|
Objection 1: It would seem that irregularity is not contracted by
marrying one who is not a virgin. For a man's own defect is a greater
impediment to him than the defect of another. But if the man himself
who marries is not a virgin he does not become irregular. Therefore
much less does he if his wife is not a virgin.
Objection 2: Further, it may happen that a man marries a woman
after corrupting her. Now, seemingly, such a man does not become
irregular, since he has not divided his flesh among several, nor has
his wife done so, and yet he marries a woman who is not a virgin.
Therefore this kind of bigamy does not cause irregularity.
Objection 3: Further, no man can become irregular except
voluntarily. But sometimes a man marries involuntarily one who is not
a virgin, for instance when he thinks her a virgin and afterwards, by
knowing her carnally, finds that she is not. Therefore this kind does
not always cause irregularity.
Objection 4: Further, unlawful intercourse after marriage is more
guilty than before marriage. Now if a wife, after the marriage has
been consummated, has intercourse with another man, her husband does
not become irregular, otherwise he would be punished for his wife's
sin. Moreover, it might happen that, after knowing of this, he pays
her the debt at her asking, before she is accused and convicted of
adultery. Therefore it would seem that this kind of bigamy does not
cause irregularity.
On the contrary, Gregory says (Regist. ii, ep. 37): "We
command thee never to make unlawful ordinations, nor to admit to holy
orders a bigamist, or one who has married a woman that is not a
virgin, or one who is unlettered, or one who is deformed in his
limbs, or bound to do penance or to perform some civil duty, or who is
in any state of subjection."
I answer that, In the union of Christ with the Church unity is
found on either side. Consequently whether we find division of the
flesh on the part of the husband, or on the part of the wife, there is
a defect of sacrament. There is, however, a difference, because on
the part of the husband it is required that he should not have married
another wife, but not that he should be a virgin, whereas on the part
of the wife it is also required that she be a virgin. The reason
assigned by those versed in the Decretals is because the bridegroom
signifies the Church militant which is entrusted to the care of a
bishop, and in which there are many corruptions, while the spouse
signifies Christ Who was a virgin: wherefore virginity on the part of
the spouse, but not on the part of the bridegroom, is required in
order that a man be made a bishop. This reason, however, is
expressly contrary to the words of the Apostle (Eph. 5:25):
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church,"
which show that the bride signifies the Church, and the bridegroom
Christ; and again he says (Eph. 5:23): "Because the husband
is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church."
Wherefore others say that Christ is signified by the bridegroom, and
that the bride signifies the Church triumphant in which there is no
stain. Also that the synagogue was first united to Christ as a
concubine; so that the sacrament loses nothing of its signification if
the bridegroom previously had a concubine. But this is most absurd,
since just as the faith of ancients and of moderns is one, so is the
Church one. Wherefore those who served God at the time of the
synagogue belonged to the unity of the Church in which we serve God.
Moreover this is expressly contrary to Jer. 3:14, Ezech.
16:8, Osee 2:16, where the espousals of the synagogue are
mentioned explicitly: so that she was not as a concubine but as a
wife. Again, according to this, fornication would be the sacred sign
[sacramentum] of that union, which is absurd. Wherefore
heathendom, before being espoused to Christ in the faith of the
Church, was corrupted by the devil through idolatry. Hence we must
say otherwise that irregularity is caused by a defect in the sacrament
itself. Now when corruption of the flesh occurs outside wedlock on
account of a preceding marriage, it causes no defect in the sacrament
on the part of the person corrupted, but it causes a defect in the
other person, because the act of one who contracts marriage terminates
not in himself, but in the other party, wherefore it takes its species
from its term, which, moreover, in regard to that act, is the matter
as it were of the sacrament. Consequently if a woman were able to
receive orders, just as her husband becomes irregular through marrying
one who is not a virgin, but not through his not being a virgin when he
marries, so also would a woman become irregular if she were to marry a
man who is not a virgin, but not if she were no longer a virgin when
she married ---unless she had been corrupted by reason of a previous
marriage.
This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
Reply to Objection 2: In this case opinions differ. It is,
however, more probable that he is not irregular, because he has not
divided his flesh among several women.
Reply to Objection 3: Irregularity is not the infliction of a
punishment, but the defect of a sacrament. Consequently it is not
always necessary for bigamy to be voluntary in order to cause
irregularity. Hence a man who marries a woman, thinking her to be a
virgin, whereas she is not, becomes irregular by knowing her
carnally.
Reply to Objection 4: If a woman commits fornication after being
married, her husband does not become irregular on that account, unless
he again knows her carnally after she has been corrupted by adultery,
since otherwise the corruption of the wife nowise affects the marriage
act of the husband. But though he be compelled by law to pay her the
debt, or if he do so at her request, being compelled by his own
conscience, even before she is convicted of adultery, he becomes
irregular, albeit opinions differ on this point. However, what we
have said is more probable, since here it is not a question of sin,
but of signification only.
|
|