|
Objection 1: It would seem that there can be no marriage between
unbelievers. For matrimony is a sacrament of the Church. Now
Baptism is the door of the sacraments. Therefore unbelievers, since
they are not baptized, cannot marry any more than they can receive
other sacraments.
Objection 2: Further, two evils are a greater impediment to good
than one. But the unbelief of only one party is an impediment to
marriage. Much more, therefore, is the unbelief of both, and
consequently there can be no marriage between unbelievers.
Objection 3: Further, just as there is disparity of worship between
believer and unbeliever, so can there be between two unbelievers, for
instance if one be a heathen and the other a Jew. Now disparity of
worship is an impediment to marriage, as stated above (Article 1).
Therefore there can be no valid marriage at least between unbelievers
of different worship.
Objection 4: Further, in marriage there is real chastity. But
according to Augustine (De Adult. Conjug. i, 18) there is no
real chastity between an unbeliever and his wife, and these words are
quoted in the Decretals (XXVIII, qu. i, can. Sic enim.).
Neither therefore is there a true marriage.
Objection 5: Further, true marriage excuses carnal intercourse from
sin. But marriage contracted between unbelievers cannot do this,
since "the whole life of unbelievers is a sin," as a gloss observes
on Rm. 14:23, "All that is not of faith is sin." Therefore
there is no true marriage between unbelievers.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 7:12): "If any
brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with
him, let him not put her away." But she is not called his wife
except by reason of marriage. Therefore marriage between unbelievers
is a true marriage.
Further, the removal of what comes after does not imply the removal of
what comes first. Now marriage belongs to an office of nature, which
precedes the state of grace, the principle of which is faith.
Therefore unbelief does not prevent the existence of marriage between
unbelievers.
I answer that, Marriage was instituted chiefly for the good of the
offspring, not only as to its begetting---since this can be effected
even without marriage---but also as to its advancement to a perfect
state, because everything intends naturally to bring its effect to
perfection. Now a twofold perfection is to be considered in the
offspring. one is the perfection of nature, not only as regards the
body but also as regards the soul, by those means which are of the
natural law. The other is the perfection of grace: and the former
perfection is material and imperfect in relation to the latter.
Consequently, since those things which are for the sake of the end are
proportionate to the end, the marriage that tends to the first
perfection is imperfect and material in comparison with that which tends
to the second perfection. And since the first perfection can be common
to unbelievers and believers, while the second belongs only to
believers, it follows that between unbelievers there is marriage
indeed, but not perfected by its ultimate perfection as there is
between believers.
Reply to Objection 1: Marriage was instituted not only as a
sacrament, but also as an office of nature. And therefore, although
marriage is not competent to unbelievers, as a sacrament dependent on
the dispensation of the Church's ministers, it is nevertheless
competent to them as fulfilling an office of nature. And yet even a
marriage of this kind is a sacrament after the manner of a habit,
although it is not actually since they do not marry actually in the
faith of the Church.
Reply to Objection 2: Disparity of worship is an impediment to
marriage, not by reason of unbelief, but on account of the difference
of faith. For disparity of worship hinders not only the second
perfection of the offspring, but also the first, since the parents
endeavor to draw their children in different directions, which is not
the case when both are unbelievers.
Reply to Objection 3: As already stated (ad 1) there is marriage
between unbelievers, in so far as marriage fulfills an office of
nature. Now those things that pertain to the natural law are
determinable by positive law: and therefore if any law among
unbelievers forbid the contracting of marriage with unbelievers of a
different rite, the disparity of worship will be an impediment to their
intermarrying. They are not, however, forbidden by Divine law,
because before God, however much one may stray from the faith, this
makes no difference to one's being removed from grace: nor is it
forbidden by any law of the Church who has not to judge of those who
are without.
Reply to Objection 4: The chastity and other virtues of unbelievers
are said not to be real, because they cannot attain the end of real
virtue, which is real happiness. Thus we say it is not a real wine if
it has not the effect of wine.
Reply to Objection 5: An unbeliever does not sin in having
intercourse with his wife, if he pays her the marriage debt, for the
good of the offspring, or for the troth whereby he is bound to her:
since this is an act of justice and of temperance which observes the due
circumstance in pleasure of touch; even as neither does he sin in
performing acts of other civic virtues. Again, the reason why the
whole life of unbelievers is said to be a sin is not that they sin in
every act, but because they cannot be delivered from the bondage of sin
by that which they do.
|
|