|
Objection 1: It would seem that matrimony is unfittingly defined in
the text (Sent. iv, D, 27). ["Marriage is the marital union
of man and woman involving living together in undivided
partnership."] For it is necessary to mention matrimony in defining
a husband, since it is the husband who is joined to the woman in
matrimony. Now "marital union" is put in the definition of
matrimony. Therefore in these definitions there would seem to be a
vicious circle.
Objection 2: Further, matrimony makes the woman the man's wife no
less than it makes the man the woman's husband. Therefore it should
not be described as a "marital union" rather than an uxorial union.
Objection 3: Further, habit [consuetudo] pertains to morals.
Yet it often happens that married persons differ very much in habit.
Therefore the words "involving their living together [consuetudinem]
in undivided partnership" should have no place in the definition of
matrimony.
Objection 4: Further, we find other definitions given of
matrimony, for according to Hugh (Sum. Sent. vii, 6),
"matrimony is the lawful consent of two apt persons to be joined
together." Also, according to some, "matrimony is the fellowship
of a common life and a community regulated by Divine and human law";
and we ask how these definitions differ.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), three things are to
be considered in matrimony, namely its cause, its essence, and its
effect; and accordingly we find three definitions given of matrimony.
For the definition of Hugh indicates the cause, namely the consent,
and this definition is self-evident. The definition given in the text
indicates the essence of matrimony, namely the "union," and adds
determinate subjects by the words "between lawful persons." It also
points to the difference of the contracting parties in reference to the
species, by the word "marital," for since matrimony is a joining
together for the purpose of some one thing, this joining together is
specified by the purpose to which it is directed, and this is what
pertains to the husband [maritum]. It also indicates the force of
this joining---for it is indissoluble---by the words
"involving," etc.
The remaining definition indicates the effect to which matrimony is
directed, namely the common life in family matters. And since every
community is regulated by some law, the code according to which this
community is directed, namely Divine and human law, finds a place in
this definition. while other communities, such as those of traders or
soldiers, are established by human law alone.
Reply to Objection 1: Sometimes the prior things from which a
definition ought to be given are not known to us, and consequently
certain things are defined from things that are posterior simply, but
prior to us; thus in the definition of quality the Philosopher employs
the word "such" [quale] when he says (Cap. De Qualitate) that
"quality is that whereby we are said to be such." Thus, too, in
defining matrimony we say that it is a "marital union," by which we
mean that matrimony is a union for the purpose of those things required
by the marital office, all of which could not be expressed in one
word.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated (Article 2), this difference
indicates the end of the union. And since, according to the Apostle
(1 Cor. 11:9), the "man is not for the woman, but the woman
for the man," it follows that this difference should be indicated in
reference to the man rather than the woman.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as the civic life denotes not the
individual act of this or that one, but the things that concern the
common action of the citizens, so the conjugal life is nothing else
than a particular kind of companionship pertaining to that common
action. wherefore as regards this same life the partnership of married
persons is always indivisible, although it is divisible as regards the
act belonging to each party.
The Reply to the Fourth Objection is clear from what has been said
above.
|
|