|
Objection 1: It would seem that even in the absence of inward
consent a marriage is made by consent expressed in words of the
present. For "fraud and deceit should benefit no man," according to
the law (cap. Ex Tenore, De Rescrip., cap. Si Vir, De
cognat. spir.). Now he who gives consent in words without
consenting in heart commits a fraud. Therefore he should not benefit
by it, through being released of the bond of marriage.
Objection 2: Further, the mental consent of one person cannot be
known to another, except in so far as it is expressed in words. If
then the expression of the words is not enough, and inward consent is
required in both parties, neither of them will be able to know that he
is truly married to the other; and consequently whenever he uses
marriage he will commit fornication.
Objection 3: Further, if a man is proved to have consented to take
a certain woman to wife in words of the present tense, he is compelled
under pain of excommunication to take her as his wife, even though he
should say that he was wanting in mental consent, notwithstanding that
afterwards he may have contracted marriage with another woman by words
expressive of consent in the present. But this would not be the case
if mental consent were requisite for marriage. Therefore it is not
required.
On the contrary, Innocent III says in a Decretal (cap. Tua
Nos, De Spons. et matr.) in reference to this case: "Other
things cannot complete the marriage bond in the absence of consent."
Further, intention is necessary in all the sacraments. Now he who
consents not in his heart has no intention of contracting marriage; and
therefore he does not contract a marriage.
I answer that, The outward cleansing stands in the same relation to
baptism as the expression of words to this sacrament, as stated above
(Article 2). Wherefore just as were a person to receive the
outward cleansing, with the intention, not of receiving the
sacrament, but of acting in jest or deceit, he would not be baptized;
so, too, expression of words without inward consent makes no
marriage.
Reply to Objection 1: There are two things here, namely the lack
of consent---which benefits him in the tribunal of his conscience so
that he is not bound by the marriage tie, albeit not in the tribunal of
the Church where judgment is pronounced according to the
evidence---and the deceit in the words, which does not benefit him,
neither in the tribunal of his conscience nor in the tribunal of the
Church, since in both he is punished for this.
Reply to Objection 2: If mental consent is lacking in one of the
parties, on neither side is there marriage, since marriage consists in
a mutual joining together, as stated above (Question 44, Article
1). However one may believe that in all probability there is no
fraud unless there be evident signs thereof; because we must presume
good of everyone, unless there be proof of the contrary. Consequently
the party in whom there is no fraud is excused from sin on account of
ignorance.
Reply to Objection 3: In such a case the Church compels him to
hold to his first wife, because the Church judges according to outward
appearances; nor is she deceived in justice or right, although she is
deceived in the facts of the case. Yet such a man ought to bear the
excommunication rather than return to his first wife; or else he should
go far away into another country.
|
|