Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum propter alia peccata vir possit dimittere uxorem, sicut propter infidelitatem Whether a man may put away his wife because of other sins, as for unbelief Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod alia vitia solvant matrimonium, sicut et infidelitas. Adulterium enim directius videtur esse contra matrimonium quam infidelitas. Sed infidelitas in aliquo casu solvit matrimonium, ut liceat ad aliud matrimonium transire. Ergo et adulterium idem facit. Obj. 1: To the sixth question, we proceed thus. It seems that other vices dissolve marriage, just as unbelief does. For adultery seems to be more directly opposed to marriage than unbelief. But unbelief in some cases dissolves the marriage, such that one is permitted to enter upon another marriage. Therefore, adultery also does the same thing. Praeterea, sicut infidelitas est fornicatio spiritualis, ita etiam quodlibet peccatum. Si ergo propter hoc infidelitas matrimonium solvit, quia est fornicatio spiritualis, quodlibet aliud peccatum matrimonium solvit pari ratione. Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as unbelief is a spiritual fornication, so is any other kind of sin. Therefore, if unbelief, which is a spiritual fornication, dissolves marriage on this account, any other sin would dissolve marriage by the same reasoning. Praeterea, Matth. 5, 30, dicitur: si dextera manus tua scandalizat te, abscinde eam, et projice abs te; et dicit Glossa quod in manu et in dextero oculo possunt accipi fratres, uxor, propinqui, et filii. Sed per quodlibet peccatum efficiuntur nobis impedimento. Ergo propter quodlibet peccatum potest dissolvi matrimonium. Obj. 3: Furthermore, it says in Matthew 5:30, if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it from you; and it says in the Gloss that ’hand’ and ‘right eye’ can be taken as meaning brothers, wife, neighbors, and children. But they become an impediment to us by any sort of sin. Therefore, marriage can be dissolved because of any sin. Praeterea, avaritia idolatria est, ut dicitur Ephes. 5. Sed propter idolatriam potest mulier dimitti. Ergo pari ratione propter avaritiam, et ita propter alia peccata, quae sunt majora quam avaritia. Obj. 4: Furthermore, avarice is an idolatry, as it says in Ephesians 5:5. But because of idolatry a woman can be put away. Therefore, by the same reasoning she can be put away on account of avarice, and in the same way because of other sins, which are greater than avarice. Praeterea, Magister hoc expresse dicit in littera. Obj. 5: Furthermore, the Master expressly says this in the text. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. 5, 31: qui dimiserit uxorem, excepta causa fornicationis, moechatur. On the contrary (1), it says in Matthew 5:32: whoever puts away his wife, except because of fornication, commits adultery. Praeterea, secundum hoc tota die fierent divortia, cum raro inveniatur matrimonium in quo conjugum alter in peccatum non labatur. Furthermore (2), according to this, separations would be happening every day, for a marriage is rare in which one of the spouses or the other has not fallen into sin. Respondeo dicendum, quod fornicatio corporalis et infidelitas specialem habent contrarietatem ad bona matrimonii, ut ex dictis patere potest, unde specialiter habent vim separandi matrimonia. Sed tamen intelligendum, quod matrimonium dupliciter solvitur. Uno modo quantum ad vinculum; et sic non potest solvi postquam matrimonium est ratificatum, neque per infidelitatem neque per adulterium; sed si non est ratificatum, solvitur vinculum permanente infidelitate in altero conjugum, si alter conversus ad fidem ad aliud conjugium transeat; non autem solvitur vinculum praedictum per adulterium; alias infidelis libere posset dare libellum repudii uxori adulterae, et ea dimissa alteram ducere; quod falsum est. Alio modo solvitur matrimonium quantum ad actum; et sic solvi potest tam per infidelitatem quam per fornicationem corporalem, ut supra, dist. 35, dictum est; sed propter alia peccata non potest solvi matrimonium, etiam quantum ad actum, nisi forte ad tempus vir se velit subtrahere a consortio uxoris ad castigationem ejus, subtrahendo ei praesentiae suae solatium. I answer that, bodily fornication and unbelief are especially contrary to the goods of marriage, as can be seen from what has been said, which is why they especially possess the force to separate marriages. But nevertheless it must be understood that a marriage is dissolved in one of two ways. In one way, on the part of the bond, and in this way it cannot be dissolved after the marriage has been ratified, neither by unbelief nor by adultery. But if it is not ratified, the bond is dissolved if the one of the spouses persists in unbelief and the other, who has converted, enters a new union. But the bond is not dissolved by adultery; otherwise an unbeliever could easily give a writ of divorce to an adulterous wife, and once she is put away he could marry another; which is false. In another way, marriage is dissolved as to its act; and in this way it can be dissolved both by unbelief and by physical fornication, as was said above in Distinction 35. But marriage cannot be dissolved on account of other sins, even as to its act, unless perhaps the man wishes to remove himself for a time from the company of his wife for her reproof, by removing the comfort of his presence from her. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quamvis adulterium magis directe opponatur matrimonio, inquantum est in officium naturae, quam infidelitas; tamen e converso est secundum quod matrimonium est sacramentum Ecclesiae, ex quo habet perfectam firmitatem, inquantum significat indivisibilem conjunctionem Christi et Ecclesiae; et ideo matrimonium quod non est ratum, magis potest solvi quantum ad vinculum per infidelitatem quam per adulterium. Reply Obj. 1: Although adultery is more directly opposed to marriage than unbelief is, insofar as marriage is an office of nature, yet the reverse is true insofar as marriage is a sacrament of the Church, from which it gains complete firmness, insofar as it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the Church. And thus a marriage that is not ratified can be dissolved more easily by unbelief than by adultery, as to its bond. Ad secundum dicendum, quod prima conjunctio animae ad Deum est per fidem; et ideo per eam anima quasi desponsatur Deo, ut patet Oseae 2, 20: sponsabo te mihi in fide; unde in Sacra Scriptura specialiter per fornicationem idolatria et infidelitas designantur; sed alia peccata magis remota significatione dicuntur spirituales fornicationes. Reply Obj. 2: The first union of the soul to God is by faith; and thus the soul is espoused, as it were, to God, as is clear from Hosea 2:20: I will espouse you to me in faith. For which reason, in Sacred Scripture idolatry and unbelief are particularly designated by ‘fornication’; but other sins are called spiritual fornications by a more remote signification. Ad tertium dicendum, quod hoc intelligendum est quando mulier praestat magnam occasionem ruinae viro suo, ut vir probabiliter sibi de periculo timeat: tunc enim vir potest se subtrahere ab ejus conversatione, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 3: This is to be understood as applying when a woman presents a great occasion of sin to her husband, so that he has a probable fear of danger to himself. For then a man can remove himself from interaction with her, as was said. Ad quartum dicendum, quod avaritia dicitur idolatria per quamdam similitudinem servitutis, quia tam avarus quam idolatra potius servit creaturae quam Creatori; non autem per similitudinem infidelitatis; quia corruptio infidelitatis est in intellectu, sed avaritiae in affectu. Reply Obj. 4: Avarice is called idolatry by a certain similarity of slavery, for both the greedy man and the idolater would rather serve a created thing than the Creator, but not by the likeness of unbelief; for the corruption of unbelief is in the intellect, but avarice resides in the affections. Ad quintum dicendum, quod verba Magistri sunt accipienda de sponsalibus: quia propter crimen superveniens sponsalia solvi possunt. Vel si loquamur de matrimonio, intelligendum est de separatione a communi conversatione ad tempus, ut dictum est, vel quando uxor non vult cohabitare nisi sub conditione peccandi, ut cum dicit: non ero uxor tua, nisi mihi de latrocinio divitias congreges etc., tunc enim potius debet eam dimittere quam latrocinia exercere. Reply Obj. 5: The words of the master are to be taken as concerning betrothed couples, for a betrothal can be broken because of sins committed afterward. Or if we should speak of marriage, it is to be understood about a separation for a time from shared interaction, as was said, or when the wife does not wish to live together unless under a sinful condition, as when she says, “I will not be your wife unless you acquire wealth for me by stealing,” for then he should rather put her away than engage in theft. Expositio textus Exposition of the Text Et alienigenam, idest haereticam. Crimen haeresis impedit matrimonium semper contrahendum; sed non dirimit contractum, nisi sit talis haeretica quae baptismi sacramentum non acceperit, aut non in forma Ecclesiae fuerit baptizata. “Or a foreigner, that is, a heretic.” The sin of heresy always impedes marriage from being contracted, but it does not invalidate the contract, unless she were a heretic of such a kind that she did not accept the sacrament of baptism, or was not baptized in the form of the Church. Si ambo crediderunt, per agnitionem Dei confirmatur conjugium. Sed contra. Si mulier ante conversionem fuerit fornicata, tenebitur eam vir recipere, etiam si converti voluerit, ut videtur. Et dicendum, quod si mulier conversa repetat virum suum conversum, vir non potest excipere contra eam de fornicatione prius commissa, si ipse occasionem fornicationi dedit; puta, si noluit cohabitare ei volenti cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris; alias potest excipere; et tamen ratificatur matrimonium, ita quod ulterius non possit solvi quantum ad vinculum, ut viro liceat aliam uxorem ducere, quamvis possit solvi quantum ad actum. “But if both should believe, their marriage is approved by their acknowledgment of God.” But to the contrary. If a woman had fornicated before her conversion, her husband is bound to take her back, if he also wanted to convert, as it seems. And it must be said that if a woman who has converted seeks out her husband, who has converted, the man cannot hold it against her that she had formerly committed fornication, if he himself gave her the occasion for fornicating; for example, if he refused to live together with her, and she wanted to live together without affront to the Creator. Otherwise he could take exception; and nevertheless the marriage is ratified, so that it may no longer be dissolved on the part of the bond, such that the man would be allowed to take another wife, although it might be dissolved as to the act. Distinctio 40 Distinction 40 De consanguinitate On consanguinity Postquam determinavit Magister de impedimento matrimonii, quo persona redditur illegitima simpliciter respectu alicujus personae propter distantiam ad ipsam, hic incipit determinare de impedimentis quibus persona redditur simpliciter illegitima respectu alterius propter propinquitatem ad eam; et dividitur in partes duas: in prima determinat de impedimento propinquitatis carnalis; in secunda de impedimento propinquitatis spiritualis, 42 dist., ibi: jam de spirituali cognatione addamus. After the Master has considered the impediment by which a person is made legally incapable of marriage with some other person because of distance between them, here he begins to determine the impediments by which a person is rendered legally incapable of marriage with another person because of close relationship between them; and this is divided into two parts: in the first part he considers the impediment of a physically close relationship; in the second part, the impediment of a spiritually close relationship, in Distinction 42, where he says: let us now add something concerning spiritual relationship. Prima in duas: in prima determinat de consanguinitate; in secunda de affinitate, 41 dist., ibi: nunc de affinitate videndum est. The first is in two parts: in the first he considers consanguinity; in the second, affinity, Distinction 41, where he says, now we must examine affinity. Prima in duas: in prima ostendit secundum quos gradus consanguinitas matrimonium impediat; in secunda objicit in contrarium, et solvit, ibi: his autem occurrit illud quod Gregorius Augustino Anglorum episcopo . . . rescribit. The first is in two parts: in the first he shows which degrees of consanguinity impede marriage; in the second he objects to the contrary, and resolves it, where he says, with these statements contrasts that which “Gregory replies to Augustine, bishop of the English . . .” Prima in duas: in prima ostendit usque ad quos gradus consanguinitas matrimonium impediat; in secunda ostendit rationem hujus distinctionis, ibi: quare vero sex gradus computet Isidorus, ipse aperit. The first is in two parts; in the first he shows in what degrees consanguinity impedes marriage; in the second he shows the reason for this distinction, where he says, Isidore explains why he counts six degrees. Prima in duas: in prima ostendit usque ad quos gradus consanguinitas matrimonium impediat; in secunda ostendit quomodo sunt gradus praedicti computandi, ibi: quomodo autem gradus consanguinitatis computandi sint, Isidorus ostendit sic. The first is in two parts: in the first he shows which degrees of consanguinity impede marriage; in the second he shows how these degrees are calculated, where he says, as to how the degrees of consanguinity are to be computed, Isidore shows this as follows. Quaestio 1 Question 1 De consanguinitate On consanguinity Hic quaeruntur quatuor: Here four questions arise: primo, quid sit consanguinitas; first, what consanguinity is; secundo, de distinctione ipsius; second, how it is distinguished; tertio, utrum secundum aliquos gradus impediat matrimonium de jure naturali; third, whether in some degrees it impedes marriage by natural law; quarto, utrum gradus matrimonium impedientes possint per statutum Ecclesiae determinari. fourth, whether the degrees that impede marriage can be determined by the statutes of the Church. Articulus 1 Article 1 Quid sit consanguinitas What consanguinity is Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod definitio consanguinitatis quam quidam ponunt, sit incompetens, scilicet: consanguinitas est vinculum ab eodem stipite descendentium carnali propagatione contractum. Omnes enim homines ab eodem stipite carnali propagatione descendunt, scilicet ab Adam. Si ergo recta esset praedicta definitio consanguinitatis, omnes homines essent consanguinei ad invicem; quod falsum est. Obj. 1: To the first question, we proceed thus. It seems that the definition of consanguinity that certain people put forth is inadequate, namely: consanguinity is the bond contracted between those descended from a common root by carnal propagation. For all men are descended by physical propagation from the same root, namely from Adam. Therefore, if the definition above were right, all men would be consanguineous with each other, which is false. Praeterea, vinculum non potest esse nisi aliquorum ad invicem convenientium, quia vinculum unit. Sed eorum qui descendunt ab uno stipite, non est major convenientia ad invicem quam aliorum hominum, cum conveniant specie, et differant numero, sicut et alii homines. Ergo consanguinitas non est aliquod vinculum. Obj. 2: Furthermore, a bond can only exist between two things that fit together, for a bond unites. But those who are descended from one root do not fit with each other more than with other people, since they are identical in species, and differ in number, just like any other people. Therefore, consanguinity is not a particular bond.