|
Objection 1: It would seem that the degrees of consanguinity that
are an impediment to marriage could not be fixed by the Church so as to
reach to the fourth degree. For it is written (Mt. 19:6):
"What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." But God
joined those together who are married within the fourth degree of
consanguinity, since their union is not forbidden by the Divine law.
Therefore they should not be put asunder by a human law.
Objection 2: Further, matrimony is a sacrament as also is baptism.
Now no ordinance of the Church could prevent one who is baptized from
receiving the baptismal character, if he be capable of receiving it
according to the Divine law. Therefore neither can an ordinance of
the Church forbid marriage between those who are not forbidden to marry
by the Divine law.
Objection 3: Further, positive law can neither void nor extend
those things which are natural. Now consanguinity is a natural tie
which is in itself of a nature to impede marriage. Therefore the
Church cannot by its ordinance permit or forbid certain people to
marry, any more than she can make them to be kin or not kin.
Objection 4: Further, an ordinance of positive law should have some
reasonable cause, since it is for this reasonable cause that it
proceeds from the natural law. But the causes that are assigned for
the number of degrees seem altogether unreasonable, since they bear no
relation to their effect; for instance, that consanguinity be an
impediment as far as the fourth degree on account of the four elements
as far as the sixth degree on account of the six ages of the world, as
far as the seventh degree on account of the seven days of which all time
is comprised. Therefore seemingly this prohibition is of no force.
Objection 5: Further, where the cause is the same there should be
the same effect. Now the causes for which consanguinity is an
impediment to marriage are the good of the offspring, the curbing of
concupiscence, and the extension of friendship, as stated above
(Article 3), which are equally necessary for all time. Therefore
the degrees of consanguinity should have equally impeded marriage at all
times: yet this is not true since consanguinity is now an impediment to
marriage as far as the fourth degree, whereas formerly it was an
impediment as far as the seventh.
Objection 6: Further, one and the same union cannot be a kind of
sacrament and a kind of incest. But this would be the case if the
Church had the power of fixing a different number in the degrees which
are an impediment to marriage. Thus if certain parties related in the
fifth degree were married when that degree was an impediment, their
union would be incestuous, and yet this same union would be a marriage
afterwards when the Church withdrew her prohibition. And the reverse
might happen if certain degrees which were not an impediment were
subsequently to be forbidden by the Church. Therefore seemingly the
power of the Church does not extend to this.
Objection 7: Further, human law should copy the Divine law. Now
according to the Divine law which is contained in the Old Law, the
prohibition of degrees does not apply equally in the ascending and
descending lines: since in the Old Law a man was forbidden to marry
his father's sister but not his brother's daughter. Therefore
neither should there remain now a prohibition in respect of nephews and
uncles.
On the contrary, Our Lord said to His disciples (Lk.
10:16): "He that heareth you heareth Me." Therefore a
commandment of the Church has the same force as a commandment of God.
Now the Church sometimes has forbidden and sometimes allowed certain
degrees which the Old Law did not forbid. Therefore those degrees
are an impediment to marriage.
Further, even as of old the marriages of pagans were controlled by the
civil law, so now is marriage controlled by the laws of the Church.
Now formerly the civil law decided which degrees of consanguinity
impede marriage, and which do not. Therefore this can be done now by
a commandment of the Church.
I answer that, The degrees within which consanguinity has been an
impediment to marriage have varied according to various times. For at
the beginning of the human race father and mother alone were debarred
from marrying their children, because then mankind were few in number,
and then it was necessary for the propagation of the human race to be
ensured with very great care, and consequently only such persons were
to be debarred as were unfitted for marriage even in respect of its
principal end which is the good of the offspring, as stated above
(Article 3). Afterwards however, the human race having
multiplied, more persons were excluded by the law of Moses, for they
already began to curb concupiscence. Wherefore as Rabbi Moses says
(Doc. Perp. iii, 49) all those persons were debarred from
marrying one another who are wont to live together in one household,
because if a lawful carnal intercourse were possible between them, this
would prove a very great incentive to lust. Yet the Old Law
permitted other degrees of consanguinity, in fact to a certain extent
it commanded them; to wit that each man should take a wife from his
kindred, in order to avoid confusion of inheritances: because at that
time the Divine worship was handed down as the inheritance of the
race. But afterwards more degrees were forbidden by the New Law
which is the law of the spirit and of love, because the worship of God
is no longer handed down and spread abroad by a carnal birth but by a
spiritual grace: wherefore it was necessary that men should be yet more
withdrawn from carnal things by devoting themselves to things
spiritual, and that love should have a yet wider play. Hence in olden
times marriage was forbidden even within the more remote degrees of
consanguinity, in order that consanguinity and affinity might be the
sources of a wider natural friendship; and this was reasonably extended
to the seventh degree, both because beyond this it was difficult to
have any recollection of the common stock, and because this was in
keeping with the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost. Afterwards,
however, towards these latter times the prohibition of the Church has
been restricted to the fourth degree, because it became useless and
dangerous to extend the prohibition to more remote degrees of
consanguinity. Useless, because charity waxed cold in many hearts so
that they had scarcely a greater bond of friendship with their more
remote kindred than with strangers: and it was dangerous because
through the prevalence of concupiscence and neglect men took no account
of so numerous a kindred, and thus the prohibition of the more remote
degrees became for many a snare leading to damnation. Moreover there
is a certain fittingness in the restriction of the above prohibition to
the fourth degree. First because men are wont to live until the fourth
generation, so that consanguinity cannot lapse into oblivion,
wherefore God threatened (Ex. 20:5) to visit the parent's sins
on their children to the third and fourth generation. Secondly,
because in each generation the blood, the identity of which causes
consanguinity, receives a further addition of new blood, and the more
another blood is added the less there is of the old. And because there
are four elements, each of which is the more easily mixed with
another, according as it is more rarefied it follows that at the first
admixture the identity of blood disappears as regards the first element
which is most subtle; at the second admixture, as regards the second
element; at the third, as to the third element; at the fourth, as to
the fourth element. Thus after the fourth generation it is fitting for
the carnal union to be repeated.
Reply to Objection 1: Even as God does not join together those who
are joined together against the Divine command, so does He not join
together those who are joined together against the commandment of the
Church, which has the same binding force as a commandment of God.
Reply to Objection 2: Matrimony is not only a sacrament but also
fulfills an office; wherefore it is more subject to the control of the
Church's ministers than baptism which is a sacrament only: because
just as human contracts and offices are controlled by human laws, so
are spiritual contracts and offices controlled by the law of the
Church.
Reply to Objection 3: Although the tie of consanguinity is
natural, it is not natural that consanguinity forbid carnal
intercourse, except as regards certain degrees, as stated above
(Article 3). Wherefore the Church's commandment does not cause
certain people to be kin or not kin, because they remain equally kin at
all times: but it makes carnal intercourse to be lawful or unlawful at
different times for different degrees of consanguinity.
Reply to Objection 4: The reasons assigned are given as indicating
aptness and congruousness rather than causality and necessity.
Reply to Objection 5: The reason for the impediment of
consanguinity is not the same at different times: wherefore that which
it was useful to allow at one time, it was beneficial to forbid at
another.
Reply to Objection 6: A commandment does not affect the past but
the future. Wherefore if the fifth degree which is now allowed were to
be forbidden at any time, those in the fifth degree who are married
would not have to separate, because no impediment supervening to
marriage can annul it; and consequently a union which was a marriage
from the first would not be made incestuous by a commandment of the
Church. In like manner, if a degree which is now forbidden were to
be allowed, such a union would not become a marriage on account of the
Church's commandment by reason of the former contract, because they
could separate if they wished. Nevertheless, they could contract
anew, and this would be a new union.
Reply to Objection 7: In prohibiting the degrees of consanguinity
the Church considers chiefly the point of view of affection. And
since the reason for affection towards one's brother's son is not less
but even greater than the reasons for affection towards one's father's
brother, inasmuch as the son is more akin to the father than the father
to the son (Ethic. viii, 12), therefore did the Church equally
prohibit the degrees of consanguinity in uncles and nephews. On the
other hand the Old Law in debarring certain persons looked chiefly to
the danger of concupiscence arising from cohabitation; and debarred
those persons who were in closer intimacy with one another on account of
their living together. Now it is more usual for a niece to live with
her uncle than an aunt with her nephew: because a daughter is more
identified with her father, being part of him, whereas a sister is not
in this way identified with her brother, for she is not part of him but
is born of the same parent. Hence there was not the same reason for
debarring a niece and an aunt.
|
|