Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum filii qui nascuntur extra verum matrimonium, sint illegitimi Whether children born out of true marriage are illegitimate? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod filii qui nascuntur extra verum matrimonium, non sint illegitimi. Quia secundum legem natus legitimus filius dicitur. Sed quilibet filius nascitur secundum legem, ad minus naturae, quae fortissima est. Ergo quilibet filius est legitimus. Objection 1: It would seem that children born out of true marriage are legitimate. For he that is born according to law is called a legitimate son. Now everyone is born according to law, at least the law of nature, which has more force than any other. Therefore, every child is to be called legitimate. Praeterea, communiter dicitur quod legitimus filius est qui est de legitimo matrimonio natus, vel de eo quod in facie Ecclesiae legitimum reputatur. Sed contingit quandoque quod aliquod matrimonium legitimum reputatur in facie Ecclesiae quod habet impedimentum ne sit verum matrimonium, et tamen a contrahentibus in facie Ecclesiae scitur. Et si occulte nubant et impedimentum nesciant, legitimum videtur in facie Ecclesiae, ex quo per Ecclesiam non prohibentur. Ergo filii extra verum matrimonium nati non sunt illegitimi. Obj. 2: Further, it is the common saying that a legitimate child is one born of a legitimate marriage, or of a marriage that is deemed legitimate in the eyes of the Church. Now it happens sometimes that a marriage is deemed legitimate in the eyes of the Church, whereas there is some impediment affecting its validity: which impediment may be known to the parties who marry in the presence of the Church, or they may marry in secret and be ignorant of the impediment, in which case their marriage would seem legitimate in the eyes of the Church for the very reason that it is not prevented by the Church. Therefore, children born out of true marriage are not illegitimate. Sed contra, illegitimum dicitur quod est contra legem. Sed illi qui nascuntur extra matrimonium, nascuntur contra legem. Ergo sunt illegitimi. On the contrary, ‘Illegitimate’ is that which is against the law. Now those who are born out of wedlock are born contrary to the law. Therefore, they are illegitimate. Respondeo dicendum quod quadruplex est status filiorum. Quidam enim sunt naturales et legitimi: sicut illi qui nascuntur ex legitimo matrimonio. Quidam naturales et non legitimi: ut filii qui nascuntur ex simplici fornicatione. Quidam legitimi et non naturales: sicut filii adoptivi. Quidam nec legitimi nec naturales: sicut spurii nati de adulterio vel de stupro; tales enim nascuntur et contra legem positivam, et expresse contra legem naturae. Et sic concedendum est quosdam filios esse illegitimos. I answer that, Children are of four conditions. Some are natural and legitimate, for instance, those who are born of a true and lawful marriage; some are natural and illegitimate, as those who are born of fornication; some are legitimate and not natural, as adopted children; some are neither legitimate nor natural; such are those born of adultery or incest, for these are born not only against the positive law, but against the express natural law. Hence we must grant that some children are illegitimate. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis illi qui nascuntur ex illicito coitu, nascuntur secundum naturam quae communis est homini et omnibus animalibus, tamen nascuntur contra legem naturae quae est propria hominibus: quia fornicatio et adulterium et huiusmodi sunt contra legem naturae. Et ideo tales secundum nullam legem sunt legitimi. Reply Obj. 1: Although those who are born of an unlawful intercourse are born according to the nature common to man and all animals, they are born contrary to the law of nature which is proper to man: since fornication, adultery, and the like are contrary to the law of nature. Hence the like are not legitimate by any law. Ad secundum dicendum quod ignorantia excusat illicitum coitum a peccato nisi sit affectata. Unde illi qui conveniunt bona fide in facie Ecclesiae, quamvis sit impedimentum, dum tamen ignorent, non peccant, nec filii sunt illegitimi. Si autem sciant, quamvis Ecclesia sustineat, quae ignorat impedimentum, non excusantur a peccato, nec filii ab illegitimitate. Si autem nesciant et in occulto contrahant, non excusantur: quia talis ignorantia videtur affectata. Reply Obj. 2: Ignorance, unless it be affected, excuses unlawful intercourse from sin. Wherefore those who contract together in good faith in the presence of the Church although there be an impediment, of which, however, they are ignorant, sin not, nor are their children illegitimate. If, however, they know of the impediment, although the Church upholds their marriage because she knows not of the impediment, they are not excused from sin, nor do their children avoid being illegitimate. Neither are they excused if they know not of the impediment and marry secretly, because such ignorance would appear to be affected. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum illegitimi filii debeant ex hoc aliquod damnum reportare Whether children should suffer any loss through being illegitimate? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod illegitimi filii non debeant ex hoc aliquod damnum reportare. Quia filius non debet puniri pro peccato patris: ut patet per sententiam Domini, Ezech. 18. Sed quod iste nascatur ex illicito coitu, non est peccatum proprium, sed peccatum patris. Ergo ex hoc non debet aliquod damnum incurrere. Objection 1: It would seem that children ought not to suffer any loss through being illegitimate. For a child should not be punished on account of his father’s sin, according to the Lord’s saying (Ezech. 18:20). But it is not his own but his father’s fault that he is born of an unlawful union. Therefore, he should not incur a loss on this account. Praeterea, iustitia humana est exemplata a divina. Sed Deus aequaliter largitur bona naturalia legitimis et illegitimis filiis. Ergo et secundum iura humana filii illegitimi debent legitimis aequiparari. Obj. 2: Further, human justice is copied from divine. Now God confers natural goods equally on legitimate and illegitimate children. Therefore, illegitimate should be equal to legitimate children according to human laws. Sed contra est quod dicitur Genes. 25, quod Abraham dedit omnia bona sua Isaac, et filiis concubinarum largitus est munera. Et tamen illi non erant ex illicito coitu nati. Ergo multo magis debent illi qui ex illicito coitu nascuntur, hoc damnum reportare quod non succedant in bonis paternis. On the contrary, It is stated that Abraham gave all his possessions to Isaac, and that to the children of the concubines he gave gifts (Gen 25:5): and yet the latter were not born of an unlawful intercourse. Much more, therefore, ought those born of an unlawful intercourse to incur loss by not inheriting their father’s property. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquis dicitur damnum ex aliquo incurrere dupliciter. Uno modo, per hoc quod ei subtrahitur quod ei erat debitum. Et sic filius illegitimus nullum damnum incurrit. Alio modo, per: hoc quod ei aliquid non est debitum quod alias poterat esse ei debitum. Et sic filius illegitimus damnum incurrit duplex: unum, quia non admittitur ad actus legitimos, sicut ad officia et dignitates, quae requirunt quandam honestatem in illis qui hoc exercent; aliud damnum incurrit quia non succedit in hereditate paterna. I answer that, A person is said to incur a loss for some cause in two ways: First, because he is deprived of his due, and thus an illegitimate child incurs no loss. Second, because something is not due to him which might have been due otherwise, and thus an illegitimate son incurs a twofold loss. First, because he is excluded from legitimate acts such as offices and dignities, which require a certain respectability in those who perform them. Second, he incurs a loss by not succeeding to his father’s inheritance. Sed tamen naturales filii succedere possunt in sexta parte tantum. Spurii autem in nulla parte: quamvis ex iure naturali parentes eis in necessariis providere teneantur. Unde pertinet ad sollicitudinem episcopi ut utrumque parentum cogat ad hoc quod eis provideant. Nevertheless, natural sons can inherit a sixth only, whereas spurious children cannot inherit any portion, although by natural law their parents are bound to provide for their needs. Hence it is part of a bishop’s care to compel both parents to provide for them. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod incurrere damnum hoc secundo modo non est poena. Et ideo non dicimus quod sit poena alicui quod non succedit in regno aliquo per hoc quod non est filius regis. Et similiter non est poena quod alicui qui non est legitimus, non debeantur ea quae sunt legitimorum filiorum. Reply Obj. 1: To incur a loss in this second way is not a punishment. Hence we do not say that a person is punished by not succeeding to the throne through not being the king’s son. In like manner, it is no punishment to an illegitimate child that he has no right to that which belongs to the legitimate children. Ad secundum dicendum quod coitus illegitimus non est contra legem inquantum est actus generativae virtutis, sed inquantum ex prava voluntate procedit. Et ideo filius illegitimus non incurrit damnum in his quae acquiruntur per naturalem originem, sed in his quae per voluntatem fiunt vel possidentur. Reply Obj. 2: Illegitimate intercourse is contrary to the law not as an act of the generative power, but as proceeding from a wicked will. Hence an illegitimate son incurs a loss not in those things which come to him by his natural origin, but in those things which are dependent on the will for being done or possessed. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum filius illegitimus possit legitimari Whether an illegitimate son can be legitimized? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod filius illegitimus non possit legitimari. Quantum enim distat legitimus ab illegitimo, tantum e converso illegitimus a legitimo. Sed legitimus nunquam fit illegitimus. Ergo illegitimus nunquam fit legitimus. Objection 1: It would seem that an illegitimate son cannot be legitimized. For the legitimate child is as far removed from the illegitimate as the illegitimate from the legitimate. But a legitimate child is never made illegitimate. Neither, therefore, is an illegitimate child ever made legitimate. Praeterea, coitus illegitimus causat illegitimum filium. Sed coitus illegitimus nunquam fit legitimus. Ergo nec filius illegitimus legitimari potest. Obj. 2: Further, illegitimate intercourse begets an illegitimate child. But illegitimate intercourse never becomes legitimate. Neither, therefore, can an illegitimate son become legitimate. Sed contra, quod per legem inducitur, per legem revocari potest. Sed illegitimitas filiorum est per legem positivam inducta. Ergo potest filius illegitimus legitimari ab eo qui habet auctoritatem legis. On the contrary, What is done by the law can be undone by the law. Now the illegitimacy of children is an effect of positive law. Therefore, an illegitimate child can be legitimized by one who has legal authority. Respondeo dicendum quod filius illegitimus potest legitimari, non ut fiat de legitimo coitu natus, quia coitus ille transivit, et nunquam potest fieri legitimus ex quo semel fuit illegitimus: sed dicitur legitimari inquantum damna quae illegitimus filius incurrit, subtrahuntur per legis auctoritatem. I answer that, An illegitimate child can be legitimized not so that he be born of a legitimate intercourse, because this intercourse is a thing of the past and can never be legitimized from the moment that it was once illegitimate. But the child is said to be legitimized insofar as the losses which an illegitimate child ought to incur are withdrawn by the authority of the law. Et sunt sex modi legitimandi. Duo secundum canones: scilicet cum quis ducit in uxorem illam ex qua filium illegitimum generavit, si non fuit adulterium; et per specialem indulgentiam et dispensationem Domini Papae. There are six ways of becoming legitimate: two according to the canons (Decretals), namely, when a man marries the woman of whom he has an unlawful child (if it were not a case of adultery); and by special indulgence and dispensation of the lord Pope. Quattuor autem alii modi sunt secundum leges. Primus est si pater filium naturalem curiae Imperatoris offerat: ex hoc enim ipso legitimatur, propter curiae honestatem. Secundus, si pater testamento nominet eum legitimum heredem, et filius postmodum testamentum Imperatori offerat. Tertius est si nullus sit filius legitimus, et ipsemet filius se principi offerat. Quartus, si pater iri publico instrm mento, vel cum trium testium subscriptione, eum legitimum nominet nec adiiciat naturalem. The other four ways are according to the laws: (1) if the father offer his natural son to the emperor’s court, for by this very fact the son is legitimate on account of the reputation of the court; (2) if the father designate him in his will as his legitimate heir, and the son afterwards offer the will to the emperor; (3) if there be no legitimate son and the son himself offer himself to the emperor; (4) if the father designate him as legitimate in a public document or in a document signed by three witnesses, without calling him natural. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod alicui potest sine iniustitia gratia fieri: sed non potest aliquis damnificari nisi pro culpa. Et ideo magis potest illegitimus fieri legitimus quam e converso. Etsi enim legitimus aliquando hereditate privatur pro culpa, non tamen dicitur illegitimus filius: quia generationem legitimam habuit. Reply Obj. 1: A favor may be bestowed on a person without injustice, but a person cannot be damnified except for a fault. Hence an illegitimate child can be legitimized rather than vice versa; for although a legitimate son is sometimes deprived of his inheritance on account of his fault, he is not said to be illegitimate, because he was legitimately begotten. Ad secundum dicendum quod actus illegitimus habet defectum intra se inseparabilem, quo legi opponitur: et ideo non potest fieri legitimus. Nec est simile de filio illegitimo, qui non habet huiusmodi defectum. Reply Obj. 2: Illegitimate intercourse has an inherent inseparable defect whereby it is opposed to the law: and consequently it cannot be legitimized. Nor is there any comparison with an illegitimate child who has no such defect.