Dist. 42, Art. 3, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 42
Quaestio III. Utrum secundae nuptiae sint honorabiles.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum secundae nuptiae sint honorabiles. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia omne illud, in quo salvatur ratio honesti, salvatur ratio honorabilis; sed in secundis nuptiis salvatur ratio honesti, quia vitatur inhonestas fornicationis1: ergo etc.
2. Item, gloria est patris filios successores in bonis relinquere, et maxime bonos; sed frequenter in primis nuptiis non acquiruntur filii, sed in secundis; ergo videtur, quod non habenti prolem honorabile sit secundo nubere.
3. Item, omnia Sacramenta divina sunt honoranda: ergo omne quod tenet in se rationem Sacramenti, tenet rationem honorabilis; sed secundae nuptiae sunt huiusmodi, ut prius2 probatum est: ergo secundae nuptiae sunt honorabiles.
4. Item, in Lege qui nolebat suscitare semen fratri, extrahebatur calceamentum de pede, et exspuebatur in faciem eius signum opprobrii sempiterni, Deuteronomii vigesimo quinto3: ergo si multo magis debet quis sollicitus esse de prole sua quam de aliena; videtur, quod si aliquis non habens filios p. 879 de prima uxore, ipsa mortua, nolit contrahere cum alia, quod sit sibi opprobrium: ergo ab oppositis, contrahere cum secunda est honorificum. — Si tu dicas, quod secus est nunc in lege nova, in qua quaeritur fecunditas mentis magis quam ventris4; obiicitur in contrarium, quod illud non solvit: quia, si aliquid est bonum, sua iteratione non fit malum, sed melius, quia duplex melius est quam simplex: ergo si aliquid est honorabile, sua iteratione non fit vituperabile. Sed primae nuptiae sunt honorabiles: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Omne illud est indecens, a quo arcentur honestae personae, ne intersint; sed secundae nuptiae sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc. Maior manifesta est; minor probatur per illud Caesariensis Concilii, quod ponitur in littera5: «Presbyterum, inquit, prandere in nuptiis bigami non convenit, cum poenitentia bigamus indigeat»: ergo etc.
2. Item, omne illud est indecens, per quod efficitur quis ineptus ad gradum dignitatis, ad quem prius erat idoneus; sed per secundas nuptias efficitur quis ineptus ad gradum sacerdotii, ad quem erat prius aptus6: ergo secundas nuptias contrahere est vituperabile et indecorum.
3. Item, omne illud est in opprobrium, quod reddit hominem notabilem de aliquo vitio; sed secundae nuptiae sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc. Et hoc confirmatur per illud Ambrosii, quod habetur in littera7, quod «etiam in praesenti carent gloria».
4. Item, omne illud est in opprobrium, quod reddit indignum ecclesiastica benedictione; sed secundae nuptiae, quamvis sint licitae, privatae sunt benedictione, quae debetur illi Sacramento8: ergo sunt opprobriosae.
Conclusio.
Secundae nuptiae, proprie loquendo, non sunt honorabiles, non tamen sunt vituperabiles, sed tolerabiles.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod matrimonii Sacramentum est utile et honorabile. Et quamvis utile et honorabile sit ratione triplicis boni: fidei, prolis et Sacramenti; tamen, ut appropriate loquamur, nuptiae sunt honorabiles, quia torus est immaculatus9, et hoc est per bonum fidei; utiles vero sunt, quia venter est fecundus, et hoc est per bonum prolis. Bonum vero Sacramenti ad utrumque refertur: ad honorabilitatem, in quantum significat — sic enim Sacramentum hoc magnum est et honorabile, scilicet ratione significati, in Christo scilicet et Ecclesia10 — ad utilitatem vero, in quantum remedium peccati.
Si ergo loquamur de secundis nuptiis ratione utilitatis; sic salvatur ratio utilitatis. Utiles enim erant, quia erant in officium et in remedium11; et utrumque horum ut plurimum in secundis nuptiis reperitur. Si ratione honorabilitatis; dicendum, quod honorabiles erant ratione continentiae coniugalis et significationis sacramentalis, et utrumque horum ibi est imperfecte et defective. Nam significatio sacramentalis defective est secundum veritatem, continentia coniugalis secundum probabilitatem. Ideo dico, quod «carent gloria», et ideo non sunt honorabiles; tamen, quia carent culpa, non sunt vituperabiles, sed sunt tolerabiles. Unde nec Dominus nec Sancti12 eas prohibent tanquam malas, sed tamen eas non persuadent quasi defectivas. — Concedendum igitur, quod, proprie loquendo, secundae nuptiae non sunt honorabiles, sicut ostendunt rationes; et hoc est quod dicit Ambrosius, et habetur in littera13, quod «etiam in praesenti carent gloria».
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod vitatur fornicatio; dicendum, quod vitatur secundum statum imperfectionis; et ideo potius hoc ad utilitatem quam ad laudem vel honorem dignoscitur pertinere.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de cognatione, dicendum, quod hoc non dicit secundum tempus gratiae, sed secundum tempus legis scriptae14. — Vel si nunc dicat honorem, hoc est quantum ad hominem, non quantum ad Deum, quia quaeritur modo successio religionis, non sanguinis; ideo utilitati potius quam honori hoc attribuendum est.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Sacramento, dicendum, quod verum est, quod est Sacramentum; tamen est cum defectu, ratione cuius habet quandam ignobilitatem; ac per hoc potius minuitur gloria, quam amplificetur in talis Sacramenti contractione.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de suscitatione seminis, dicendum, quod illud fuit proprium legis veteris, propter hoc quod ibi erat benedictio in prole p. 880 carnali et promissio temporalis; sed nunc illa lex non habet locum. Et si tu obiicias, quod idem iteratum est melius, ergo honorabilius; dicendum, quod verum est si iteratio competat suae naturae, sicut in his quae acquiruntur per assuefactionem. Hoc tamen non habet ubique locum, quia baptismus iteratus non est melior quam simplex, quia non competit ei iteratio15; sic iteratio matrimonii non competit significationi nec competit usui honestatis sive castitatis, nisi sit propter infirmitatem carnis, — quae magis facit excusabilitatem quam honorem.
His visis, satis patent quae sunt circa litteram16.
---
Question III. Whether second marriages are honorable.
In the third place it is asked whether second marriages are honorable. And that they are, seems [to be shown]:
1. Because in everything in which the character of the honest is preserved, the character of the honorable is preserved; but in second marriages the character of the honest is preserved, since the dishonor of fornication is avoided1: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, it is a father's glory to leave behind sons as successors in his goods, and especially good ones; but often in first marriages sons are not obtained, but in second ones [they are]; therefore it seems that for one who has no offspring it is honorable to marry a second time.
3. Likewise, all divine Sacraments are to be honored: therefore everything that holds in itself the character of a Sacrament holds the character of the honorable; but second marriages are of this kind, as was proved before2: therefore second marriages are honorable.
4. Likewise, in the Law, from him who was unwilling to raise up seed for his brother the sandal was drawn off his foot, and there was spat in his face a sign of everlasting reproach, in Deuteronomy 253: therefore, if much more ought one to be solicitous for his own offspring than for another's; it seems that if someone, having no sons from a first wife, she being dead, is unwilling to contract [marriage] with another, this is a reproach to him: therefore, from the opposites, to contract [marriage] with a second is honorific. — If you should say that it is otherwise now under the new law, in which fruitfulness of mind is sought rather than of the womb4; it is objected on the contrary that this does not resolve [the matter]: because, if something is good, by its repetition it does not become evil, but better, since a double is better than a single: therefore if something is honorable, by its repetition it does not become blameworthy. But first marriages are honorable: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. Everything is unseemly from which honorable persons are kept away, lest they be present; but second marriages are of this kind: therefore etc. The major is manifest; the minor is proved by that [statement] of the Council of Caesarea, which is set down in the text5: "It is not fitting," it says, "for a priest to dine at the wedding of a twice-married man, since a twice-married man is in need of penance": therefore etc.
2. Likewise, everything is unseemly through which someone is made unfit for a grade of dignity for which he was previously suited; but through second marriages someone is made unfit for the grade of priesthood, for which he was previously fit6: therefore to contract a second marriage is blameworthy and unseemly.
3. Likewise, everything is a reproach which renders a man notable for some vice; but second marriages are of this kind: therefore etc. And this is confirmed by that [saying] of Ambrose, which is contained in the text7, that "even in the present [life] they lack glory."
4. Likewise, everything is a reproach which renders [someone] unworthy of the ecclesiastical blessing; but second marriages, although they are licit, are deprived of the blessing which is owed to that Sacrament8: therefore they are reproachful.
Conclusion.
Second marriages, properly speaking, are not honorable; yet they are not blameworthy, but tolerable.
I respond: It must be said that the Sacrament of matrimony is useful and honorable. And although it is useful and honorable by reason of a threefold good — of fidelity, of offspring, and of the Sacrament — nevertheless, to speak by appropriation, marriage is honorable because the bed is immaculate9, and this is through the good of fidelity; and [marriages] are useful because the womb is fruitful, and this is through the good of offspring. But the good of the Sacrament refers to both: to honorability, insofar as it signifies — for thus this Sacrament is great and honorable, namely by reason of the thing signified, namely in Christ and the Church10 — but to utility, insofar as it is a remedy for sin.
If therefore we speak of second marriages by reason of utility; thus the character of utility is preserved. For they were useful, because they were unto duty and unto remedy11; and each of these is for the most part found in second marriages. If by reason of honorability; it must be said that they were honorable by reason of conjugal continence and of sacramental signification, and each of these is there imperfectly and defectively. For the sacramental signification is defective as regards truth, conjugal continence as regards probability. Therefore I say that "they lack glory," and therefore they are not honorable; yet, because they lack fault, they are not blameworthy, but are tolerable. Hence neither the Lord nor the Saints12 prohibit them as evil, but nevertheless do not urge them as being defective. — It must therefore be granted that, properly speaking, second marriages are not honorable, as the arguments show; and this is what Ambrose says, and it is contained in the text13, that "even in the present [life] they lack glory."
1. To that, then, which is objected, that fornication is avoided; it must be said that it is avoided according to a state of imperfection; and therefore this is recognized to pertain rather to utility than to praise or honor.
2. To that which is objected concerning kinship, it must be said that this is not said according to the time of grace, but according to the time of the written law14. — Or, if it now speaks of honor, this is as regards man, not as regards God, since now succession of religion is sought, not of blood; therefore this is to be attributed to utility rather than to honor.
3. To that which is objected concerning the Sacrament, it must be said that it is true that it is a Sacrament; yet it is with a defect, by reason of which it has a certain ignobility; and through this the glory is rather diminished than amplified in the contracting of such a Sacrament.
4. To that which is objected concerning the raising up of seed, it must be said that that was proper to the old law, for the reason that there was there a blessing in carnal offspring and a temporal promise; but now that law has no place. And if you object that the same thing repeated is better, therefore more honorable; it must be said that this is true if repetition befits its nature, as in those things which are acquired through habituation. This, however, does not hold everywhere, because baptism repeated is not better than a single [one], since repetition does not befit it15; so the repetition of matrimony does not befit its signification, nor does it befit the use of honesty or of chastity, unless it be on account of the infirmity of the flesh — which makes rather for excusability than for honor.
These things having been seen, what pertains to the text is sufficiently clear16.
---
- 1Epist. I. Cor. 7, 2. et 39.First Letter to the Corinthians 7:2 and 39.
- 2Quaest. praeced.The preceding question.
- 3Vers. 7. seqq. — Edd. extrahebat (Vulgata tollet) calceamentum... exspuebat.[Deuteronomy 25,] verses 7ff. — The editions [read] extrahebat (the Vulgate, tollet) the sandal... he spat.
- 4Cfr. supra pag. 762, nota 4. — Inferius post quia duplex edd. supplent bonum (cfr. supra pag. 307, nota 1.).Cf. above, p. 762, note 4. — Below, after since a double the editions supply good (cf. above, p. 307, note 1).
- 5Hic c. 7.Here, c. 7.
- 6Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 3.See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 3.
- 7Hic c. 7. — Permulti codd. omittunt etiam.Here, c. 7. — Very many codices omit even.
- 8Cfr. supra pag. 878, nota 8.Cf. above, p. 878, note 8.
- 9Hebr. 13, 4: Honorabile connubium in omnibus, et torus immaculatus. Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Voci nuptiae edd. praemittunt secundae.Hebrews 13:4: Marriage honorable in all, and the bed undefiled. Cf. above, d. 31, a. 1, q. 1f. — Before the word marriage the editions prefix second.
- 10Eph. 5, 32. — Mox pro praestat, quod habent edd., ex codd. R S substituimus peccati, quae lectio confirmatur ex pluribus aliis codd. incongrue ponentibus peccat.Ephesians 5:32. — Presently, in place of praestat, which the editions have, we have substituted from codices R S peccati, which reading is confirmed from several other codices that incongruously put peccat.
- 11Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 1. seq. — Pro Utiles enim erant [nuptiae] multi codd. Utile enim erat [matrimonium], qua lectione servata, codd. F G W bene prosequuntur quia erat in etc. Inferius post dicendum, quod codd. addunt quia.See above, in the text of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 1f. — In place of For they were useful [marriages] many codices [read] For it was useful [matrimony], and with this reading kept, codices F G W rightly continue since it was unto etc. Below, after it must be said, the codices add that.
- 12Cfr. supra q. I, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.Cf. above, q. 1, and here in the text of the Master, c. 7.
- 13Hic c. 7.Here, c. 7.
- 14Vide supra d. 33. a. 2. q. 2. et dub. 1. — Edd. omittunt tempus gratiae, sed secundum. De secunda solut., in qua pro religionis (ita cod. aa, bb a secunda manu) codd. communiter et edd. relationis, cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXIII. c. 4, et Comment. dub. 6. nec non d. 37. a. 1. q. 3. ad 5.See above, d. 33, a. 2, q. 2 and dub. 1. — The editions omit the time of grace, but according to. Concerning the second solution, in which for of religion (thus codices aa, bb by a second hand) the codices commonly and the editions [read] of relation, cf. above, in the text of the Master, d. XXXIII, c. 4, and the Commentary, dub. 6, as well as d. 37, a. 1, q. 3, ad 5.
- 15Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6. — Superius verbis idem iteratum edd. interserunt bonum.Cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 6. — Above, in the words the same thing repeated, the editions insert good.
- 16Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion on the first question of this article.