|
Objection 1: It would seem that compulsory consent does not
invalidate a marriage. For just as consent is necessary for
matrimony, so is intention necessary for Baptism. Now one who is
compelled by fear to receive Baptism, receives the sacrament.
Therefore one who is compelled by fear to consent is bound by his
marriage.
Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
iii, 1), that which is done on account of mixed violence is more
voluntary than involuntary. Now consent cannot be compelled except by
mixed violence. Therefore it is not entirely involuntary, and
consequently the marriage is valid.
Objection 3: Further, seemingly he who has consented to marriage
under compulsion ought to be counseled to stand to that marriage;
because to promise and not to fulfill has an "appearance of evil,"
and the Apostle wishes us to refrain from all such things (1 Thess
5:22). But that would not be the case if compulsory consent
invalidated a marriage altogether. Therefore, etc.
On the contrary, A Decretal says (cap. Cum locum, De sponsal.
et matrim.): "Since there is no room for consent where fear or
compulsion enters in, it follows that where a person's consent is
required, every pretext for compulsion must be set aside." Now
mutual contract is necessary in marriage. Therefore, etc.
Further, Matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church,
which union is according to the liberty of love. Therefore it cannot
be the result of compulsory consent.
I answer that, The marriage bond is everlasting. Hence whatever is
inconsistent with its perpetuity invalidates marriage. Now the fear
which compels a constant man deprives the contract of its perpetuity,
since its complete rescission can be demanded. Wherefore this
compulsion by fear which influences a constant man, invalidates
marriage, but not the other compulsion. Now a constant man is
reckoned a virtuous man who, according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
iii, 4), is a measure in all human actions.
However, some say that if there be consent although compulsory, the
marriage is valid in conscience and in God's sight, but not in the
eyes of the Church, who presumes that there was no inward consent on
account of the fear. But this is of no account, because the Church
should not presume a person to sin until it be proved; and he sinned if
he said that he consented whereas he did not consent. Wherefore the
Church presumes that he did consent, but judges this compulsory
consent to be insufficient for a valid marriage.
Reply to Objection 1: The intention is not the efficient cause of
the sacrament in baptism, it is merely the cause that elicits the
action of the agent; whereas the consent is the efficient cause in
matrimony. Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: Not any kind of voluntariness suffices for
marriage: it must be completely voluntary, because it has to be
perpetual; and consequently it is invalidated by violence of a mixed
nature.
Reply to Objection 3: He ought not always to be advised to stand to
that marriage, but only when evil results are feared from its
dissolution. Nor does he sin if he does otherwise, because there is
no appearance of evil in not fulfilling a promise that one has made
unwillingly.
|
|