|
Objection 1: It would seem that madness is not an impediment to
marriage. For spiritual marriage which is contracted in Baptism is
more excellent than carnal marriage. But mad persons can be baptized.
Therefore they can also marry.
Objection 2: Further, frigidity is an impediment to marriage
because it impedes carnal copulation, which is not impeded by madness.
Therefore neither is marriage impeded thereby.
Objection 3: Further, marriage is not voided save by a perpetual
impediment. But one cannot tell whether madness is a perpetual
impediment. Therefore it does not void marriage.
Objection 4: Further, the impediments that hinder marriage are
sufficiently contained in the verses given above (Question 50).
But they contain no mention of madness. Therefore, etc.
On the contrary, Madness removes the use of reason more than error
does. But error is an impediment to marriage. Therefore madness is
also.
Further, mad persons are not fit for making contracts. But marriage
is a contract. Therefore, etc.
I answer that, The madness is either previous or subsequent to
marriage. If subsequent, it nowise voids the marriage, but if it be
previous, then the mad person either has lucid intervals, or not. If
he has, then although it is not safe for him to marry during that
interval, since he would not know how to educate his children, yet if
he marries, the marriage is valid. But if he has no lucid intervals,
or marries outside a lucid interval, then, since there can be no
consent without use of reason, the marriage will be invalid.
Reply to Objection 1: The use of reason is not necessary for
Baptism as its cause, in which way it is necessary for matrimony.
Hence the comparison fails. We have, however, spoken of the
Baptism of mad persons (TP, Question 68, Article 12).
Reply to Objection 2: Madness impedes marriage on the part of the
latter's cause which is the consent, although not on the part of the
act as frigidity does. Yet the Master treats of it together with
frigidity, because both are defects of nature (Sent. iv, D,
34).
Reply to Objection 3: A passing impediment which hinders the cause
of marriage, namely the consent, voids marriage altogether. But an
impediment that hinders the act must needs be perpetual in order to void
the marriage.
Reply to Objection 4: This impediment is reducible to error, since
in either case there is lack of consent on the part of the reason.
|
|