Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum sint licitae Whether they are licit Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod secundae nuptiae non sint licitae. Quia judicium de re debet esse secundum veritatem. Dicit enim Chrysostomus, quod secundum virum accipere, secundum veritatem est fornicatio: quae non est licita. Ergo nec secundum matrimonium. Obj. 1: To the first question, we proceed thus. It seems that second weddings are not licit. For the judgment of a thing should be according to the truth. But Chrysostom says that to take a second husband is, according to the truth, fornication: which is not licit. Therefore, neither is a second marriage. Praeterea, omne quod non est bonum, non est licitum. Sed Ambrosius dicit, quod duplex matrimonium non est bonum. Ergo non est licitum. Obj. 2: Furthermore, everything that is not good is not licit. But Ambrose says that a twofold marriage is not good. Therefore, it is not licit. Praeterea, nullus arceri debet ne intersit illis quae sunt honesta et licita. Sed sacerdotes arcentur ne intersint secundis nuptiis, ut in littera patet. Ergo non sunt licitae. Obj. 3: Furthermore, no one should be barred from taking part in what is decent and licit. But priests are barred from engaging in second marriages, as is evident from the text. Therefore, they are not licit. Praeterea, nullus reportat poenam nisi pro culpa. Sed pro secundis nuptiis aliquis reportat irregularitatis poenam. Ergo non sunt licitae. Obj. 4: Furthermore, no one incurs a penalty except for guilt. But for a second marriage, a person incurs the penalty of irregularity. Therefore, they are not licit. Sed contra est quod Abraham legitur secundas nuptias contraxisse: Gen. 25. On the contrary (1), Abraham is read to have contracted a second marriage in Genesis 25:1. Praeterea, 1 Tim. 5, 14, dicit apostolus: volo autem juniores, scilicet viduas, nubere, filios procreare. Ergo secundae nuptiae sunt licitae. Furthermore (2), in 1 Timothy 5:14, the Apostle says: but I would have the younger ones, that is, widows, marry, to bear children. Therefore, second marriages are licit. Respondeo dicendum, quod vinculum matrimoniale non durat nisi usque ad mortem, ut patet Rom. 7; et ideo moriente altero conjugum, vinculum matrimoniale cessat. Unde propter praecedens matrimonium non impeditur aliquis a secundo, mortuo conjuge, et sic non solum secundae, sed tertiae, et sic deinceps nuptiae sunt licitae. I answer that, the matrimonial bond only lasts up until death, as is clear from Romans 7:2–3, and thus when one spouse dies, the matrimonial bond ceases. Therefore, once the first spouse is dead, a person is not impeded from a second marriage, and not only a second, but a third, and so forth, are licit marriages. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Chrysostomus loquitur quantum ad causam quae aliquando solet ad secundas nuptias incitare, scilicet concupiscentiam, quae etiam ad fornicationem incitat. Reply Obj. 1: Chrysostom is speaking about the cause that sometimes is wont to incite someone to a second marriage, namely concupiscence, which also incites to fornication. Ad secundum dicendum, quod matrimonium secundum dicitur non esse bonum, non quia sit illicitum, sed quia caret illo honore significationis qui est in primis nuptiis, ut sit una unius, sicut est in Christo et Ecclesia. Reply Obj. 2: The second marriage is said not to be good, not because it is illicit, but because it lacks that honor of signification that is in the first marriage, that there might be one woman for one man, as it is in Christ and the Church. Ad tertium dicendum, quod homines divinis dediti non solum ab illicitis, sed etiam ab illis quae habent aliquam turpitudinis speciem arcentur; et ideo etiam arcentur a secundis nuptiis, quae carent honestate quae erat in primis. Reply Obj. 3: Men dedicated to divine things are not only barred from illicit things, but even from things which have some aspect of baseness; and thus also they are barred from second marriages, which lack the dignity that there was in the first one. Ad quartum dicendum, quod irregularitas, sicut supra dictum est, dist. 29, quaest. 3, art. 1, non semper inducitur propter culpam, sed propter defectum sacramenti; et ideo ratio non est ad propositum. Reply Obj. 4: Irregularity, as was said above in Distinction 29, Question 3, Article 1, is not always introduced because of fault, but because of a defect of sacrament; and thus the argument is not to the point. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum sint sacramentales Whether they are sacramental Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod secundum matrimonium non sit sacramentum. Qui enim iterat sacramentum, facit ei injuriam. Sed nulli sacramento facienda est injuria. Ergo si secundum matrimonium esset sacramentum, nullo modo esset iterandum. Obj. 1: To the second question, we proceed thus. It seems that a second marriage is not a sacrament. For whoever repeats a sacrament does harm to it. But injury is done to no sacrament. Therefore, if a second marriage were a sacrament, in no way could marriage be repeated. Praeterea, in omni sacramento adhibetur aliqua benedictio. Sed in secundis nuptiis non adhibetur, ut in littera dicitur. Ergo non fit ibi aliquod sacramentum. Obj. 2: Furthermore, in every sacrament some blessing is applied. Yet in a second marriage it is not applied, as is said in the text. Therefore, no sacrament happens there. Praeterea, significatio est de essentia sacramenti. Sed in secundo matrimonio non salvatur significatio matrimonii; quia non est una unius, sicut Christus et Ecclesia. Ergo non est sacramentum. Obj. 3: Furthermore, signification belongs to the essence of the sacrament. But in a second marriage, the signification of marriage is not preserved; for there is not one woman for one man, like Christ and the Church. Therefore, there is no sacrament. Praeterea, unum sacramentum non impedit a susceptione alterius. Sed secundum matrimonium impedit a susceptione ordinis. Ergo non est sacramentum. Obj. 4: Furthermore, one sacrament does not impede the reception of another. But a second marriage impedes the reception of holy orders. Therefore, it is not a sacrament. Sed contra, coitus in secundis nuptiis excusatur a peccato, sicut etiam in primis. Sed per tria bona conjugii excusatur matrimonialis coitus, quae sunt fides, proles et sacramentum. Ergo secundum matrimonium est sacramentum. On the contrary (1), intercourse in the second marriage is excused from sin, as also in the first. But matrimonial intercourse is excused by the three goods of the marital union, which are fidelity, offspring, and sacrament. Therefore, a second marriage is a sacrament. Praeterea, ex secunda conjunctione viri ad mulierem non sacramentali, non contrahitur irregularitas, sicut patet de fornicatione. Sed in secundis nuptiis contrahitur irregularitas. Ergo sunt sacramentales. Furthermore (2), as is evident from the case of fornication, no irregularity is contracted by the second non-sacramental union of a man to a woman. But in the second marriage irregularity is contracted. Therefore, it is sacramental. Respondeo dicendum, quod ubicumque inveniuntur illa quae sunt de essentia sacramenti, illud est verum sacramentum; unde cum in secundis nuptiis inveniantur omnia quae sunt de essentia sacramenti, quia debita materia quam facit personarum legitimitas, et debita forma, scilicet expressio consensus interioris per verba; constat etiam quod secundum matrimonium est sacramentum sicut primum. I answer that, wherever the things that belong to the essence of a sacrament are found, there is a valid sacrament. And in a second marriage everything that belongs to the essence of the sacrament is found: both the due matter, constituted by the presence of eligible persons, and the due form, namely the expression of interior consent through words. Therefore it is clear that the second marriage is also a sacrament like the first. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur de sacramento quod inducit effectum perpetuum: tunc enim si iteratur sacramentum, datur intelligi quod primum non fuit efficax; et sic fit primo injuria, sicut patet in omnibus sacramentis quae imprimunt characterem. Sed illa sacramenta quae habent effectum non perpetuum, possunt iterari sine injuria sacramenti, sicut patet de poenitentia. Et quia vinculum matrimoniale tollitur per mortem, nulla fit injuria sacramento, si mulier post mortem viri iterato nubat. Reply Obj. 1: This is understood as applying in the case where sacrament brings about a perpetual effect; for then if the sacrament is repeated, one is given to understand that the first was not efficacious, and thus injury is done to the first, as is clear in all the sacraments that imprint a character. But those sacraments that do not have a perpetual effect can be repeated without injury to the sacrament, as is evident in the case of penance. And since a matrimonial bond is removed by death, no injury is done to the sacrament if the woman marries again after the death of her husband. Ad secundum dicendum, quod secundum matrimonium quamvis in se consideratum sit perfectum sacramentum, tamen in ordine ad primum consideratum habet aliquid de defectu sacramenti, quia non habet plenam significationem, cum non sit una unius, sicut est in matrimonio Christi et Ecclesiae; et ratione hujus defectus benedictio a secundis nuptiis subtrahitur. Sed hoc est intelligendum, quando secundae nuptiae sunt secundae et ex parte viri et ex parte mulieris, vel ex parte mulieris tantum. Si enim virgo contrahat cum illo qui habuit aliam uxorem, nihilominus nuptiae benedicuntur: salvatur enim aliquo modo significatio etiam in ordine ad primas nuptias: quia Christus, etsi unam Ecclesiam sponsam habeat, habet tamen plures personas desponsatas in una Ecclesia; sed anima non potest esse sponsa alterius quam Christi, quia cum daemone fornicatur, nec est ibi matrimonium spirituale; et propter hoc quando mulier secundo nubit, nuptiae non benedicuntur propter defectum sacramenti. Reply Obj. 2: The second marriage, although it is a perfect sacrament considered in itself, yet considered in order to the first has something of a defect of sacrament, for it does not have the full signification, since it is not one woman for one man, as is the case in the marriage of Christ and the Church; and due to this defect, a blessing is taken away from the second marriage. But this is to be understood as applying when the second marriage is second on the part of the man and on the part of the woman, or on the part of the woman alone. For if a virgin contracts with a man who has had another wife, nevertheless the marriage is blessed, for the signification is preserved in a certain mode even in its order to the first marriage; for Christ, even if he had one Church as his bride, still had many persons espoused in the one Church; but the soul cannot be the bride of anyone other than Christ, for with a demon it fornicates, nor is there a spiritual marriage; and because of this when a woman marries a second time, the marriage is not blessed, due to the defect of the sacrament. Ad tertium dicendum, quod significatio perfecta invenitur in secundo matrimonio secundum se considerato, non autem si consideretur in ordine ad praecedens matrimonium; et sic habet defectum sacramenti. Reply Obj. 3: The complete signification is found in the second marriage considered in itself, but not if it is considered in order to the preceding marriage; and in this way it has a defect of sacrament. Ad quartum dicendum, quod secundum matrimonium impedit sacramentum ordinis quantum ad id quod habet de defectu sacramenti, et non inquantum est sacramentum. Reply Obj. 4: The second marriage impedes the sacrament of holy orders as regards its defect of sacrament, not as regards its being a sacrament. Expositio textus Exposition of the Text Omnes quos in poenitentia accipimus, ita nostri filii sunt ut in baptismo suscepti: non ratione alicujus cognationis, sed propter periculum evitandum, ut dictum est. “All those whom we receive in penance are as much our spiritual children as those whom the water of baptism regenerated as we received them:” not by reason of some family relationship, but because of the danger to be avoided, as was said. Paschalis vero secundus post compaternitatem genitos copulari prohibet. Illa prohibitio nunc locum non habet; magis enim fuit propter quamdam honestatem quam propter aliquod vinculum. But Paschal II forbids the union of children born after the godfatherhood. That prohibition is not now in force, for it was more for the sake of a certain propriety than because of any bond. Si quis suae spiritualis commatris filiam fortuito . . . duxerit, maturiori servato consilio habeat. Hoc ideo dicitur, quia spiritualis cognatio ad filium spiritualem transit a patre in filium naturalem, quia omnes filii naturales spiritualis patris sunt ei fratres spirituales; non autem respectu patris: patri enim spirituali non fiunt filii spirituales filii naturales matris, nec e converso. “If one has taken in marriage the daughter of his spiritual mother by a fortuitous and contingent cause, after more mature reflection, let him keep her.” This is said, therefore, because spiritual family relationship to a spiritual child passes from the father to a natural child, for all the natural children of a spiritual father are spiritual brothers to him; but not in respect of the father, for a father’s spiritual sons do not become natural sons of the mother, or vice versa. Quia vero piaculare flagitium commisit qui duabus commatribus vel sororibus nupsit, magna poenitentia debet ei injungi. Hoc est intelligendum, quando una illarum est facta commater alteri, postquam uxor ejus est matrimonio consummato, et per actum proprium: alias enim prohibetur, ut dictum est. “But since a man who married two godmothers or sisters has commited a sinful disgrace, a great penance is to be enjoined upon him.” This is to be understood when one of these women is made commater of the other, after have become his wife in consummated marriage, and through the proper act; otherwise, it is prohibited, as was said.