|
Objection 1: It would seem that irregularity is not attached to the
bigamy that consists in having two wives successively. For multitude
and unity are consequent upon being. Since then non-being does not
cause plurality, a man who has two wives successively, the one in
being, the other in non-being, does not thereby become the husband of
more than one wife, so as to be debarred, according to the Apostle
(1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6), from the episcopate.
Objection 2: Further, a man who commits fornication with several
women gives more evidence of incontinence than one who has several wives
successively. Yet in the first case a man does not become irregular.
Therefore neither in the second should he become irregular.
Objection 3: Further, if bigamy causes irregularity, this is
either because of the sacrament, or because of the carnal intercourse.
Now it is not on account of the former, for if a man had contracted
marriage by words of the present and, his wife dying before the
consummation of the marriage, he were to marry another, he would
become irregular, which is against the decree of Innocent III
(cap. Dubium, De bigamia). Nor again is it on account of the
second, for then a man who had committed fornication with several women
would become irregular: which is false. Therefore bigamy nowise
causes irregularity.
I answer that, By the sacrament of order a man is appointed to the
ministry of the sacraments; and he who has to administer the sacraments
to others must suffer from no defect in the sacraments. Now there is a
defect in a sacrament when the entire signification of the sacrament is
not found therein. And the sacrament of marriage signifies the union
of Christ with the Church, which is the union of one with one.
Therefore the perfect signification of the sacrament requires the
husband to have only one wife, and the wife to have but one husband;
and consequently bigamy, which does away with this, causes
irregularity. And there are four kinds of bigamy: the first is when a
man has several lawful wives successively; the second is when a man has
several wives at once, one in law, the other in fact; the third,
when he has several successively, one in law, the other in fact; the
fourth, when a man marries a widow. Accordingly irregularity attaches
to all of these.
There is another consequent reason assigned, since those who receive
the sacrament of order should be signalized by the greatest
spirituality, both because they administer spiritual things, namely
the sacraments, and because they teach spiritual things, and should be
occupied in spiritual matters. Wherefore since concupiscence is most
incompatible with spirituality, inasmuch as it makes a man to be wholly
carnal, they should give no sign of persistent concupiscence, which
does indeed show itself in bigamous persons, seeing that they were
unwilling to be content with one wife. The first reason however is the
better.
Reply to Objection 1: The multitude of several wives at the same
time is a multitude simply, wherefore a multitude of this kind is
wholly inconsistent with the signification of the sacrament, so that
the sacrament is voided on that account. But the multitude of several
successive wives is a multitude relatively, wherefore it does not
entirely destroy the signification of the sacrament, nor does it void
the sacrament in its essence but in its perfection, which is required
of those who are the dispensers of sacraments.
Reply to Objection 2: Although those who are guilty of fornication
give proof of greater concupiscence, theirs is not a so persistent
concupiscence, since by fornication one party is not bound to the other
for ever; and consequently no defect attaches to the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above, bigamy causes
irregularity, because it destroys the perfect signification of the
sacrament: which signification is seated both in the union of minds,
as expressed by the consent, and in the union of bodies. Wherefore
bigamy must affect both of these at the same time in order to cause
irregularity. Hence the decree of Innocent III disposes of the
statement of the Master (Sent. iv, D, 27), namely that
consent alone by words of the present is sufficient to cause
irregularity.
|
|