Bonaventure

Quaestio II. Utrum cognatio spiritualis impediat matrimonium.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum cognatio spiritualis impediat matrimonium. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima, quaestione prima¹, De eo quod interrogasti etc., et infra: «Si filiolam, aut commatrem suam aliquis in matrimonium duxerit, separandos esse iudicamus et gravi poenitentia plectendos».

2. Item, ratione videtur hoc ipsum: tanto honestius et purius custodiendum est vinculum, quanto est sanctius et spiritualius: si ergo propter honestatem non potest contrahi matrimonium, ubi intervenit vinculum carnale et cognatio carnalis²; multo fortius, ubi intervenit cognatio spiritualis.

3. Item, qui est proximus cognatione carnali tractandus est affectu consanguinitatis: si ergo ille affectus non admittit copulam carnis, immo naturaliter refugit; ergo et cognatio spiritualis, ut videtur.

Contra: 1. Cognatio spiritualis manet simul cum matrimonio: ergo non impedit. Probatio: Causa trigesima, quaestione prima³, De eo quod interrogasti: «Si coniuges legitimi filium suum de fonte susceperint; si volunt, simul maneant»: ergo non compelluntur separari: ergo spiritualis cognatio non impedit.

2. Item, cognatio carnalis disponit ad spiritualem: ergo non habent oppositionem ad invicem: ergo una non praestat alteri impedimentum: ergo nec commixtio carnis susceptioni Sacramenti, nec e converso.

3. Item, plus facit qui aliquem de errore trahit ad fidem, quam qui baptizatum levat de fonte; sed si quis convertat⁴ aliquam ad fidem, non impeditur cum ea contrahere, immo potest sponsalia contrahere sub hac conditione, si velit ad fidem venire: ergo nec impeditur, si levat de fonte, quin etiam possit contrahere.

4. Item, diversitas in participatione Sacramenti impedit matrimonium, ut puta cultus disparitas; sed opposita habent oppositos effectus⁵: ergo quod facit conformitatem in cultu et Sacramento disponit ad Sacramentum. Hoc autem facit dispensatio et collatio baptismi: ergo etc.

Conclusio.

Cognatio spiritualis, si matrimonium praecedit, impedit contrahendum et dirimit contractum; si vero sequitur, interdum tollit ius petendi debitum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cognatio spiritualis potest sequi, aut praecedere matrimonium. Si sequatur, generaliter verum est, quod non potest infringere matrimonii vinculum⁶.

Sed tamen quantum ad ius solvendi debitum, distinguendum: quia hoc aut factum est necessitate, ut puta quando parvulus est in periculo mortis, et non est qui baptizet eum, aut ex ignorantia, aut ex industria. In primo casu simpliciter non amittit ius petendi nec solvendi; in secundo casu similiter, si fuit diligentia, non amittit; in tertio casu amittit ius petendi qui hoc facit; tamen, quia non debet

peccatum suum alteri imputari, tenetur reddere. Et hoc totum confirmatur per auctoritates, quae sunt in littera⁷, quarum quasdam oportet reducere ad concordiam per praedictam distinctionem.

Si autem cognatio spiritualis praecedat matrimonium, illa, inquam, quae contrahitur per baptismum et confirmationem; sic impedit contrahendum et dirimit contractum, pro eo quod facit personas simpliciter illegitimas; et ideo, si videatur vinculum contrahi, non tamen contrahitur. — Impedit autem cognatio matrimonium secundum tres differentias, scilicet paternitatis, compaternitatis et fraternitatis, sicut probatur Causa trigesima, quaestione prima⁸, De eo quod interrogasti, et in aliis sequentibus capitulis, et Causa trigesima, quaestione tertia per totum.

1. Per hanc distinctionem patet responsio ad primum obiectum: quia illa auctoritas intelligitur de cognatione, quae consequitur matrimonium, quae non potuit solvere prius vinculum, quod inter personas legitimas erat contractum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod una cognatio est ordinata ad alteram; dicendum, quod verum est, non tamen in eodem, sed in diversis. Sicut enim carnis commixtio ordinatur ad generationem, non tamen generans debet cum filia carnaliter commisceri propter novitatem vinculi; sic intelligendum, quod non debet baptizans cum baptizato carnaliter commisceri nec per matrimonium copulari. Amplius, quamvis unum horum vinculorum sit ordinatum ad alterum, non tamen spirituale ad carnale, sed e converso. Et ideo, postquam intervenit cognatio spiritualis, nunquam debet intervenire commixtio carnalis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illo qui revocat ab errore, dicendum, quod illud vinculum non solum facit impensio beneficii, sed etiam statutum Ecclesiae Christi. — Si autem quaeras, quare magis instituit Ecclesia; dicendum, quod per nullam institutionem⁹ dicitur homo generari, sed solum ad generationem disponi; in baptismo autem est vera generatio: et ideo non sic contrahitur vinculum, quod praestet matrimonio impedimentum per documentum fidei, sicut per Sacramentum baptismi.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de diversitate cultus, quod impedit; dicendum, quod sicut circa actum virtutis contingit virtutem corrumpi ab extremis, quoniam virtus desiderat medium¹⁰; sic aliquo modo potest evenire in Sacramentis, maxime circa matrimonium. Unde sicut impeditur a nimia disparitate, ita etiam impeditur a nimia proximitate¹¹.

---

Question II. Whether spiritual kinship impedes marriage.

In the second place inquiry is made whether spiritual kinship impedes marriage. And that it does, is shown as follows.

1. Cause thirty, question one¹, De eo quod interrogasti etc., and further on: "If anyone should take his goddaughter, or his co-mother, in marriage, we judge that they must be separated and punished with grave penance."

2. Likewise, this same point seems evident by reason: a bond is to be guarded the more honorably and the more purely, the holier and the more spiritual it is: if therefore for the sake of honor marriage cannot be contracted where a carnal bond and carnal kinship² intervene; much more so where spiritual kinship intervenes.

3. Likewise, one who is near by carnal kinship is to be treated with the affection of blood-relationship: if therefore that affection does not admit carnal union, but rather naturally shrinks from it; therefore neither does spiritual kinship, as it seems.

On the contrary: 1. Spiritual kinship remains together with marriage: therefore it does not impede it. Proof: Cause thirty, question one³, De eo quod interrogasti: "If lawful spouses have taken up their son from the font; if they wish, let them remain together": therefore they are not compelled to separate: therefore spiritual kinship does not impede.

2. Likewise, carnal kinship disposes toward spiritual kinship: therefore they do not have opposition to one another: therefore the one does not furnish an impediment to the other: therefore neither does the mingling of flesh to the reception of the Sacrament, nor conversely.

3. Likewise, he does more who draws someone from error to the faith than he who lifts a baptized person from the font; but if someone should convert⁴ a woman to the faith, he is not impeded from contracting with her, but rather can contract espousals under this condition, if she is willing to come to the faith: therefore neither is he impeded, if he lifts her from the font, from being able also to contract.

4. Likewise, diversity in the participation of the Sacrament impedes marriage, as for instance disparity of worship; but opposites have opposite effects⁵: therefore that which produces conformity in worship and in the Sacrament disposes toward the Sacrament. But this is done by the dispensing and conferring of baptism: therefore etc.

Conclusion.

Spiritual kinship, if it precedes marriage, impedes its being contracted and dissolves the contracted marriage; but if it follows, it sometimes takes away the right of demanding the debt.

I respond: It must be said that spiritual kinship can follow, or precede, marriage. If it should follow, it is generally true that it cannot break the bond of marriage⁶.

But nevertheless, as to the right of rendering the debt, a distinction must be made: for this was done either from necessity, as for instance when an infant is in danger of death, and there is no one to baptize him, or from ignorance, or from design. In the first case one simply does not lose the right of demanding nor of rendering; in the second case likewise, if there was diligence, one does not lose it; in the third case the one who does this loses the right of demanding; yet, because his own sin ought not to be imputed to another, he is bound to render. And all this is confirmed by the authorities which are in the text⁷, some of which must be brought into agreement through the aforesaid distinction.

But if spiritual kinship should precede marriage — that kinship, I mean, which is contracted through baptism and confirmation — thus it impedes the marriage's being contracted and dissolves the contract, inasmuch as it makes the persons simply illegitimate [for it]; and therefore, if a bond seems to be contracted, nonetheless it is not contracted. — Now kinship impedes marriage according to three distinctions, namely of fatherhood, co-fatherhood, and brotherhood, as is proved in Cause thirty, question one⁸, De eo quod interrogasti, and in the other chapters following, and in Cause thirty, question three throughout.

1. Through this distinction the response to the first objection is evident: for that authority is understood of the kinship which follows upon marriage, which could not dissolve the prior bond that had been contracted between lawful persons.

2. To that which is objected, that the one kinship is ordered to the other; it must be said that this is true, yet not in the same case, but in different ones. For just as the mingling of flesh is ordered to generation, yet the begetter ought not to be carnally united with his daughter because of the newness of the bond; so it must be understood that the one baptizing ought not to be carnally united with the baptized nor be joined [to him or her] through marriage. Furthermore, although one of these bonds is ordered to the other, yet the spiritual is not [ordered] to the carnal, but conversely. And therefore, after spiritual kinship has intervened, carnal mingling ought never to intervene.

3. To that which is objected concerning the one who recalls [another] from error, it must be said that that bond is produced not only by the bestowal of the benefit, but also by the statute of the Church of Christ. — But if you should ask why the Church rather instituted [it]; it must be said that by no institution⁹ is a man said to be begotten, but only to be disposed to generation; whereas in baptism there is a true generation: and therefore the bond is not so contracted as to furnish an impediment to marriage through the teaching of the faith, as [it is] through the Sacrament of baptism.

4. To that which is objected concerning diversity of worship, that it impedes; it must be said that, just as regarding an act of virtue it happens that virtue is corrupted by the extremes, since virtue desires the mean¹⁰; so in some manner it can occur in the Sacraments, especially regarding marriage. Hence just as it is impeded by too great a disparity, so also it is impeded by too great a proximity¹¹.

---