← Back to Distinction 42

Dist. 42, Art. 2, Q. 3

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 42

Textus Latinus
p. 875

Quaestio III. Utrum cognatio legalis transeat ab uno in alterum.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum cognatio legalis transeat in alterum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima, quaestione tertia1, et habetur in littera: «Inter eos qui natura, et eos qui adoptione sunt filii, venerandae leges matrimonia contrahi non permittunt»; hoc autem non esset, nisi cognatio transiret a patre in filium: ergo etc.

2. Item, plus concordat unio carnis cum cognatione legali quam spirituali; sed unio carnis facit cognationem spiritualem esse communem2: ergo multo fortius cognationem legalem.

3. Item, cognatio carnalis et spiritualis transit: ergo pari ratione cognatio legalis. Aut si non, quare non? Quodsi non transiret, tunc non esset nisi unica species; nunc autem tres assignantur3.

Contra: 1. Quia cognatio spiritualis est communicabilis, ideo necesse est, quodsi aliquis efficitur spiritualis pater alicuius, quod efficiatur compater patris eiusdem4: ergo pari ratione in adoptione; quod tamen non conceditur: ergo non est cognationis transitus.

2. Item, quia in cognatione spirituali transitus est a patre in filiam naturalem; ideo impossibile est, quod unquam contrahat filius spiritualis cum filia naturali: ergo pari ratione nunquam posset filius adoptivus contrahere cum naturali filia; cuius contrarium dicitur Causa trigesima, quaestione tertia5: Per adoptionem quaesita fraternitas.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, cum vinculum cognationis legalis transeat in filios et nepotes et in uxores, quare non transit in parentes, cum se habeant in eadem proximitate?

p. 876

Conclusio.

Conclusio. Vinculum cognationis legalis transit in uxorem simpliciter, in filios tantum ad tempus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod vinculum adoptionis transit in alteram personam dupliciter, scilicet per carnis commixtionem et per generationem; sed per carnis commixtionem transit ad semper, per generationem vero ad tempus.

Et ratio huius est, quia talis adoptio respicit bona temporalia et educationem paternam; et quoniam vir et uxor coniunguntur ad semper et omnia quae habent, pro indiviso habent; ideo contrahitur vinculum sempiternum ad uxorem. Sed filii naturales nec semper cohabitant nec semper cum parentibus habent bona indivisa, immo cum emancipantur, patrem relinquunt6; et hinc est, quod non manet illud vinculum. — Et sic patet, quomodo transit illud vinculum, et quando simpliciter, et quando ad tempus.

Ad argumenta:

Ad 1, 2. Ad illud vero quod quaeritur: quare cognatio legalis non transit in patrem? dicendum, quod cognatio spiritualis transit in patrem, quoniam eundem regenerat, quem pater generavit, ita quod cognatio spiritualis respicit bonum interius; ideo communicatur in uno, et ideo contrahitur cognatio compaternitatis. Sed adoptans adoptatum assumit ad aliquid extra, ideo non sic communicatur. — Quod obiicitur secundo, iam patet.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare non transit in ascendendo? dicendum, quod humor venit a radice ad ramos, non e converso7; et quoniam filii rami sunt patris, ideo cognatio legalis a patre communicatur filiis; non sic oportet nec debet communicari parentibus. — Et sic patet totum8.

English Translation

Question III. Whether legal kinship passes from one person to another.

Thirdly it is asked whether legal kinship passes over into another. And that it does, seems [to be so]:

1. Cause thirty, question three1, and it is had in the text: "Between those who are sons by nature and those who are sons by adoption, the venerable laws do not permit marriages to be contracted"; but this would not be so, unless the kinship passed from father to son: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the union of flesh accords more with legal kinship than with spiritual; but the union of flesh makes spiritual kinship to be common2: therefore much more strongly [does it make] legal kinship [common].

3. Likewise, carnal and spiritual kinship passes over: therefore by parity of reasoning legal kinship [does] also. Or if not, why not? And if it did not pass over, then there would be only a single species; but now three are assigned3.

On the contrary: 1. Since spiritual kinship is communicable, it is therefore necessary that, if someone is made the spiritual father of another, he be made the co-father of that same person's father4: therefore by parity of reasoning [so also] in adoption; which nevertheless is not conceded: therefore there is no passing-over of kinship.

2. Likewise, since in spiritual kinship there is a passing-over from father to natural daughter; therefore it is impossible that a spiritual son should ever contract [marriage] with a natural daughter: therefore by parity of reasoning a son by adoption could never contract [marriage] with a natural daughter; the contrary of which is stated in Cause thirty, question three5: Through adoption a brotherhood is acquired.

Alongside this it is asked: since the bond of legal kinship passes over into sons and grandsons and into wives, why does it not pass over into parents, since they stand in the same nearness?

Conclusion.

Conclusion. The bond of legal kinship passes over into the wife simply, into the sons only for a time.

I respond: It must be said that the bond of adoption passes into another person in two ways, namely by union of flesh and by generation; but by union of flesh it passes over forever, whereas by generation [only] for a time.

And the reason for this is that such adoption regards temporal goods and paternal upbringing; and since husband and wife are joined forever and hold in common, undivided, all that they have; therefore a perpetual bond to the wife is contracted. But natural sons neither always live together nor always have undivided goods with their parents, indeed when they are emancipated, they leave the father6; and hence it is that that bond does not remain. — And thus it is evident how that bond passes over, and when simply, and when for a time.

To the arguments:

To 1 and 2. As to that which is asked: why does legal kinship not pass over into the father? it must be said that spiritual kinship passes over into the father, because it regenerates the same one whom the father begot, so that spiritual kinship regards the interior good; therefore it is communicated in one, and thus the kinship of co-paternity is contracted. But the adopter takes the adopted one to something external, therefore it is not so communicated. — As to what is objected in the second place, it is already evident.

As to that which is asked: why does it not pass over in ascending? it must be said that the sap comes from the root to the branches, not the reverse7; and since the sons are the branches of the father, therefore legal kinship is communicated from the father to the sons; it is not so fitting nor ought it to be communicated to the parents. — And thus the whole is evident8.

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Can. Ita diligere (1.), hic in lit. Magistri, c. 3. allegatus.
    Canon Ita diligere (law 1), cited here in the Master's text, c. 3.
  2. 2
    Vide supra a. I. q. 3, ubi etiam de seq. arg.
    See above, article I, question 3, where also concerning the following argument.
  3. 3
    Cfr. Praenotata ad hunc art. — Pro tunc... unica species edd. hoc... quod unica esset species.
    Cf. the Praenotata to this article. — For "then... a single species" the editions [read] "this... that there would be a single species."
  4. 4
    Vide Praenotata ad 1. art. huius dist., ubi et de maiori seq. arg.
    See the Praenotata to the first article of this distinction, where also concerning the major [premise] of the following argument.
  5. 5
    Can. 6. Cfr. Praenotata ad hunc art. in fine (codd. perperam Post adoptionem).
    Canon 6. Cf. the Praenotata to this article at the end (the codices wrongly [read] Post adoptionem [After adoption]).
  6. 6
    Emancipatio definitur: Relaxatio nexus patrii cum consensu patris emancipantis et filii emancipandi coram competente iudice. Cfr. Iustinian., l. Institut. imperial. Quibus modis ius patriae potestatis solv. (tit. 12.), lex Videamus nunc (1.), § Praeter ea emancipatione, et § Et quidem neque. — Edd. patrem et matrem relinquunt. Superius pro cohabitant cod. Z communicant.
    "Emancipation" is defined: the loosening of the paternal bond, with the consent of the emancipating father and of the son to be emancipated, before a competent judge. Cf. Justinian, the Imperial Institutes, the [title] "By what modes the right of paternal power is dissolved" (title 12), the law Videamus nunc (1), § Praeter ea emancipatione, and § Et quidem neque. — The editions [read] "they leave father and mother." Above, for cohabitant [they dwell together] codex Z [reads] communicant [they share].
  7. 7
    Chrysost., Homil. 32. in Matth. 19, 5. (opus imperfect.): Humor quidem de radicibus ascendit in herbam, de herba non revertitur ad radices, sed sursum transmittitur in semen etc. — Inferius pro debet communicari edd. debent communicare.
    Chrysostom, Homily 32 on Matthew 19:5 (the Opus imperfectum): "The sap indeed ascends from the roots into the plant; from the plant it does not return to the roots, but is transmitted upward into the seed," etc. — Below, for "it ought to be communicated" the editions [read] "they ought to communicate."
  8. 8
    Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion to the first question of this article.
← Dist. 42, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 42, Art. 3, Q. 1→