Dist. 41, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 41
Articulus Unicus. De impedimento affinitatis.
Quaestio III. Utrum affinitas praestet matrimonio impedimentum.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum affinitas praestet matrimonio impedimentum. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia7: «Aequaliter coniungatur quis propinquis suis et uxoris suae consanguineis».
2. Item, Levitici decimo octavo8: Turpitudinem uxoris patris tui non revelabis: ergo nullus potest contrahere cum uxore patris; sed hoc non est ob aliud nisi ob vinculum affinitatis: ergo etc.
3. Item, hoc ipsum arguitur per rationem: quia p. 862turpitudo uxoris est turpitudo viri1; sed turpitudo consanguineae non est aliquatenus per actum coniugalem revelanda: ergo nec uxor viri in coniugium assumenda.
4. Item, proximitatis vinculum tam in consanguinitate quam in affinitate est ex sanguinis unitate: ergo si consanguinitas propter unitatem sanguinis impedit, pari ratione et affinitas, cum vir et mulier fiant una caro ratione commixtionis seminum.
Contra:
1. In Lege2 erat prohibitum ducere sororem, et praeceptum erat ducere uxorem fratris; et illa est affinis: ergo affinitas matrimonium non impedit.
2. Item, magis iungitur aliquis alicui, qui iungitur per se et immediate, quam qui mediate; sed vir, qui cognoscit mulierem, potest ei iungi matrimonialiter: ergo multo magis consanguinei ipsius viri.
3. Item, secundum iura3 consanguinei succedunt defuncto in rebus suis, in quibus habuit dominium et possessionem; sed vir habuit dominium in mulierem per matrimonium: ergo secundum iura consanguinei debent et possunt habere dominium in corpus coniugis per matrimonium: ergo etc.
4. Item, commixtio carnalis est ad tempus, et matrimonium est vinculum insolubile: si ergo maius vinculum solvit minus; cum commixtio carnalis4 matrimonium non possit impedire, ergo nec affinitas inde contracta.
Conclusio. Affinitas, quae praecedit, impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit contractum, non autem superveniens, quae tantum aufert reo ius exigendi debitum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod affinitas impedit matrimonium, sicut habetur Extra, de Consanguinitate et affinitate5; et hoc intelligendum est de affinitate, quae praecedit matrimonii contractionem, non de ea quae supervenit. Si enim praecedat, impedit contrahendum et dirimit iam contractum, quia facit personam illegitimam secundum eundem modum et per easdem rationes, per quem modum et per quas rationes facit consanguinitas6. Si autem sequatur matrimonium, non potest ipsum dissolvere, cum sit vinculum insolubile; si tamen contractum est et consummatum, ambo sunt ad continentiam monendi. Si vero contractum est et ratificatum per verba de praesenti; cum solvi non possit, nisi ingrediatur alter coniugum religionem, sicut habetur Extra, de Conversione coniugatorum7: necessario oportet, quod ille qui malitiose cognovit consanguineam aliquam, reddat debitum, si illa non vult continere, aut in religionem ingrediatur, Extra, de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris suae8: Discretionem, et infra; ubi dicitur, quod tenetur reddere debitum, «cum non debeat coniux sine culpa iure suo privari». Ipse autem non debet exigere, quia reddidit se inhabilem, sicut dicitur eodem titulo: Transmissae nobis etc.; ubi dicitur, quod «requisitus non sine gravi cordis dolore accedat». — Sic igitur concedendum, quod affinitas praecedens matrimonium quantum ad primum genus ita impedit matrimonium, ut consanguinitas.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praeceptum erat ducere uxorem fratris; dicendum, quod hoc verum erat in casu, scilicet cum frater mortuus erat sine semine. Quia enim promissa erat eis perfecta benedictio in semine, ideo non debebat pati Lex, quod aliquis esset, qui videretur sine semine, si haberet propinquum, qui suscitaret. Nunc autem, quia hoc sublatum est, sic impedit omnino, sicut consanguinitas9.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vir magis iungitur mulieri; dicendum, quod verum est; sed quoniam ille actus consonat et consequitur matrimonium; hinc est, quod vinculum nullum ibi concurrit inter virum et mulierem, quod matrimonio praestet impedimentum. — Amplius, sicut praedictum est10, cum affinitas sit vinculum per accidens, praesupponit vinculum per se, scilicet consanguinitatem; et quia nemo sibi ipsi est consanguineus: hinc est, quod mulier non efficitur affinis viro, sed eius consanguineis.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod secundum iura consanguinei debent succedere; dicendum, quod verum est in illa hereditate, quam potest quis alii communicare et dare. Sed uxor est adeo bonum proprium, quod nec caritas communicat, quae facit omnia communia11; et ideo illud ius nunquam se extendit ad uxorem.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod carnalis commixtio est ad tempus; dicendum, quod quamvis sit ad tempus, tamen habet effectum perpetuum, scilicet affinitatem, ut prius visum est12, et per illam impedit. Et sic patet totum13.
---
Article Unique. On the impediment of affinity.
Question III. Whether affinity presents an impediment to marriage.
Thirdly it is asked whether affinity presents an impediment to marriage. And that it does, seems to be the case.
1. Cause 35, question 37: «Let a person be joined equally to his own kin and to the blood-relations of his wife».
2. Likewise, Leviticus 188: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's wife: therefore no one can contract [marriage] with his father's wife; but this is for no other reason than the bond of affinity: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, this same thing is argued by reason: because the nakedness of the wife is the nakedness of the husband1; but the nakedness of a female blood-relation is in no way to be uncovered through the conjugal act: therefore neither is the wife of [one's] kinsman to be taken into wedlock.
4. Likewise, the bond of nearness, both in consanguinity and in affinity, is from the unity of blood: therefore, if consanguinity impedes on account of the unity of blood, by parity of reasoning affinity does too, since husband and wife become one flesh by reason of the commingling of the seeds.
On the contrary:
1. In the [Old] Law2 it was forbidden to marry a sister, and it was commanded to marry a brother's wife; and she is an affine: therefore affinity does not impede marriage.
2. Likewise, one is more joined to another who is joined per se and immediately than to one who is joined mediately; but a man who knows a woman can be joined to her maritally: therefore much more [may] the blood-relations of that man himself.
3. Likewise, according to the [civil] laws3 blood-relations succeed the deceased in his goods, in which he had ownership and possession; but a husband had ownership over his wife through marriage: therefore according to the laws blood-relations ought to and can have ownership over the body of the spouse through marriage: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, carnal commingling is for a time, and marriage is an indissoluble bond: if therefore a greater bond looses a lesser one; since carnal commingling4 cannot impede marriage, therefore neither [can] the affinity contracted therefrom.
Conclusion. Affinity which precedes impedes the contracting of marriage and annuls a contract [already made], but not [affinity] supervening, which only takes from the guilty party the right of exacting the [conjugal] debt.
I respond: It must be said that affinity impedes marriage, as is had in the Extra, [title] On Consanguinity and Affinity5; and this is to be understood of the affinity which precedes the contracting of marriage, not of that which supervenes. For if it precedes, it impedes the contracting and annuls what has already been contracted, because it makes the person illegitimate in the same manner and by the same grounds by which manner and by which grounds consanguinity does6. But if it follows the marriage, it cannot dissolve it, since it is an indissoluble bond; if, however, it has been contracted and consummated, both are to be admonished to continence. But if it has been contracted and ratified by words of the present tense, since it cannot be dissolved unless one of the spouses enters religion, as is had in the Extra, [title] On the Conversion of the Married7: it is necessarily required that he who has maliciously known some blood-relation [of his wife] render the [conjugal] debt, if she is unwilling to remain continent, or [else] enter religion — Extra, [title] On Him Who Knew a Blood-relation of His Wife8: [the decretal] Discretionem, and below; where it is said that he is bound to render the debt, «since a spouse ought not to be deprived of his own right without fault». He himself, however, ought not to exact it, because he has rendered himself unfit, as is said under the same title: Transmissae nobis etc.; where it is said that «when required, let him not approach without grave sorrow of heart». — Thus therefore it must be conceded that affinity preceding marriage, as regards the first kind, so impedes marriage as consanguinity does.
1. To that which is objected, that it was commanded to marry a brother's wife, it must be said that this was true in a [particular] case, namely when a brother had died without seed. For since a perfect blessing had been promised them in [their] seed, therefore the Law ought not to permit that there be anyone who might seem [to be] without seed, if he had a kinsman who might raise up [seed for him]. But now, since this has been taken away, [affinity] so impedes altogether, as consanguinity does9.
2. To that which is objected, that the man is more joined to the woman, it must be said that it is true; but since that act is consonant with and follows upon marriage, hence it is that no bond concurs there between the man and the woman which would present an impediment to marriage. — Furthermore, as was said before10, since affinity is a bond per accidens, it presupposes a bond per se, namely consanguinity; and because no one is a blood-relation to his very self, hence it is that a woman is not made an affine to [her] husband, but to his blood-relations.
3. To that which is objected, that according to the laws blood-relations ought to succeed, it must be said that it is true in that inheritance which one can share and give to another. But a wife is so much a proper good that not even charity — which makes all things common11 — shares her; and therefore that [right of succession] never extends itself to the wife.
4. To that which is objected last, that carnal commingling is for a time, it must be said that, although it is for a time, nevertheless it has a perpetual effect, namely affinity, as was seen before12, and through it it impedes. And thus the whole is plain13.
---
- 7Can. 13. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.Canon 13. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.
- 8Vers. 8. Vulgata discooperies pro revelabis.Verse 8. The Vulgate has discooperies for revelabis.
- 1In textu praecedentis arg. additur: Turpitudo enim patris tui est. — De minori cfr. d. 40. q. 2. fundam. 2.In the text of the preceding argument there is added: For it is thy father's nakedness. — On the minor [premise] cf. d. 40, q. 2, fundamentum 2.
- 2Lev. 18, 9. — Deut. 25, 5. et Matth. 22, 24.Lev. 18, 9. — Deut. 25, 5, and Matth. 22, 24.
- 3Iustinian., III. Institut. imperial. de Successione cognator. (tit. 5.), per totum.Justinian, Institutes III, [title] On the Succession of Cognates (tit. 5), throughout.
- 4Multi codd. et ed. I corporalis.Many codices and edition I have corporalis.
- 5Libr. IV. tit. 14. C. Non debet (8.), in quo primum genus affinitatis ut impedimentum non abrogatur.Book IV, tit. 14, ch. Non debet (8), in which the first kind of affinity as an impediment is not abrogated.
- 6Cfr. supra d. 40. q. 2. Rationes ibi adductae ex parte valent etiam pro affinitate, quae consanguinitatem praesupponit. — De seq. propos. vide C. Tuae fraternitatis devotio (10.), X. de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam etc. (lib. IV. tit. 13.).Cf. above, d. 40, q. 2. The reasons adduced there in part hold also for affinity, which presupposes consanguinity. — On the following proposition see ch. Tuae fraternitatis devotio (10), X, [title] On Him Who Knew a Blood-relation etc. (bk. IV, tit. 13).
- 7Libr. III. tit. 32. C. Verum post (2.); cfr. supra pag. 683, nota 10.Book III, tit. 32, ch. Verum post (2); cf. above, p. 683, note 10.
- 8Libr. IV. tit. 13. c. 6. (Vide infra pag. 863, nota 2.). — Seq. locus est ibid. c. 4.Book IV, tit. 13, ch. 6. (See below, p. 863, note 2.) — The following passage is ibid., ch. 4.
- 9Cfr. C. Deus, qui Ecclesiam (9.), X. de Divortiis (lib. IV. tit. 19.). — Superius pro videretur codd. E L P Q Y non ita bene moreretur.Cf. ch. Deus, qui Ecclesiam (9), X, [title] On Divorces (bk. IV, tit. 19). — Above, in place of videretur, codd. E L P Q Y less aptly have moreretur.
- 10Quaest. praeced.The preceding question.
- 11Cfr. Act. 4, 32, et supra d. 33. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. — Verbo communicat cod. F praemittit et illud.Cf. Acts 4, 32, and above, d. 33, a. 1, q. 2, in the body. — To the word communicat cod. F prefixes et illud.
- 12Quaest. I. ad 3.Question 1, reply to 3.
- 13Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---