|
Objection 1: It would seem that unlawful intercourse does not cause
affinity. For affinity is an honorable thing. Now honorable things
do not result from that which is dishonorable. Therefore affinity
cannot be caused by a dishonorable intercourse.
Objection 2: Further, where there is consanguinity there cannot be
affinity; since affinity is a relationship between persons that results
from carnal intercourse and is altogether void of blood-relationship.
Now if unlawful intercourse were a cause of affinity, it would
sometimes happen that a man would contract affinity with his
blood-relations and with himself: for instance when a man is guilty of
incest with a blood-relation. Therefore affinity is not caused by
unlawful intercourse.
Objection 3: Further, unlawful intercourse is according to nature
or against nature. Now affinity is not caused by unnatural unlawful
intercourse as decided by law (can. Extraordinaria, xxxv, qu.
2,3). Therefore it is not caused only by unlawful intercourse
according to nature.
On the contrary, He who is joined to a harlot is made one body (1
Cor. 6:16). Now this is the reason why marriage caused
affinity. Therefore unlawful intercourse does so for the same reason.
Further, carnal intercourse is the cause of affinity, as shown by the
definition of affinity, which definition is as follows: Affinity is
the relationship of persons which results from carnal intercourse and is
altogether void of blood-relationship. But there is carnal copulation
even in unlawful intercourse. Therefore unlawful intercourse causes
affinity.
I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12)
the union of husband and wife is said to be natural chiefly on account
of the procreation of offspring, and secondly on account of the
community of works: the former of which belongs to marriage by reason
of carnal copulation, and the latter, in so far as marriage is a
partnership directed to a common life. Now the former is to be found
in every carnal union where there is a mingling of seeds, since such a
union may be productive of offspring, but the latter may be wanting.
Consequently since marriage caused affinity, in so far as it was a
carnal mingling, it follows that also an unlawful intercourse causes
affinity in so far as it has something of natural copulation.
Reply to Objection 1: In an unlawful intercourse there is something
natural which is common to fornication and marriage, and in this
respect it causes affinity. There is also something which is
inordinate whereby it differs from marriage, and in this respect it
does not cause affinity. Hence affinity remains honorable, although
its cause is in a way dishonorable.
Reply to Objection 2: There is no reason why diverse relations
should not be in the same subject by reason of different things.
Consequently there can be affinity and consanguinity between two
persons, not only on account of unlawful but also on account of lawful
intercourse: for instance if a blood-relation of mine on my father's
side marries a blood-relation of mine on my mother's side. Hence in
the above definition the words "which is altogether void of
blood-relationship" apply to affinity as such. Nor does it follow
that a man by having intercourse with his blood-relation contracts
affinity with himself, since affinity, like consanguinity, requires
diversity of subjects, as likeness does.
Reply to Objection 3: In unnatural copulation there is no mingling
of seeds that makes generation possible: wherefore a like intercourse
does not cause affinity.
|
|