|
Objection 1: It would seem that every error is an impediment to
matrimony, and not, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 30),
only error about the condition or the person. For that which applies
to a thing as such applies to it in all its bearings. Now error is of
its very nature an impediment to matrimony, as stated above (Article
1). Therefore every error is an impediment to matrimony.
Objection 2: Further, if error, as such, is an impediment to
matrimony, the greater the error the greater the impediment. Now the
error concerning faith in a heretic who disbelieves in this sacrament is
greater than an error concerning the person. Therefore it should be a
greater impediment than error about the person.
Objection 3: Further, error does not void marriage except as
removing voluntariness. Now ignorance about any circumstance takes
away voluntariness (Ethic. iii, 1). Therefore it is not only
error about condition or person that is an impediment to matrimony.
Objection 4: Further, just as the condition of slavery is an
accident affecting the person, so are bodily or mental qualities. But
error regarding the condition is an impediment to matrimony. Therefore
error concerning quality or fortune is equally an impediment.
Objection 5: Further, just as slavery or freedom pertains to the
condition of person, so do high and low rank, or dignity of position
and the lack thereof. Now error regarding the condition of slavery is
an impediment to matrimony. Therefore error about the other matters
mentioned is also an impediment.
Objection 6: Further, just as the condition of slavery is an
impediment, so are difference of worship and impotence, as we shall
say further on (Question 52, Article 2; Question 58,
Article 1; Question 59, Article 1). Therefore just as error
regarding the condition is an impediment, so also should error about
those other matters be reckoned an impediment.
Objection 7: On the other hand, it would seem that not even error
about the person is an impediment to marriage. For marriage is a
contract even as a sale is. Now in buying and selling the sale is not
voided if one coin be given instead of another of equal value.
Therefore a marriage is not voided if one woman be taken instead of
another.
Objection 8: Further, it is possible for them to remain in this
error for many years and to beget between them sons and daughters. But
it would be a grave assertion to maintain that they ought to be
separated then. Therefore their previous error did not void their
marriage.
Objection 9: Further, it might happen that the woman is betrothed
to the brother of the man whom she thinks that she is consenting to
marry, and that she has had carnal intercourse with him; in which
case, seemingly, she cannot go back to the man to whom she thought to
give her consent, but should hold on to his brother. Thus error
regarding the person is not an impediment to marriage.
I answer that, Just as error, through causing involuntariness, is
an excuse from sin, so on the same count is it an impediment to
marriage. Now error does not excuse from sin unless it refer to a
circumstance the presence or absence of which makes an action lawful or
unlawful. For if a man were to strike his father with an iron rod
thinking it to be of wood, he is not excused from sin wholly, although
perhaps in part; but if a man were to strike his father, thinking to
strike his son to correct him, he is wholly excused provided he take
due care. Wherefore error, in order to void marriage, must needs be
about the essentials of marriage. Now marriage includes two things,
namely the two persons who are joined together, and the mutual power
over one another wherein marriage consists. The first of these is
removed by error concerning the person, the second by error regarding
the condition, since a slave cannot freely give power over his body to
another, without his master's consent. For this reason these two
errors, and no others, are an impediment to matrimony.
Reply to Objection 1: It is not from its generic nature that error
is an impediment to marriage, but from the nature of the difference
added thereto; namely from its being error about one of the essentials
to marriage.
Reply to Objection 2: An error of faith about matrimony is about
things consequent upon matrimony, for instance on the question of its
being a sacrament, or of its being lawful. Wherefore such error as
these is no impediment to marriage, as neither does an error about
baptism hinder a man from receiving the character, provided he intend
to receive what the Church gives, although he believe it to be
nothing.
Reply to Objection 3: It is not any ignorance of a circumstance
that causes the involuntariness which is an excuse from sin, as stated
above; wherefore the argument does not prove.
Reply to Objection 4: Difference of fortune or of quality does not
make a difference in the essentials to matrimony, as the condition of
slavery does. Hence the argument does not prove.
Reply to Objection 5: Error about a person's rank, as such, does
not void a marriage, for the same reason as neither does error about a
personal quality. If, however, the error about a person's rank or
position amounts to an error about the person, it is an impediment to
matrimony. Hence, if the woman consent directly to this particular
person, her error about his rank does not void the marriage; but if
she intend directly to consent to marry the king's son, whoever he may
be, then, if another man than the king's son be brought to her,
there is error about the person, and the marriage will be void.
Reply to Objection 6: Error is an impediment to matrimony,
although it be about other impediments to marriage if it concern those
things which render a person an unlawful subject of marriage. But
(the Master) does not mention error about such things, because they
are an impediment to marriage whether there be error about them or not;
so that if a woman contract with a subdeacon, whether she know this or
not, there is no marriage; whereas the condition of slavery is no
impediment if the slavery be known. Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 7: In contracts money is regarded as the measure
of other things (Ethic. v, 5), and not as being sought for its
own sake. Hence if the coin paid is not what it is thought to be but
another of equal value, this does not void the contract. But if there
be error about a thing sought for its own sake, the contract is
voided, for instance if one were to sell a donkey for a horse; and
thus it is in the case in point.
Reply to Objection 8: No matter how long they have cohabited,
unless she be willing to consent again, there is no marriage.
Reply to Objection 9: If she did not consent previously to marry
his brother, she may hold to the one whom she took in error. Nor can
she return to his brother, especially if there has been carnal
intercourse between her and the man she took to husband. If,
however, she had previously consented to take the first one in words of
the present, she cannot have the second while the first lives. But
she may either leave the second or return to the first; and ignorance
of the fact excuses her from sin, just as she would be excused if after
the consummation of the marriage a kinsman of her husband were to know
her by fraud since she is not to be blamed for the other's deceit.
|
|