Dist. 41, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 41
Articulus Unicus. De impedimento affinitatis.
Quaestio I. Utrum per omnem coitum, sive legitimum, sive fornicarium, possit contrahi affinitas.
Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod per omnem coitum, sive legitimum, sive fornicarium, contrahi possit affinitas.
1. Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia7: «Si homo fornicatus fuerit cum muliere, et frater eius uxorem duxerit; super eo, quod frater eius crimen celaverit, poeniteat septem annis»; sed hoc non est ob aliud, nisi quia illa facta est affinis fratri: ergo etc.
2. Item, Extra, de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris suae8, expresse dicitur, quod non licet petere debitum, in decretali illa: Transmissae nobis litterae etc.; sed hoc non est nisi propter affinitatem: ergo per coitum fornicarium contrahitur affinitas.
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia non ob aliud contrahitur affinitas per coitum, nisi quia est carnis commixtio, per quam vir et mulier fuerunt una
caro; sed hoc non tantum est in actu legitimo, verum etiam in fornicario, secundum quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios sexto1: Qui adhaeret meretrici unum corpus cum ea efficitur.
4. Item, filius fratris tui natus de fornicatione ita est tibi consanguineus, sicut si esset de legitimo matrimonio natus; si ergo per actum fornicarium contrahitur consanguinitas, pari ratione et affinitas.
Contra: 1. Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia2: «Extraordinaria pollutio citra maritalem affectum, si ita esse constiterit, non videtur matrimonium impedire»; sed fornicarius actus est extra rectum ordinem: ergo non impedit matrimonium. Sed affinitas impedit: ergo ibi non contrahitur affinitas.
2. Item, affinitas est vinculum legitimum, quod est institutum a Deo et ab Ecclesia3: ergo cum fornicatio sit actio contra legitimitatem et contra divinum statutum, per fornicationem nunquam contrahitur tale vinculum.
3. Item, affinitas est vinculum insolubile4; sed coniunctio per coitum fornicarium non iungit insolubiliter, immo solubiliter: ergo nunquam per illum coitum contrahitur affinitatis vinculum.
4. Item, per coitum extra matrimonium non contrahitur irregularitas ad ordinem suscipiendum: ergo pari ratione nec illegitimitas ad matrimonium contrahendum: si ergo affinitas facit illegitimitatem, videtur, quod per talem coitum affinitas nec debet nec potest contrahi.
Conclusio.
Affinitas generaliter contrahitur per omnem copulam completam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod affinitas generaliter contrahitur per omnem coitum, in quo est commixtio sanguinum. — Et ratio huius est, quia affinitas non contrahitur nisi ratione unionis; tunc autem dicuntur una caro fieri, quando per commixtionem seminum fit consummatio illius operis. Si ergo aliter conveniant, sive contra naturam polluendo extra vas illi usui deputatum, sive invadendo claustra, ita quod opus nefarium non consummetur; affinitas contrahi non iudicatur, secundum quod dicitur Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia, Extraordinaria. Quodsi videatur dici contrarium Extra, de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam5, Fraternitati etc.; dicendum, quod illa separatio non fuit propter affinitatem, sed propter publicae iustitiam honestatis, quae contrahitur ex puris sponsalibus.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de extraordinaria pollutione, iam patet responsio, quia intelligitur, ubi non fuit seminum commixtio, ob quam6 dicerentur vir et mulier una caro effici.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vinculum legitimum est a Deo institutum; dicendum, quod in fornicatione duo sunt, scilicet actio substrata, quae est naturalis, et deformitas voluntatis, qua aliquis vult cognoscere non suam, sive circa ipsum actum defectus circumstantiae. Quantum ad primum est actio naturalis, bona et a Deo; quantum ad secundum dicit defectum et deformitatem et sortitur nomen vitii7; vinculum ergo affinitatis contrahitur ratione primi, non ratione secundi.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est vinculum insolubile; dicendum, quod actio transiens ut plurimum relinquit effectum perpetuum, sive ut melius dicam, diuturnum, ut patet: quia, sicut fornicatio inducit carnis corruptionem, sic uxoris cognitio efficit corporis unionem; et quoniam, ex quo cognovit, necesse est cognovisse: ideo ex hac coniunctione resultat vinculum insolubile. Et est exemplum: quia, sicut ex uno actu tali potest proles generari, quae vinculo perpetuo alligatur patri et matri; sic potest affinitas generari, quoniam talis coniunctio est introducens affinitatem, non conservans8. Ideo, ipsa existente transitoria, potest esse affinitas diuturna.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de irregularitate ad ordines, dicendum, quod cognitio mulieris non generat irregularitatem, nisi prout inducit defectum Sacramenti; et quoniam defectus Sacramenti praesupponit aliquod esse Sacramenti, et post privationem perfectionis; hinc est, quod irregularitas non contrahitur per coitum extra matrimonium. Sed affinitas respicit unitatem carnis et corporis, et haec est communis tam actui fornicario quam legitimo; ideo potest causare affinitatem, sed non irregularitatem9.
I. Circa impedimentum affinitatis controversia fuit, quo iure dirimat in casu primi gradus in linea recta. Plurimi antiqui sustinebant, affinitatem in dicto casu dirimere iure naturali vel divino, saltem si oritur ex legitimo matrimonio, cui sententiae videtur favere S. Thomas. Alii vero putabant, affinitatem semper solo iure ecclesiastico dirimere; quibus favet Scot. (hic q. unica n. 4.). Nunc certum est, eam ne in primo quidem gradu lineae rectae iure divino dirimere, quando oritur ex copula illicita, cum s. Sedes interdum in hoc casu dispensaverit. Secundum ius a Concilio Trident. (Sess. XXIV. de Reform. c. 4.) constitutum affinitas dirimit usque ad quartum gradum, si oritur ex copula licita, sed usque ad secundum tantum, si oritur ex copula illicita. — De Praenotatis alii auctores tractant in ipsis quaestionibus.
De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica, ubi etiam de seqq. qq. — S. Thom., hic q. unica a. 1. quaestiunc. 1-4; Suppl. q. 55. a. 1-4. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1-3. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 1. 2; Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica.
II. In 2. quaestione tangitur aliud impedimentum, scilicet publicae honestatis, ortum vel ex validis sponsalibus, vel ex matrimonio non consummato; in primo casu dirimit tantum in primo gradu (ita statuit Tridentinum), in secundo vero usque ad quartum.
De 2. quaestione: S. Thom., hic a. 1. quaestiunc. 5; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4.
III. De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., hic a. 2; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 6-8. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1-4.
---
Sole Article. On the impediment of affinity.
Question I. Whether affinity can be contracted through every act of intercourse, whether legitimate or fornicating.
Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is shown that affinity can be contracted through every act of intercourse, whether legitimate or fornicating.
1. Causa 35, question 37: "If a man has fornicated with a woman, and his brother has taken her to wife; because his brother concealed the crime, let him do penance for seven years"; but this is for no other reason than that she has become an affine to the brother: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, in the Decretals, [under the title] "On him who has known a blood-relation of his wife"8, it is expressly said that it is not lawful to demand the [marriage] debt, in that decretal Letters transmitted to us, etc.; but this is only on account of affinity: therefore through fornicating intercourse affinity is contracted.
3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because affinity is contracted through intercourse for no other reason than that there is a mingling of flesh, through which man and woman have become one
flesh; but this is not only in the legitimate act, but also in the fornicating one, according to what is said in 1 Corinthians 61: He who cleaves to a harlot is made one body with her.
4. Likewise, the son of your brother born of fornication is your blood-relation just as if he were born of legitimate matrimony; if therefore consanguinity is contracted through the fornicating act, by equal reasoning affinity is too.
On the contrary: 1. Causa 35, question 32: "Extraordinary pollution apart from marital affection, if it be established to be so, does not seem to impede matrimony"; but the fornicating act is outside the right order: therefore it does not impede matrimony. But affinity does impede: therefore affinity is not contracted there.
2. Likewise, affinity is a legitimate bond, which is instituted by God and by the Church3: therefore, since fornication is an action against legitimacy and against the divine statute, through fornication such a bond is never contracted.
3. Likewise, affinity is an insoluble bond4; but the conjunction through fornicating intercourse does not join insolubly, but rather solubly: therefore through that intercourse the bond of affinity is never contracted.
4. Likewise, through intercourse outside matrimony irregularity for receiving orders is not contracted: therefore by equal reasoning neither is illegitimacy for contracting matrimony; if therefore affinity produces illegitimacy, it seems that through such intercourse affinity neither ought nor can be contracted.
Conclusion.
Affinity is generally contracted through every completed union.
I respond: It must be said that affinity is generally contracted through every act of intercourse in which there is a mingling of bloods. — And the reason for this is that affinity is not contracted except by reason of union; and they are then said to become one flesh when, through the mingling of seed, the consummation of that work takes place. If therefore they come together otherwise, whether by polluting against nature outside the vessel appointed for that use, or by invading the enclosures, in such a way that the nefarious work is not consummated; affinity is not judged to be contracted, according to what is said in Causa 35, question 3, Extraordinaria. But if the contrary seems to be said in the Decretals, [under the title] "On him who has known a blood-relation"5, Fraternitati etc.; it must be said that that separation was not on account of affinity, but on account of the justice of public honesty, which is contracted from mere betrothals.
1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary concerning extraordinary pollution, the response is already clear, because it is understood [of the case] where there was no mingling of seed, by which6 man and woman would be said to be made one flesh.
2. To that which is objected, that the legitimate bond is instituted by God; it must be said that in fornication there are two things, namely the underlying action, which is natural, and the deformity of will, by which someone wills to know a woman not his own, or [in which there is] a defect of circumstance concerning the act itself. As to the first it is a natural action, good and from God; as to the second it bespeaks a defect and deformity and takes on the name of vice7; the bond of affinity therefore is contracted by reason of the first, not by reason of the second.
3. To that which is objected, that it is an insoluble bond; it must be said that a transient action for the most part leaves behind a perpetual effect, or, that I may say it better, a lasting one, as is clear: because, just as fornication induces a corruption of the flesh, so the knowing of a wife effects a union of body; and since, from the moment he has known [her], he must necessarily have known [her]: therefore from this conjunction there results an insoluble bond. And there is an example: because, just as from one such act offspring can be generated, which is bound by a perpetual bond to father and mother; so affinity can be generated, since such a conjunction is one that introduces affinity, not one that conserves it8. Therefore, though it [the act] itself is transitory, the affinity can be lasting.
4. To that which is objected concerning irregularity for orders, it must be said that the knowing of a woman does not generate irregularity, except insofar as it induces a defect of the Sacrament; and since a defect of the Sacrament presupposes some being of the Sacrament, and [comes] after the privation of perfection; hence it is that irregularity is not contracted through intercourse outside matrimony. But affinity regards the unity of flesh and body, and this is common both to the fornicating act and to the legitimate one; therefore it can cause affinity, but not irregularity9.
I. Concerning the impediment of affinity there was controversy, by what law it dissolves [a marriage] in the case of the first degree in the direct line. Very many of the ancients held that affinity in the said case dissolves [it] by natural or divine law, at least if it arises from a legitimate marriage — an opinion to which S. Thomas seems to be favorable. But others thought that affinity always dissolves [it] by ecclesiastical law alone; and Scotus favors these (here q. unica, n. 4). Now it is certain that it does not, not even in the first degree of the direct line, dissolve [a marriage] by divine law when it arises from an illicit union, since the Holy See has at times dispensed in this case. According to the law established by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, de Reform., c. 4), affinity dissolves up to the fourth degree if it arises from a licit union, but only up to the second if it arises from an illicit union. — Concerning the Prefatory Notes, other authors treat [of them] within the questions themselves.
On question 1: Scotus, here q. unica, where also concerning the following questions. — S. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 1, little-questions 1-4; Suppl. q. 55, a. 1-4. — B. Albert, here a. 1-3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 1-3. — On this and the 2 following questions: Durandus, here q. 1, 2; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. unica.
II. In the 2nd question another impediment is touched upon, namely that of public honesty, arising either from valid betrothals or from a non-consummated marriage; in the first case it dissolves only in the first degree (thus the Tridentine [Council] determined), but in the second up to the fourth.
On question 2: S. Thomas, here a. 1, little-question 5; Suppl. loc. cit., a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 4.
III. On question 3: S. Thomas, here a. 2; Suppl. loc. cit., a. 6-8. — B. Albert, here a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1-4.
---
- 7Can. 6, ubi textus originalis post et frater eius addit nesciens eandem, et post uxorem duxerit prosequitur: frater, eo quod fratri crimen etc. Ideo pro frater eius lege: fratri.Canon 6, where the original text, after and his brother, adds not knowing her to be the same, and after has taken [her] to wife continues: the brother, in that his brother's crime etc. Therefore, for frater eius ("his brother") read: fratri ("to the brother").
- 8Libr. IV. tit. 13. c. 4.Book IV, tit. 13, c. 4.
- 1Vers. 16. Vulgata omittit cum ea. — Superius pro fuerunt codd. M O U fiunt, et pro fornicario codd. R S T X fornicatione.Verse 16. The Vulgate omits cum ea ("with her"). — Above, for fuerunt, codices M O U read fiunt, and for fornicario, codices R S T X read fornicatione.
- 2Can. 11. Textus originalis plura interiicit.Canon 11. The original text inserts more [between the words quoted].
- 3Vide infra q. 3.See below, q. 3.
- 4Cfr. supra Praenotata ad hanc quaest. circa finem.Cf. above, the Praenotata (Prefatory Notes) to this question, near the end.
- 5Libr. IV. tit. 13. c. 7. Cfr. Glossa ibid. — Antiquitus iustitia publicae honestatis sic definiebatur: Publicae honestatis iustitia est propinquitas duarum personarum ratione tertiae personae per sponsalia iunctae, robur trahens ab institutione Ecclesiae propter eius honestatem. — Circa initium responsionis Vat. seminum pro sanguinum.Book IV, tit. 13, c. 7. Cf. the Gloss there. — Anciently the justice of public honesty was defined thus: The justice of public honesty is the propinquity of two persons by reason of a third person joined [to them] through betrothal, drawing its force from the institution of the Church on account of its honesty. — Near the beginning of the response the Vatican edition reads seminum ("of seed") for sanguinum ("of bloods").
- 6Ita cod. F, alii antequam; edd. legunt: quia ibi non fuit seminum commixtio aliqua, ideo non dicuntur... effecti.So codex F reads; others read antequam; the editions read: because there was there no mingling of seed, therefore they are not said... to be made [one flesh].
- 7Vide II. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1. — Cod. L rationem vitii.See Sentences, Book II, d. 37, a. 1, q. 1, and a. 2, q. 1. — Codex L reads rationem vitii ("the account of vice").
- 8Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2. et 3. — Pro quoniam talis, quod habet cod. aa, in aliis quando talis.Cf. above, d. 27, a. 2, q. 1, ad 2 and 3. — For quoniam talis, which codex aa has, others read quando talis.
- 9Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 3. ad 1. et 2. — Superius pro et post cod. F et ponit.See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 3, ad 1 and 2. — Above, for et post, codex F [reads] et ponit.