. 1. — On the last proposition of the solution see above, p. 825, note 3. Modo stands for nunc.
- 6Pro ergo, quod codd. communiter omittunt, cod. K (I a secunda manu) unde.In place of ergo, which the codices commonly omit, cod. K (I by a second hand) has unde.
- 7Non pauci codd. nisi, quorum incongruam lectionem corrigit cod. K (I a secunda manu) legens: quod verum non est, nisi.Not a few codices have nisi, whose incongruous reading cod. K (I by a second hand) corrects, reading: quod verum non est, nisi.
- 8Sive per negationem; cfr. tom. I. pag. 87, nota 4. — Inferius pro quae, exinde cod. U quod inde contractum est, quia exinde, Vat. quia exinde. Post contracta est codd. F G addunt et, in cod. I secunda manus occasione substituit pro occasio.Or by way of negation; cf. tom. I, p. 87, note 4. — Below, in place of quae, exinde, cod. U has quod inde contractum est, quia exinde, the Vatican edition quia exinde. After contracta est codd. F G add et; in cod. I a second hand substituted occasione for occasio.
- 1Vat. affinitatis. Mox pro poterat non pauci codd. poterant. — Post ita videtur supplendum est.The Vatican edition has affinitatis. Presently, in place of poterat, not a few codices have poterant. — After ita, est seems to need supplying.
- 2Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question. ---