|
Objection 1: It would seem that bigamy is removed by Baptism. For
Jerome says in his commentary on the Epistle to Titus (1:6,
"the husband of one wife") that if a man has had several wives before
receiving Baptism, or one before and another after Baptism, he is
not a bigamist. Therefore bigamy is removed by Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, he who does what is more, does what is
less. Now Baptism removes all sin, and sin is a greater thing than
irregularity. Therefore it removes irregularity.
Objection 3: Further, Baptism takes away all punishment resulting
from an act. Now such is the irregularity of bigamy. Therefore,
etc.
Objection 4: Further, a bigamist is irregular because he is
deficient in the representation of Christ. Now by Baptism we are
fully conformed to Christ. Therefore this irregularity is removed.
Objection 5: Further, the sacraments of the New Law are more
efficacious than the sacraments of the Old Law. But the sacraments
of the Old Law removed irregularities according to the Master's
statement (Sent. iv,). Therefore Baptism also, being the most
efficacious of the sacraments of the New Law, removes the
irregularity consequent upon bigamy.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xviii):
"Those understand the question more correctly who maintain that a man
who has married a second wife, though he was a catechumen or even a
pagan at the time, cannot be ordained, because it is a question of a
sacrament, not of a sin."
Further, according to the same authority (De Bono Conjug. xviii)
"a woman who has been corrupted while a catechumen or a pagan cannot
after Baptism be consecrated among God's virgins." Therefore in
like manner one who was a bigamist before Baptism cannot be ordained.
I answer that, Baptism removes sin, but does not dissolve marriage.
Wherefore since irregularity results from marriage, it cannot be
removed by Baptism, as Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xviii).
Reply to Objection 1: In this case Jerome's opinion is not
followed: unless perhaps he wished to explain that he means that a
dispensation should be more easily granted.
Reply to Objection 2: It does not follow that what does a greater
thing, does a lesser, unless it be directed to the latter. This is
not so in the case in point, because Baptism is not directed to the
removal of an irregularity.
Reply to Objection 3: This must be understood of punishments
consequent upon actual sin, which are, or have yet to be, inflicted:
for one does not recover virginity by Baptism, nor again undivision of
the flesh.
Reply to Objection 4: Baptism conforms a man to Christ as regards
the virtue of the mind, but not as to the condition of the body, which
is effected by virginity or division of the flesh.
Reply to Objection 5: Those irregularities were contracted through
slight and temporary causes, and consequently they could be removed by
those sacraments. Moreover the latter were ordained for that purpose,
whereas Baptism is not.
|
|