Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
comparison summa/english/XP_ii.html @ 64:11682db9b870
from auto-split
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:43:02 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | c7ec38b835c6 |
comparison
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
| 63:4665e252e26e | 64:11682db9b870 |
|---|---|
| 1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="XP.ii" class="div2"> | |
| 2 <a href="summa.XP.i.html"></a> | |
| 3 <a href="summa.XP_Q1.html"></a> | |
| 4 <div id="XP_Q1" class="div3"> | |
| 5 <a href="summa.XP.ii.html"></a> | |
| 6 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7 <h3 id="XP_Q1-p0.1">OF THE PARTS OF PENANCE, IN PARTICULAR, AND FIRST OF CONTRITION (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 8 <p id="XP_Q1-p1"></p> | |
| 9 <p id="XP_Q1-p2"> We must now consider each single part of Penance, and (1) Contrition; (2) Confession; (3) Satisfaction. The consideration | |
| 10 about Contrition will be fourfold: (1) What is it? (2) What should it be about? (3) How great should it be? (4) Of its duration; | |
| 11 (5) Of its effect. | |
| 12 </p> | |
| 13 <p id="XP_Q1-p3"> Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 14 <p id="XP_Q1-p4"> (1) Whether Contrition is suitably defined?</p> | |
| 15 <p id="XP_Q1-p5"> (2) Whether it is an act of virtue?</p> | |
| 16 <p id="XP_Q1-p6"> (3) Whether attrition can become contrition?</p> | |
| 17 <div id="XP_Q1_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 18 <a href="summa.XP_Q1.html"></a> | |
| 19 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A2.html"></a> | |
| 20 <h4 id="XP_Q1_A1-p0.1">Whether contrition is an assumed sorrow for sins, together with the purpose of confessing them and of making satisfaction | |
| 21 for them? | |
| 22 </h4> | |
| 23 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 24 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p2"> | |
| 25 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that contrition is not "an assumed sorrow for sins, together with the purpose of confessing them and of making | |
| 26 satisfaction for them," as some define it. For, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6), "sorrow is for those things that | |
| 27 happen against our will." But this does not apply to sin. Therefore contrition is not sorrow for sins. | |
| 28 </p> | |
| 29 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p3"> | |
| 30 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, contrition is given us by God. But what is given is not assumed. Therefore contrition is not an assumed sorrow. | |
| 31 </p> | |
| 32 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p4"> | |
| 33 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, satisfaction and confession are necessary for the remission of the punishment which was not remitted by contrition. | |
| 34 But sometimes the whole punishment is remitted in contrition. Therefore it is not always necessary for the contrite person | |
| 35 to have the purpose of confessing and of making satisfaction. | |
| 36 </p> | |
| 37 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p5"> | |
| 38 <b>On the contrary,</b> stands the definition. | |
| 39 </p> | |
| 40 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p6"> | |
| 41 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in | |
| 42 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q1_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.10.15" target="asv"> Ecclus. 10:15, </a> "pride is the beginning of all sin," because thereby man clings to his own judgment, and strays from the Divine commandments. | |
| 43 Consequently that which destroys sin must needs make man give up his own judgment. Now he that persists in his own judgment, | |
| 44 is called metaphorically rigid and hard: wherefore anyone is said to be broken when he is torn from his own judgment. But, | |
| 45 in material things, whence these | |
| 46 expressions are transferred to spiritual things, there is a difference between breaking and crushing or contrition, as stated | |
| 47 in Meteor. iv, in that we speak of breaking when a thing is sundered into large parts, but of crushing or contrition when | |
| 48 that which was in itself solid is reduced to minute particles. And since, for the remission of sin, it is necessary that man | |
| 49 should put aside entirely his attachment to sin, which implies a certain state of continuity and solidity in his mind, | |
| 50 therefore it is that the act through which sin is cast aside is called contrition metaphorically. | |
| 51 </p> | |
| 52 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p7"> In this contrition several things are to be observed, viz. the very substance of the act, the way of acting, its origin and | |
| 53 its effect: in respect of which we find that contrition has been defined in various ways. For, as regards the substance of | |
| 54 the act, we have the definition given above: and since the act of contrition is both an act of virtue, and a part of the sacrament | |
| 55 of Penance, its nature as an act of virtue is explained in this definition by mentioning its genus, viz. | |
| 56 "sorrow," its object by the words "for sins," and the act of choice which is necessary for an act of virtue, by the word "assumed": | |
| 57 while, as a part of the sacrament, it is made manifest by pointing out its relation to the other parts, in the words "together | |
| 58 with the purpose of confessing and of making satisfaction." | |
| 59 </p> | |
| 60 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p8"> There is another definition which defines contrition, only as an act of virtue; but at the same time including the difference | |
| 61 which confines it to a special virtue, viz. penance, for it is thus expressed: "Contrition is voluntary sorrow for sin whereby | |
| 62 man punishes in himself that which he grieves to have done," because the addition of the word "punishes" defines the definition | |
| 63 to a special virtue. Another definition is given by Isidore (De Sum. Bono ii, 12) as follows: | |
| 64 "Contrition is a tearful sorrow and humility of mind, arising from remembrance of sin and fear of the Judgment." Here we have | |
| 65 an allusion to the derivation of the word, when it is said that it is "humility of the mind," because just as pride makes | |
| 66 the mind rigid, so is a man humbled, when contrition leads him to give up his mind. Also the external manner is indicated | |
| 67 by the word "tearful," and the origin of contrition, by the words, "arising from remembrance of sin," etc. Another definition | |
| 68 is | |
| 69 taken from the words of Augustine [*Implicitly on | |
| 70 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q1_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.46" target="asv">Ps. 46</a>], and indicates the effect of contrition. It runs thus: "Contrition is the sorrow which takes away sin." Yet another is gathered | |
| 71 from the words of Gregory (Moral. xxxiii, 11) as follows: "Contrition is humility of the soul, crushing sin between hope and | |
| 72 fear." Here the derivation is indicated by saying that contrition is "humility of the soul"; the effect, by the words, "crushing | |
| 73 sin"; and the origin, by the words, "between hope and | |
| 74 fear." Indeed, it includes not only the principal cause, which is fear, but also its joint cause, which is hope, without which, | |
| 75 fear might lead to despair. | |
| 76 </p> | |
| 77 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p9"> | |
| 78 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although sins, when committed, were voluntary, yet when we are contrite for them, they are no longer voluntary, so that they | |
| 79 occur against our will; not indeed in respect of the will that we had when we consented to them, but in respect of that which | |
| 80 we have now, so as to wish they had never been. | |
| 81 </p> | |
| 82 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p10"> | |
| 83 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Contrition is from God alone as to the form that quickens it, but as to the substance of the act, it is from the free-will | |
| 84 and from God, Who operates in all works both of nature and of will. | |
| 85 </p> | |
| 86 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p11"> | |
| 87 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the entire punishment may be remitted by contrition, yet confession and satisfaction are still necessary, both because | |
| 88 man cannot be sure that his contrition was sufficient to take away all, and because confession and satisfaction are a matter | |
| 89 of precept: wherefore he becomes a transgressor, who confesses not and makes not satisfaction. | |
| 90 </p> | |
| 91 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 92 <p id="XP_Q1_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 93 <a href="summa.XP_Q1.html"></a> | |
| 94 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A2.html"></a> | |
| 95 </div> | |
| 96 <div id="XP_Q1_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 97 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A1.html"></a> | |
| 98 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A3.html"></a> | |
| 99 <h4 id="XP_Q1_A2-p0.1">Whether contrition is an act of virtue?</h4> | |
| 100 <p id="XP_Q1_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 101 <p id="XP_Q1_A2-p2"> | |
| 102 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that contrition is not an act of virtue. For passions are not acts of virtue, since "they bring us neither | |
| 103 praise nor blame" (Ethic. ii, 5). But sorrow is a passion. As therefore contrition is sorrow, it seems that it is not an act | |
| 104 of virtue. | |
| 105 </p> | |
| 106 <p id="XP_Q1_A2-p3"> | |
| 107 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as contrition is so called from its being a crushing, so is attrition. Now all agree in saying that attrition is | |
| 108 not an act of virtue. Neither, therefore, is contrition an act of virtue. | |
| 109 </p> | |
| 110 <p id="XP_Q1_A2-p4"> | |
| 111 <b>On the contrary,</b> Nothing but an act of virtue is meritorious. But contrition is a meritorious act. Therefore it is an act of virtue. | |
| 112 </p> | |
| 113 <p id="XP_Q1_A2-p5"> | |
| 114 <b>I answer that,</b> Contrition as to the literal signification of the word, does not denote an act of virtue, but a corporeal passion. But the | |
| 115 question in point does not refer to contrition in this sense, but to that which the word is employed to signify by way of | |
| 116 metaphor. For just as the inflation of one's own will unto wrong-doing implies, in itself, a generic evil, so the utter undoing | |
| 117 and crushing of that same will implies something generically good, for this is to detest | |
| 118 one's own will whereby sin was committed. Wherefore contrition, which signifies this, implies rectitude of the will; and so | |
| 119 it is the act of that virtue to which it belongs to detest and destroy past sins, the act, to wit, of penance, as is evident | |
| 120 from what was said above (Sent. iv, D, 14, Q[1], A[1]; | |
| 121 <a id="XP_Q1_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html">TP, Q[85], AA[2]</a>,3). | |
| 122 </p> | |
| 123 <p id="XP_Q1_A2-p6"> | |
| 124 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Contrition includes a twofold sorrow for sin. One is in the sensitive part, and is a passion. This does not belong essentially | |
| 125 to contrition as an act of virtue, but is rather its effect. For just as the virtue of penance inflicts outward punishment | |
| 126 on the body, in order to compensate for the offense done to God through the instrumentality of the bodily members, so does | |
| 127 it inflict on the concupiscible part of the soul a punishment, viz. the aforesaid | |
| 128 sorrow, because the concupiscible also co-operated in the sinful deeds. Nevertheless this sorrow may belong to contrition | |
| 129 taken as part of the sacrament, since the nature of a sacrament is such that it consists not only of internal but also of | |
| 130 external acts and sensible things. The other sorrow is in the will, and is nothing else save displeasure for some evil, for | |
| 131 the emotions of the will are named after the passions, as stated above (Sent. iii, D, 26, Q[1], A[5]; | |
| 132 <a id="XP_Q1_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q22_A3.html">FS, | |
| 133 Q[22], A[3] | |
| 134 </a>, ad 3). Accordingly, contrition is essentially a kind of sorrow, and is an act of the virtue of penance. | |
| 135 </p> | |
| 136 <p id="XP_Q1_A2-p7"> | |
| 137 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Attrition denotes approach to perfect contrition, wherefore in corporeal matters, things are said to be attrite, when they | |
| 138 are worn away to a certain extent, but not altogether crushed to pieces; while they are said to be contrite, when all the | |
| 139 parts are crushed [tritae] minutely. Wherefore, in spiritual matters, attrition signifies a certain but not a perfect displeasure | |
| 140 for sins committed, whereas contrition denotes perfect displeasure. | |
| 141 </p> | |
| 142 <p id="XP_Q1_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 143 <p id="XP_Q1_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 144 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A1.html"></a> | |
| 145 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A3.html"></a> | |
| 146 </div> | |
| 147 <div id="XP_Q1_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 148 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A2.html"></a> | |
| 149 <a href="summa.XP_Q2.html"></a> | |
| 150 <h4 id="XP_Q1_A3-p0.1">Whether attrition can become contrition?</h4> | |
| 151 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 152 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p2"> | |
| 153 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that attrition can become contrition. For contrition differs from attrition, as living from dead. Now dead | |
| 154 faith becomes living. Therefore attrition can become contrition. | |
| 155 </p> | |
| 156 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p3"> | |
| 157 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, matter receives perfection when privation is removed. Now sorrow is to grace, as matter to form, because grace quickens | |
| 158 sorrow. Therefore the sorrow that was previously lifeless, while guilt remained, receives perfection through being quickened | |
| 159 by grace: and so the same conclusion follows as above. | |
| 160 </p> | |
| 161 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p4"> | |
| 162 <b>On the contrary,</b> Things which are caused by principles altogether diverse cannot be changed, one into the other. Now the principle of attrition | |
| 163 is servile fear, while filial fear is the cause of contrition. Therefore attrition cannot become contrition. | |
| 164 </p> | |
| 165 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p5"> | |
| 166 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two opinions on this question: for some say that attrition may become contrition, even as lifeless faith becomes | |
| 167 living faith. But, seemingly, this is impossible; since, although the habit of lifeless faith becomes living, yet never does | |
| 168 an act of lifeless faith become an act of living faith, because the lifeless act passes away and remains no more, as soon | |
| 169 as charity comes. Now attrition and contrition do not denote a habit, but an act only: and | |
| 170 those habits of infused virtue which regard the will cannot be lifeless, since they result from charity, as stated above (Sent. | |
| 171 iii, D, 27, Q[2], A[4]; | |
| 172 <a id="XP_Q1_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q65_A4.html">FS, Q[65], A[4]</a>). Wherefore until grace be infused, there is no habit by which afterwards the act of contrition may be elicited; so that | |
| 173 attrition can nowise become attrition: and this is the other opinion. | |
| 174 </p> | |
| 175 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p6"> | |
| 176 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There is no comparison between faith and contrition, as stated above. | |
| 177 </p> | |
| 178 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p7"> | |
| 179 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When the privation is removed from matter, the matter is quickened if it remains when the perfection comes. But the sorrow | |
| 180 which was lifeless, does not remain when charity comes, wherefore it cannot be quickened. | |
| 181 </p> | |
| 182 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p8"> It may also be replied that matter does not take its origin from the form essentially, as an act takes its origin from the | |
| 183 habit which quickens it. Wherefore nothing hinders matter being quickened anew by some form, whereby it was not quickened | |
| 184 previously: whereas this cannot be said of an act, even as it is impossible for the identically same thing to arise from a | |
| 185 cause wherefrom it did not arise before, since a thing is brought into being but once. | |
| 186 </p> | |
| 187 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 188 <p id="XP_Q1_A3-p10"></p> | |
| 189 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A2.html"></a> | |
| 190 <a href="summa.XP_Q2.html"></a> | |
| 191 </div> | |
| 192 <a href="summa.XP.ii.html"></a> | |
| 193 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A1.html"></a> | |
| 194 </div> | |
| 195 <div id="XP_Q2" class="div3"> | |
| 196 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A3.html"></a> | |
| 197 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A1.html"></a> | |
| 198 <h3 id="XP_Q2-p0.1">OF THE OBJECT OF CONTRITION (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 199 <p id="XP_Q2-p1"></p> | |
| 200 <p id="XP_Q2-p2"> We must now consider the object of contrition. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 201 <p id="XP_Q2-p3"> (1) Whether a man should be contrite on account of his punishment?</p> | |
| 202 <p id="XP_Q2-p4"> (2) Whether, on account of original sin?</p> | |
| 203 <p id="XP_Q2-p5"> (3) Whether, for every actual sin he has committed?</p> | |
| 204 <p id="XP_Q2-p6"> (4) Whether, for actual sins he will commit?</p> | |
| 205 <p id="XP_Q2-p7"> (5) Whether, for the sins of others?</p> | |
| 206 <p id="XP_Q2-p8"> (6) Whether, for each single mortal sin?</p> | |
| 207 <div id="XP_Q2_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 208 <a href="summa.XP_Q2.html"></a> | |
| 209 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A2.html"></a> | |
| 210 <h4 id="XP_Q2_A1-p0.1">Whether man should be contrite on account of the punishment, and not only on account of his sin?</h4> | |
| 211 <p id="XP_Q2_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 212 <p id="XP_Q2_A1-p2"> | |
| 213 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that man should be contrite on account of the punishment, and not only on account of his sin. For Augustine | |
| 214 says in De Poenitentia [*Cf. Hom. 50 inter 1]: "No man desires life everlasting unless he repent of this mortal life." But | |
| 215 the morality of this life is a punishment. Therefore the penitent should be contrite on account of his punishments also. | |
| 216 </p> | |
| 217 <p id="XP_Q2_A1-p3"> | |
| 218 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Master says (Sent. iv, D, 16, cap. i), quoting Augustine (De vera et falsa Poenitentia [*Work of an unknown | |
| 219 author]), that the penitent should be sorry for having deprived himself of virtue. But privation of virtue is a punishment. | |
| 220 Therefore contrition is sorrow for punishments also. | |
| 221 </p> | |
| 222 <p id="XP_Q2_A1-p4"> | |
| 223 <b>On the contrary,</b> No one holds to that for which he is sorry. But a penitent, by the very signification of the word, is one who holds to his | |
| 224 punishment [*"Poenitens," i.e. "poenam tenens"]. Therefore he is not sorry on account of his punishment, so that contrition | |
| 225 which is penitential sorrow is not on account of punishment. | |
| 226 </p> | |
| 227 <p id="XP_Q2_A1-p5"> | |
| 228 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( | |
| 229 <a id="XP_Q2_A1-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q1_A1.html">Q[1], A[1]</a>), contrition implies the crushing of something hard and whole. Now this wholeness and hardness is found in the evil of fault, | |
| 230 since the will, which is the cause thereof in the evil-doer, sticks to its own ground*, and refuses to yield to the precept | |
| 231 of the law, wherefore displeasure at a suchlike evil is called metaphorically "contrition." [*There is a play on the words | |
| 232 here---'integer' (whole) and 'in suis | |
| 233 terminis' (to its own ground)]. But this metaphor cannot be applied to evil of punishment, because punishment simply denotes | |
| 234 a lessening, so that it is possible to have sorrow for punishment but not contrition. | |
| 235 </p> | |
| 236 <p id="XP_Q2_A1-p6"> | |
| 237 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> According to St. Augustine, penance should be on account of this mortal life, not by reason of its mortality (unless penance | |
| 238 be taken broadly for every kind of sorrow); but by reason of sins, to which we are prone on account of the weakness of this | |
| 239 life. | |
| 240 </p> | |
| 241 <p id="XP_Q2_A1-p7"> | |
| 242 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sorrow for the loss of virtue through sin is not essentially the same as contrition, but is its principle. For just as we | |
| 243 are moved to desire a thing on account of the good we expect to derive from it, so are we moved to be sorry for something | |
| 244 on account of the evil accruing to us therefrom. | |
| 245 </p> | |
| 246 <p id="XP_Q2_A1-p8"></p> | |
| 247 <p id="XP_Q2_A1-p9"></p> | |
| 248 <a href="summa.XP_Q2.html"></a> | |
| 249 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A2.html"></a> | |
| 250 </div> | |
| 251 <div id="XP_Q2_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 252 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A1.html"></a> | |
| 253 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A3.html"></a> | |
| 254 <h4 id="XP_Q2_A2-p0.1">Whether contrition should be on account of original sin?</h4> | |
| 255 <p id="XP_Q2_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 256 <p id="XP_Q2_A2-p2"> | |
| 257 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that contrition should be on account of original sin. For we ought to be contrite on account of actual sin; | |
| 258 not by reason of the act, considered as a kind of being, but by reason of its deformity, since the act, regarded in its substance, | |
| 259 is a good, and is from God. Now original sin has a deformity, even as actual sin has. Therefore we should be contrite on its | |
| 260 account also. | |
| 261 </p> | |
| 262 <p id="XP_Q2_A2-p3"> | |
| 263 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by original sin man has been turned away from God, since in punishment thereof he was to be deprived of seeing God. | |
| 264 But every man should be displeased at having been turned away from God. Therefore man should be displeased at original sin; | |
| 265 and so he ought to have contrition for it. | |
| 266 </p> | |
| 267 <p id="XP_Q2_A2-p4"> | |
| 268 <b>On the contrary,</b> The medicine should be proportionate to the disease. Now we contracted original sin without willing to do so. Therefore it | |
| 269 is not necessary that we should be cleansed from it by an act of the will, such as contrition is. | |
| 270 </p> | |
| 271 <p id="XP_Q2_A2-p5"> | |
| 272 <b>I answer that,</b> Contrition is sorrow, as stated above ( | |
| 273 <a id="XP_Q2_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q1_A1.html">Q[1], AA[1]</a>,2), respecting and, so to speak, crushing the hardness of the will. Consequently it can regard those sins only which result | |
| 274 in us through the hardness of our will. And as original sin was not brought upon us by our own will, but contracted from the | |
| 275 origin of our infected nature, it follows that, properly speaking, we cannot have contrition on its account, but only displeasure | |
| 276 or | |
| 277 sorrow. | |
| 278 </p> | |
| 279 <p id="XP_Q2_A2-p6"> | |
| 280 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Contrition is for sin, not by reason of the mere substance of the act, because it does not derive the character of evil therefrom; | |
| 281 nor again, by reason of its deformity alone, because deformity, of itself, does not include the notion of guilt, and sometimes | |
| 282 denotes a punishment. But contrition ought to be on account of sin, as implying deformity resulting from an act of the will; | |
| 283 and this does not apply to original sin, so that contrition does not | |
| 284 apply to it. | |
| 285 </p> | |
| 286 <p id="XP_Q2_A2-p7"> The same Reply avails for the Second Objection, because contrition is due to aversion of the will.</p> | |
| 287 <p id="XP_Q2_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 288 <p id="XP_Q2_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 289 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A1.html"></a> | |
| 290 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A3.html"></a> | |
| 291 </div> | |
| 292 <div id="XP_Q2_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 293 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A2.html"></a> | |
| 294 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A4.html"></a> | |
| 295 <h4 id="XP_Q2_A3-p0.1">Whether we should have contrition for every actual sin?</h4> | |
| 296 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 297 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p2"> | |
| 298 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that we have no need to have contrition for every actual sin we have committed. For contraries are healed by | |
| 299 their contraries. Now some sins are committed through sorrow, e.g. sloth and envy. Therefore their remedy should not be sorrow, | |
| 300 such as contrition is, but joy. | |
| 301 </p> | |
| 302 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p3"> | |
| 303 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, contrition is an act of the will, which cannot refer to that which is not known. But there are sins of which we | |
| 304 have no knowledge, such as those we have forgotten. Therefore we cannot have contrition for them. | |
| 305 </p> | |
| 306 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p4"> | |
| 307 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by voluntary contrition those sins are blotted out which we committed voluntarily. But ignorance takes away voluntariness, | |
| 308 as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. iii, 1). Therefore contrition need not cover things which have occurred through ignorance. | |
| 309 </p> | |
| 310 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p5"> | |
| 311 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, we need not be contrite for a sin which is not removed by contrition. Now some sins are not removed by contrition, | |
| 312 e.g. venial sins, that remain after the grace of contrition. Therefore there is no need to have contrition for all one's past | |
| 313 sins. | |
| 314 </p> | |
| 315 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p6"> | |
| 316 <b>On the contrary,</b> Penance is a remedy for all actual sins. But penance cannot regard some sins, without contrition regarding them also, for | |
| 317 it is the first part of Penance. Therefore contrition should be for all one's past sins. | |
| 318 </p> | |
| 319 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p7"> Further, no sin is forgiven a man unless he be justified. But justification requires contrition, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]; | |
| 320 | |
| 321 <a id="XP_Q2_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q113.html">FS, Q[113])</a>. Therefore it is necessary to have contrition for all one's sins. | |
| 322 </p> | |
| 323 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p8"> | |
| 324 <b>I answer that,</b> Every actual sin is caused by our will not yielding to God's law, either by transgressing it, or by omitting it, or by acting | |
| 325 beside it: and since a hard thing is one that is disposed not to give way easily, hence it is that a certain hardness of the | |
| 326 will is to be found in every actual sin. Wherefore, if a sin is to be remedied, it needs to be taken away by contrition which | |
| 327 crushes it. | |
| 328 </p> | |
| 329 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p9"> | |
| 330 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As clearly shown above (A[2], ad 1), contrition is opposed to sin, in so far as it proceeds from the choice of the will that | |
| 331 had failed to obey the command of God's law, and not as regards the material part of sin: and it is on this that the choice | |
| 332 of the will falls. Now the will's choice falls not only on the acts of the other powers, which the will uses for its own end, | |
| 333 but also on the will's own proper act: for the will wills to will something. | |
| 334 Accordingly the will's choice falls on that pain or sadness which is to be found in the sin of envy and the like, whether | |
| 335 such pain be in the senses or in the will itself. Consequently the sorrow of contrition is opposed to those sins. | |
| 336 </p> | |
| 337 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p10"> | |
| 338 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> One may forget a thing in two ways, either so that it escapes the memory altogether, and then one cannot search for it; or | |
| 339 so that it escapes from the memory in part, and in part remains, as when I remember having heard something in general, but | |
| 340 know not what it was in particular, and then I search my memory in order to discover it. Accordingly a sin also may be forgotten | |
| 341 in two ways, either so as to remain in a general, but not in a particular | |
| 342 remembrance, and then a man is bound to bethink himself in order to discover the sin, because he is bound to have contrition | |
| 343 for each individual mortal sin. And if he is unable to discover it, after applying himself with due care, it is enough that | |
| 344 he be contrite for it, according as it stands in his knowledge, and indeed he should grieve not only for the sin, but also | |
| 345 for having forgotten it, because this is owing to his neglect. If, however, the sin has escaped from his memory altogether, | |
| 346 then he is excused from his duty through being unable to fulfill it, and it is enough that he be contrite in general for everything | |
| 347 wherein he has offended God. But when this inability is removed, as when the sin is recalled to his memory, then he is bound | |
| 348 to have contrition for that sin in particular, even as a poor man, who cannot pay a debt, is excused, and yet is bound to, | |
| 349 as soon as he can. | |
| 350 </p> | |
| 351 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p11"> | |
| 352 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If ignorance were to remove altogether the will to do evil, it will excuse, and there would be no sin: and sometimes it does | |
| 353 not remove the will altogether, and then it does not altogether excuse, but only to a certain extent: wherefore a man is bound | |
| 354 to be contrite for a sin committed through ignorance. | |
| 355 </p> | |
| 356 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p12"> | |
| 357 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A venial sin can remain after contrition for a mortal sin, but not after contrition for the venial sin: wherefore contrition | |
| 358 should also cover venial sins even as penance does, as stated above (Sent. iv, D, 16, Q[2], A[2], qu. 2; | |
| 359 <a id="XP_Q2_A3-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q87_A1.html">XP, Q[87], A[1]</a>). | |
| 360 </p> | |
| 361 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 362 <p id="XP_Q2_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 363 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A2.html"></a> | |
| 364 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A4.html"></a> | |
| 365 </div> | |
| 366 <div id="XP_Q2_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 367 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A3.html"></a> | |
| 368 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A5.html"></a> | |
| 369 <h4 id="XP_Q2_A4-p0.1">Whether a man is bound to have contrition for his future sins?</h4> | |
| 370 <p id="XP_Q2_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 371 <p id="XP_Q2_A4-p2"> | |
| 372 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man is bound to have contrition for his future sins also. For contrition is an act of the free-will: | |
| 373 and the free-will extends to the future rather than to the past, since choice, which is an act of the free-will, is about | |
| 374 future contingents, as stated in Ethic. iii. Therefore contrition is about future sins rather than about past sins. | |
| 375 </p> | |
| 376 <p id="XP_Q2_A4-p3"> | |
| 377 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sin is aggravated by the result that ensues from it: wherefore Jerome says [*St. Basil asserts this implicitly in | |
| 378 De Vera Virgin.] that the punishment of Arius is not yet ended, for it is yet possible for some to be ruined through his heresy, | |
| 379 by reason of whose ruin his punishment would be increased: and the same applies to a man who is judged guilty of murder, if | |
| 380 he has committed a murderous assault, even before his victim dies. Now the sinner ought | |
| 381 to be contrite during that intervening time. Therefore the degree of his contrition ought to be proportionate not only to | |
| 382 his past act, but also to its eventual result: and consequently contrition regards the future. | |
| 383 </p> | |
| 384 <p id="XP_Q2_A4-p4"> | |
| 385 <b>On the contrary,</b> Contrition is a part of penance. But penance always regards the past: and therefore contrition does also, and consequently | |
| 386 is not for a future sin. | |
| 387 </p> | |
| 388 <p id="XP_Q2_A4-p5"> | |
| 389 <b>I answer that,</b> In every series of things moving and moved ordained to one another, we find that the inferior mover has its proper movement, | |
| 390 and besides this, it follows, in some respect, the movement of the superior mover: this is seen in the movement of the planets, | |
| 391 which, in addition to their proper movements, follow the movement of the first heaven. Now, in all the moral virtues, the | |
| 392 first mover is prudence, which is called the charioteer of the virtues. Consequently | |
| 393 each moral virtue, in addition to its proper movement, has something of the movement of prudence: and therefore, since penance | |
| 394 is a moral virtue, as it is a part of justice, in addition to its own act, it acquires the movement of prudence. Now its proper | |
| 395 movement is towards its proper object, which is a sin committed. Wherefore its proper and principal act, viz. contrition, | |
| 396 essentially regards past sins alone; but, inasmuch as it acquires something of the act of prudence, it regards future sins | |
| 397 indirectly, although it is not essentially moved towards those future sins. For this reason, he that is contrite, is sorry | |
| 398 for his past sins, and is cautious of future sins. Yet we do not speak of contrition for future sins, but of caution, which | |
| 399 is a part of prudence conjoined to penance. | |
| 400 </p> | |
| 401 <p id="XP_Q2_A4-p6"> | |
| 402 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The free-will is said to regard future contingents, in so far as it is concerned with acts, but not with the object of acts: | |
| 403 because, of his own free-will, a man can think about past and necessary things, and yet the very act of thinking, in so far | |
| 404 as it is subject to the free-will, is a future contingent. Hence the act the contrition also is a future contingent, in so | |
| 405 far as it is subject to the free-will; and yet its object can be something | |
| 406 past. | |
| 407 </p> | |
| 408 <p id="XP_Q2_A4-p7"> | |
| 409 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The consequent result which aggravates a sin was already present in the act as in its cause; wherefore when the sin was committed, | |
| 410 its degree of gravity was already complete, and no further guilt accrued to it when the result took place. Nevertheless some | |
| 411 accidental punishment accrues to it, in the respect of which the damned will have the more motives of regret for the more | |
| 412 evils that have resulted from their sins. It is in this sense that Jerome | |
| 413 [*Basil] speaks. Hence there is not need for contrition to be for other than past sins. | |
| 414 </p> | |
| 415 <p id="XP_Q2_A4-p8"></p> | |
| 416 <p id="XP_Q2_A4-p9"></p> | |
| 417 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A3.html"></a> | |
| 418 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A5.html"></a> | |
| 419 </div> | |
| 420 <div id="XP_Q2_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 421 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A4.html"></a> | |
| 422 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A6.html"></a> | |
| 423 <h4 id="XP_Q2_A5-p0.1">Whether a man ought to have contrition for another's sin? </h4> | |
| 424 <p id="XP_Q2_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 425 <p id="XP_Q2_A5-p2"> | |
| 426 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man ought to have contrition for another's sin. For one should not ask forgiveness for a sin unless | |
| 427 one is contrite for it. Now forgiveness is asked for another's sin in | |
| 428 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q2_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.18.13" target="asv"> Ps. 18:13</a>: "From those of others spare thy servant." Therefore a man ought to be contrite for another's sins. | |
| 429 </p> | |
| 430 <p id="XP_Q2_A5-p3"> | |
| 431 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, man is bound, ought of charity, to love his neighbor as himself. Now, through love of himself, he both grieves for | |
| 432 his ills, and desires good things. Therefore, since we are bound to desire the goods of grace for our neighbor, as for ourselves, | |
| 433 it seems that we ought to grieve for his sins, even as for our own. But contrition is nothing else than sorrow for sins. Therefore | |
| 434 man should be contrite for the sins of others. | |
| 435 </p> | |
| 436 <p id="XP_Q2_A5-p4"> | |
| 437 <b>On the contrary,</b> Contrition is an act of the virtue of penance. But no one repents save for what he has done himself. Therefore no one is | |
| 438 contrite for others' sins. | |
| 439 </p> | |
| 440 <p id="XP_Q2_A5-p5"> | |
| 441 <b>I answer that,</b> The same thing is crushed [conteritur] which hitherto was hard and whole. Hence contrition for sin must needs be in the same | |
| 442 subject in which the hardness of sin was hitherto: so that there is no contrition for the sins of others. | |
| 443 </p> | |
| 444 <p id="XP_Q2_A5-p6"> | |
| 445 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The prophet prays to be spared from the sins of others, in so far as, through fellowship with sinners, a man contracts a | |
| 446 stain by consenting to their sins: thus it is written ( | |
| 447 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q2_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.17.27" target="asv">Ps. 17:27</a>): "With the perverse thou wilt be perverted." | |
| 448 </p> | |
| 449 <p id="XP_Q2_A5-p7"> | |
| 450 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> We ought to grieve for the sins of others, but not to have contrition for them, because not all sorrow for past sins is contrition, | |
| 451 as is evident for what has been said already. | |
| 452 </p> | |
| 453 <p id="XP_Q2_A5-p8"></p> | |
| 454 <p id="XP_Q2_A5-p9"></p> | |
| 455 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A4.html"></a> | |
| 456 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A6.html"></a> | |
| 457 </div> | |
| 458 <div id="XP_Q2_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 459 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A5.html"></a> | |
| 460 <a href="summa.XP_Q3.html"></a> | |
| 461 <h4 id="XP_Q2_A6-p0.1">Whether it is necessary to have contrition for each mortal sin?</h4> | |
| 462 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 463 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p2"> | |
| 464 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not necessary to have contrition for each mortal sin. For the movement of contrition in justification | |
| 465 is instantaneous: whereas a man cannot think of every mortal sin in an instant. Therefore it is not necessary to have contrition | |
| 466 for each mortal sin. | |
| 467 </p> | |
| 468 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p3"> | |
| 469 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, contrition should be for sins, inasmuch as they turn us away from God, because we need not be contrite for turning | |
| 470 to creatures without turning away from God. Now all mortal sins agree in turning us away from God. Therefore one contrition | |
| 471 for all is sufficient. | |
| 472 </p> | |
| 473 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p4"> | |
| 474 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, mortal sins have more in common with one another, than actual and original sin. Now one Baptism blots out all sins | |
| 475 both actual and original. Therefore one general contrition blots out all mortal sins. | |
| 476 </p> | |
| 477 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p5"> | |
| 478 <b>On the contrary,</b> For diverse diseases there are diverse remedies, since "what heals the eye will not heal the foot," as Jerome says (Super | |
| 479 Marc. ix, 28). But contrition is the special remedy for one mortal sin. Therefore one general contrition for all mortal sins | |
| 480 does not suffice. | |
| 481 </p> | |
| 482 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p6"> Further, contrition is expressed by confession. But it is necessary to confess each mortal sin. Therefore it is necessary | |
| 483 to have contrition for each mortal sin. | |
| 484 </p> | |
| 485 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p7"> | |
| 486 <b>I answer that,</b> Contrition may be considered in two ways, as to its origin, and as to its term. By origin of contrition I mean the process | |
| 487 of thought, when a man thinks of his sin and is sorry for it, albeit not with the sorrow of contrition, yet with that of attrition. | |
| 488 The term of contrition is when that sorrow is already quickened by grace. Accordingly, as regards the origin of contrition, | |
| 489 a man needs to be contrite for each sin that he calls to mind; but as regards its | |
| 490 term, it suffices for him to have one general contrition for all, because then the movement of his contrition acts in virtue | |
| 491 of all his preceding dispositions. | |
| 492 </p> | |
| 493 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p8"> This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.</p> | |
| 494 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p9"> | |
| 495 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although all mortal sins agree in turning man away from God, yet they differ in the cause and mode of aversion, and in the | |
| 496 degree of separation from God; and this regards the different ways in which they turn us to creatures. | |
| 497 </p> | |
| 498 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p10"> | |
| 499 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism acts in virtue of Christ's merit, Who had infinite power for the blotting out of all sins; and so for all sins one | |
| 500 Baptism suffices. But in contrition, in addition to the merit of Christ, an act of ours is requisite, which must, therefore, | |
| 501 correspond to each sin, since it has not infinite power for contrition. | |
| 502 </p> | |
| 503 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p11"> It may also be replied that Baptism is a spiritual generation; whereas Penance, as regards contrition and its other parts, | |
| 504 is a kind of spiritual healing by way of some alteration. Now it is evident in the generation of a body, accompanied by corruption | |
| 505 of another body, that all the accidents contrary to the thing generated, and which were the accidents of the thing corrupted, | |
| 506 are removed by the one generation: whereas in alteration, only that accident is removed which was | |
| 507 contrary to the accident which is the term of the alteration. In like manner, one Baptism blots out all sins together and | |
| 508 introduces a new life; whereas Penance does not blot out each sin, unless it be directed to each. For this reason it is necessary | |
| 509 to be contrite for, and to confess each sin. | |
| 510 </p> | |
| 511 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p12"></p> | |
| 512 <p id="XP_Q2_A6-p13"></p> | |
| 513 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A5.html"></a> | |
| 514 <a href="summa.XP_Q3.html"></a> | |
| 515 </div> | |
| 516 <a href="summa.XP_Q1_A3.html"></a> | |
| 517 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A1.html"></a> | |
| 518 </div> | |
| 519 <div id="XP_Q3" class="div3"> | |
| 520 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A6.html"></a> | |
| 521 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A1.html"></a> | |
| 522 <h3 id="XP_Q3-p0.1">OF THE DEGREE OF CONTRITION (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 523 <p id="XP_Q3-p1"></p> | |
| 524 <p id="XP_Q3-p2"> We must now consider the degree of contrition: under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 525 <p id="XP_Q3-p3"> (1) Whether contrition is the greatest possible sorrow in the world?</p> | |
| 526 <p id="XP_Q3-p4"> (2) Whether the sorrow of contrition can be too great?</p> | |
| 527 <p id="XP_Q3-p5"> (3) Whether sorrow for one sin ought to be greater than for another?</p> | |
| 528 <div id="XP_Q3_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 529 <a href="summa.XP_Q3.html"></a> | |
| 530 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A2.html"></a> | |
| 531 <h4 id="XP_Q3_A1-p0.1">Whether contrition is the greatest possible sorrow in the world?</h4> | |
| 532 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 533 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p2"> | |
| 534 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that contrition is not the greatest possible sorrow in the world. For sorrow is the sensation of hurt. But | |
| 535 some hurts are more keenly felt than the hurt of sin, e.g. the hurt of a wound. Therefore contrition is not the greatest sorrow. | |
| 536 </p> | |
| 537 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p3"> | |
| 538 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we judge of a cause according to its effect. Now the effect of sorrow is tears. Since therefore sometimes a contrite | |
| 539 person does not shed outward tears for his sins, whereas he weeps for the death of a friend, or for a blow, or the like, it | |
| 540 seems that contrition is not the greatest sorrow. | |
| 541 </p> | |
| 542 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p4"> | |
| 543 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the more a thing is mingled with its contrary, the less its intensity. But the sorrow of contrition has a considerable | |
| 544 admixture of joy, because the contrite man rejoices in his delivery, in the hope of pardon, and in many like things. Therefore | |
| 545 his sorrow is very slight. | |
| 546 </p> | |
| 547 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p5"> | |
| 548 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the sorrow of contrition is a kind of displeasure. But there are many things more displeasing to the contrite than | |
| 549 their past sins; for they would not prefer to suffer the pains of hell rather than to sin. nor to have suffered, nor yet to | |
| 550 suffer all manner of temporal punishment; else few would be found contrite. Therefore the sorrow of contrition is not the | |
| 551 greatest. | |
| 552 </p> | |
| 553 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p6"> | |
| 554 <b>On the contrary,</b> According to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9), "all sorrow is based on love." Now the love of charity, on which the sorrow | |
| 555 of contrition is based, is the greatest love. Therefore the sorrow of contrition is the greatest sorrow. | |
| 556 </p> | |
| 557 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p7"> Further, sorrow is for evil. Therefore the greater the evil, the greater the sorrow. But the fault is a greater evil than | |
| 558 its punishment. Therefore contrition which is sorrow for fault, surpasses all other sorrow. | |
| 559 </p> | |
| 560 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p8"> | |
| 561 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( | |
| 562 <a id="XP_Q3_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q1_A2.html">Q[1], A[2]</a>, ad 1), there is a twofold sorrow in contrition: one is in the will, and is the very essence of contrition, being nothing | |
| 563 else than displeasure at past sin, and this sorrow, in contrition, surpasses all other sorrows. For the more pleasing a thing | |
| 564 is, the more displeasing is its contrary. Now the last end is above all things pleasing: wherefore sin, which turns us away | |
| 565 from the last end, should be, above | |
| 566 all things, displeasing. The other sorrow is in the sensitive part, and is caused by the former sorrow either from natural | |
| 567 necessity, in so far as the lower powers follow the movements of the higher, or from choice, in so far as a penitent excites | |
| 568 in himself this sorrow for his sins. In neither of these ways is such sorrow, of necessity, the greatest, because the lower | |
| 569 powers are more deeply moved by their own objects than through redundance from the higher powers. Wherefore the nearer the | |
| 570 operation of the higher powers approaches to the objects of the lower powers, the more do the latter follow the movement of | |
| 571 the former. Consequently there is greater pain in the sensitive part, on account of a sensible hurt, than that which redounds | |
| 572 into the sensitive part from the reason; and likewise, that which redounds from the reason when it deliberates on corporeal | |
| 573 things, is greater than that which redounds from the reason in considering spiritual things. Therefore the sorrow which | |
| 574 results in the sensitive part from the reason's displeasure at sin, is not greater than the other sorrows of which that same | |
| 575 part is the subject: and likewise, neither is the sorrow which is assumed voluntarily greater than other sorrows---both because | |
| 576 the lower appetite does not obey the higher appetite infallibly, as though in the lower appetite there should arise a passion | |
| 577 of such intensity and of such a kind as the higher appetite might ordain---and because the passions are employed by the | |
| 578 reason, in acts of virtue, according to a certain measure, which the sorrow that is without virtue sometimes does not observe, | |
| 579 but exceeds. | |
| 580 </p> | |
| 581 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p9"> | |
| 582 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as sensible sorrow is on account of the sensation of hurt, so interior sorrow is on account of the thought of something | |
| 583 hurtful. Therefore, although the hurt of sin is not perceived by the external sense, yet it is perceived to be the most grievous | |
| 584 hurt by the interior sense or reason. | |
| 585 </p> | |
| 586 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p10"> | |
| 587 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Affections of the body are the immediate result of the sensitive passions and, through them, of the emotions of the higher | |
| 588 appetite. Hence it is that bodily tears flow more quickly from sensible sorrow, or even from a thing that hurts the senses, | |
| 589 than from the spiritual sorrow of contrition. | |
| 590 </p> | |
| 591 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p11"> | |
| 592 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The joy which a penitent has for his sorrow does not lessen his displeasure (for it is not contrary to it), but increases | |
| 593 it, according as every operation is increased by the delight which it causes, as stated in Ethic. x, 5. Thus he who delights | |
| 594 in learning a science, learns the better, and, in like manner, he who rejoices in his displeasure, is the more intensely displeased. | |
| 595 But it may well happen that this joy tempers the sorrow that results from | |
| 596 the reason in the sensitive part. | |
| 597 </p> | |
| 598 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p12"> | |
| 599 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The degree of displeasure at a thing should be proportionate to the degree of its malice. Now the malice of mortal sin is | |
| 600 measured from Him against Whom it is committed, inasmuch as it is offensive to Him; and from him who sins, inasmuch as it | |
| 601 is hurtful to him. And, since man should love God more than himself, therefore he should hate sin, as an offense against God, | |
| 602 more than as being hurtful to himself. Now it is hurtful to him chiefly because it | |
| 603 separates him from God; and in this respect the separation from God which is a punishment, should be more displeasing than | |
| 604 the sin itself, as causing this hurt (since what is hated on account of something else, is less hated), but less than the | |
| 605 sin, as an offense against God. Again, among all the punishments of malice a certain order is observed according to the degree | |
| 606 of the hurt. Consequently, since this is the greatest hurt, inasmuch as it consists in privation of the greatest good, the | |
| 607 greatest of all punishments will be separation from God. | |
| 608 </p> | |
| 609 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p13"> Again, with regard to this displeasure, it is necessary to observe that there is also an accidental degree of malice, in | |
| 610 respect of the present and the past; since what is past, is no more, whence it has less of the character of malice or goodness. | |
| 611 Hence it is that a man shrinks from suffering an evil at the present, or at some future time, more than he shudders at the | |
| 612 past evil: wherefore also, no passion of the soul corresponds directly to the past, as sorrow corresponds to | |
| 613 present evil, and fear to future evil. Consequently, of two past evils, the mind shrinks the more from that one which still | |
| 614 produces a greater effect at the present time, or which, it fears, will produce a greater effect in the future, although in | |
| 615 the past it was the lesser evil. And, since the effect of the past sin is sometimes not so keenly felt as the effect of the | |
| 616 past punishment, both because sin is more perfectly remedied than punishment, and because bodily defect is more manifest than | |
| 617 spiritual defect, therefore even a man, who is well disposed, sometimes feels a greater abhorrence of his past punishment | |
| 618 than of his past sin, although he would be ready to suffer the same punishment over again rather than commit the same sin. | |
| 619 </p> | |
| 620 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p14"> We must also observe, in comparing sin with punishment, that some punishments are inseparable from offense of God, e.g. separation | |
| 621 from God; and some also are everlasting, e.g. the punishment of hell. Therefore the punishment to which is connected offense | |
| 622 of God is to be shunned in the same way as sin; whereas that which is everlasting is simply to be shunned more than sin. If, | |
| 623 however, we separate from these punishments the notion of offense, and consider only the notion of | |
| 624 punishment, they have the character of malice, less than sin has as an offense against God: and for this reason should cause | |
| 625 less displeasure. | |
| 626 </p> | |
| 627 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p15"> We must, however, take note that, although the contrite should be thus disposed, yet he should not be questioned about his | |
| 628 feelings, because man cannot easily measure them. Sometimes that which displeases least seems to displease most, through being | |
| 629 more closely connected with some sensible hurt, which is more known to us. | |
| 630 </p> | |
| 631 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p16"></p> | |
| 632 <p id="XP_Q3_A1-p17"></p> | |
| 633 <a href="summa.XP_Q3.html"></a> | |
| 634 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A2.html"></a> | |
| 635 </div> | |
| 636 <div id="XP_Q3_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 637 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A1.html"></a> | |
| 638 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A3.html"></a> | |
| 639 <h4 id="XP_Q3_A2-p0.1">Whether the sorrow of contrition can be too great?</h4> | |
| 640 <p id="XP_Q3_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 641 <p id="XP_Q3_A2-p2"> | |
| 642 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the sorrow of contrition cannot be too great. For no sorrow can be more immoderate than that which destroys | |
| 643 its own subject. But the sorrow of contrition, if it be so great as to cause death or corruption of the body, is praiseworthy. | |
| 644 For Anselm says (Orat. lii): "Would that such were the exuberance of my inmost soul, as to dry up the marrow of my body"; | |
| 645 and Augustine [*De Contritione Cordis, work of an unknown author] confesses that "he | |
| 646 deserves to blind his eyes with tears." Therefore the sorrow of contrition cannot be too great. | |
| 647 </p> | |
| 648 <p id="XP_Q3_A2-p3"> | |
| 649 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sorrow of contrition results from the love of charity. But the love of charity cannot be too great. Neither, | |
| 650 therefore, can the sorrow of contrition be too great. | |
| 651 </p> | |
| 652 <p id="XP_Q3_A2-p4"> | |
| 653 <b>Objection 3:</b> On the contrary, Every moral virtue is destroyed by excess and deficiency. But contrition is an act of a moral virtue, viz. | |
| 654 penance, since it is a part of justice. Therefore sorrow for sins can be too great. | |
| 655 </p> | |
| 656 <p id="XP_Q3_A2-p5"> | |
| 657 <b>I answer that,</b> Contrition, as regards the sorrow in the reason, i.e. the displeasure, whereby the sin is displeasing through being an offense | |
| 658 against God, cannot be too great; even as neither can the love of charity be too great, for when this is increased the aforesaid | |
| 659 displeasure is increased also. But, as regards the sensible sorrow, contrition may be too great, even as outward affliction | |
| 660 of the body may be too great. In all these things the rule should be the | |
| 661 safeguarding of the subject, and of that general well-being which suffices for the fulfillment of one's duties; hence it is | |
| 662 written ( | |
| 663 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q3_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.12.1" target="asv">Rom. 12:1</a>): "Let your sacrifice be reasonable [*Vulg.: 'Present your bodies . . . a reasonable sacrifice']." | |
| 664 </p> | |
| 665 <p id="XP_Q3_A2-p6"> | |
| 666 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Anselm desired the marrow of his body to be dried up by the exuberance of his devotion, not as regards the natural humor, | |
| 667 but as to his bodily desires and concupiscences. And, although Augustine acknowledged that he deserved to lose the use of | |
| 668 his bodily eyes on account of his sins, because every sinner deserves not only eternal, but also temporal death, yet he did | |
| 669 not wish his eyes to be blinded. | |
| 670 </p> | |
| 671 <p id="XP_Q3_A2-p7"> | |
| 672 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This objection considers the sorrow which is in the reason: while the Third considers the sorrow of the sensitive part. | |
| 673 </p> | |
| 674 <p id="XP_Q3_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 675 <p id="XP_Q3_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 676 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A1.html"></a> | |
| 677 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A3.html"></a> | |
| 678 </div> | |
| 679 <div id="XP_Q3_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 680 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A2.html"></a> | |
| 681 <a href="summa.XP_Q4.html"></a> | |
| 682 <h4 id="XP_Q3_A3-p0.1">Whether sorrow for one sin should be greater than for another?</h4> | |
| 683 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 684 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p2"> | |
| 685 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that sorrow for one sin need not be greater than for another. For Jerome (Ep. cviii) commends Paula for that | |
| 686 "she deplored her slightest sins as much as great ones." Therefore one need not be more sorry for one sin than for another. | |
| 687 </p> | |
| 688 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p3"> | |
| 689 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the movement of contrition is instantaneous. Now one instantaneous movement cannot be at the same time more intense | |
| 690 and more remiss. Therefore contrition for one sin need not be greater than for another. | |
| 691 </p> | |
| 692 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p4"> | |
| 693 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, contrition is for sin chiefly as turning us away from God. But all mortal sins agree in turning us away from God, | |
| 694 since they all deprive us of grace whereby the soul is united to God. Therefore we should have equal contrition for all mortal | |
| 695 sins. | |
| 696 </p> | |
| 697 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p5"> | |
| 698 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 699 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q3_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.2" target="asv">Dt. 25:2</a>): "According to the measure of the sin, shall the measure also of the stripes be." Now, in contrition, the stripes are measured | |
| 700 according to the sins, because to contrition is united the purpose of making satisfaction. Therefore contrition should be | |
| 701 for one sin more than for another. | |
| 702 </p> | |
| 703 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p6"> Further, man should be contrite for that which he ought to have avoided. But he ought to avoid one sin more than another, | |
| 704 if that sin is more grievous, and it be necessary to do one or the other. Therefore, in like manner, he ought to be more sorry | |
| 705 for one, viz. the more grievous, than for the other. | |
| 706 </p> | |
| 707 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p7"> | |
| 708 <b>I answer that,</b> We may speak of contrition in two ways: first, in so far as it corresponds to each single sin, and thus, as regards the sorrow | |
| 709 in the higher appetite, a man ought to be more sorry for a more grievous sin, because there is more reason for sorrow, viz. | |
| 710 the offense against God, in such a sin than in another, since the more inordinate the act is, the more it offends God. In | |
| 711 like manner, since the greater sin deserves a greater punishment, the sorrow also of the | |
| 712 sensitive part, in so far as it is voluntarily undergone for sin, as the punishment thereof, ought to be greater where the | |
| 713 sin is greater. But in so far as the emotions of the lower appetite result from the impression of the higher appetite, the | |
| 714 degree of sorrow depends on the disposition of the lower faculty to the reception of impressions from the higher faculty, | |
| 715 and not on the greatness of the sin. | |
| 716 </p> | |
| 717 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p8"> Secondly, contrition may be taken in so far as it is directed to all one's sins together, as in the act of justification. | |
| 718 Such contrition arises either from the consideration of each single sin, and thus although it is but one act, yet the distinction | |
| 719 of the sins remains virtually therein; or, at least, it includes the purpose of thinking of each sin; and in this way too | |
| 720 it is habitually more for one than for another. | |
| 721 </p> | |
| 722 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p9"> | |
| 723 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Paula is commended, not for deploring all her sins equally, but because she grieved for her slight sins as much as though | |
| 724 they were grave sins, in comparison with other persons who grieve for their sins: but for graver sins she would have grieved | |
| 725 much more. | |
| 726 </p> | |
| 727 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p10"> | |
| 728 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In that instantaneous movement of contrition, although it is not possible to find an actually distinct intensity in respect | |
| 729 of each individual sin, yet it is found in the way explained above; and also in another way, in so far as, in this general | |
| 730 contrition, each individual sin is related to that particular motive of sorrow which occurs to the contrite person, viz. the | |
| 731 offense against God. For he who loves a whole, loves its parts potentially although | |
| 732 not actually, and accordingly he loves some parts more and some less, in proportion to their relation to the whole; thus he | |
| 733 who loves a community, virtually loves each one more or less according to their respective relations to the common good. In | |
| 734 like manner he who is sorry for having offended God, implicitly grieves for his different sins in different ways, according | |
| 735 as by them he offended God more or less. | |
| 736 </p> | |
| 737 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p11"> | |
| 738 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although each mortal sin turns us away from God and deprives us of His grace, yet some remove us further away than others, | |
| 739 inasmuch as through their inordinateness they become more out of harmony with the order of the Divine goodness, than others | |
| 740 do. | |
| 741 </p> | |
| 742 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 743 <p id="XP_Q3_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 744 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A2.html"></a> | |
| 745 <a href="summa.XP_Q4.html"></a> | |
| 746 </div> | |
| 747 <a href="summa.XP_Q2_A6.html"></a> | |
| 748 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A1.html"></a> | |
| 749 </div> | |
| 750 <div id="XP_Q4" class="div3"> | |
| 751 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A3.html"></a> | |
| 752 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A1.html"></a> | |
| 753 <h3 id="XP_Q4-p0.1">OF THE TIME FOR CONTRITION (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 754 <p id="XP_Q4-p1"></p> | |
| 755 <p id="XP_Q4-p2"> We must now consider the time for contrition: under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 756 <p id="XP_Q4-p3"> (1) Whether the whole of this life is the time for contrition?</p> | |
| 757 <p id="XP_Q4-p4"> (2) Whether it is expedient to grieve continually for our sins?</p> | |
| 758 <p id="XP_Q4-p5"> (3) Whether souls grieve for their sins even after this life?</p> | |
| 759 <div id="XP_Q4_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 760 <a href="summa.XP_Q4.html"></a> | |
| 761 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A2.html"></a> | |
| 762 <h4 id="XP_Q4_A1-p0.1">Whether the whole of this life is the time for contrition?</h4> | |
| 763 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 764 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p2"> | |
| 765 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the time for contrition is not the whole of this life. For as we should be sorry for a sin committed, | |
| 766 so should we be ashamed of it. But shame for sin does not last all one's life, for Ambrose says (De Poenit. ii) that "he whose | |
| 767 sin is forgiven has nothing to be ashamed of." Therefore it seems that neither should contrition last all one's life, since | |
| 768 it is sorrow for sin. | |
| 769 </p> | |
| 770 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p3"> | |
| 771 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( | |
| 772 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q4_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.4.18" target="asv">1 Jn. 4:18</a>) that "perfect charity casteth out fear, because fear hath pain." But sorrow also has pain. Therefore the sorrow of contrition | |
| 773 cannot remain in the state of perfect charity. | |
| 774 </p> | |
| 775 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p4"> | |
| 776 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there cannot be any sorrow for the past (since it is, properly speaking, about a present evil) except in so far | |
| 777 as something of the past sin remains in the present time. Now, in this life, sometimes one attains to a state in which nothing | |
| 778 remains of a past sin, neither disposition, nor guilt, nor any debt of punishment. Therefore there is no need to grieve any | |
| 779 more for that sin. | |
| 780 </p> | |
| 781 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p5"> | |
| 782 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is written ( | |
| 783 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q4_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.28" target="asv">Rom. 8:28</a>) that "to them that love God all things work together unto good," even sins as a gloss declares [*Augustine, De Correp. et | |
| 784 Grat.]. Therefore there is no need for them to grieve for sin after it has been forgiven. | |
| 785 </p> | |
| 786 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p6"> | |
| 787 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, contrition is a part of Penance, condivided with satisfaction. But there is no need for continual satisfaction. | |
| 788 Therefore contrition for sin need not be continual. | |
| 789 </p> | |
| 790 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p7"> | |
| 791 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, work of an unknown author] says that "when sorrow ceases, penance | |
| 792 fails, and when penance fails, no pardon remains." Therefore, since it behooves one not to lose the forgiveness which has | |
| 793 been granted, it seems that one ought always to grieve for one's sins. | |
| 794 </p> | |
| 795 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p8"> Further, it is written ( | |
| 796 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q4_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.5.5" target="asv">Ecclus. 5:5</a>): "Be not without fear about sin forgiven." Therefore man should always grieve, that his sins may be forgiven him. | |
| 797 </p> | |
| 798 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p9"> | |
| 799 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( | |
| 800 <a id="XP_Q4_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q3_A1.html">Q[3], A[1]</a>), there is a twofold sorrow in contrition: one is in the reason, and is detestation of the sin committed; the other is in | |
| 801 the sensitive part, and results from the former: and as regards both, the time for contrition is the whole of the present | |
| 802 state of life. For as long as one is a wayfarer, one detests the obstacles which retard or hinder one from reaching the end | |
| 803 of the way. Wherefore, since past sin | |
| 804 retards the course of our life towards God (because the time which was given to us for the course cannot be recovered), it | |
| 805 follows that the state of contrition remains during the whole of this lifetime, as regards the detestation of sin. The same | |
| 806 is to be said of the sensible sorrow, which is assumed by the will as a punishment: for since man, by sinning, deserved everlasting | |
| 807 punishment, and sinned against the eternal God, the everlasting punishment being commuted into a temporal one, sorrow | |
| 808 ought to remain during the whole of man's eternity, i.e. during the whole of the state of this life. For this reason Hugh | |
| 809 of St. Victor says [*Richard of St. Victor, De Pot. Lig. et Solv. 3,5,13] that "when God absolves a man from eternal guilt | |
| 810 and punishment, He binds him with a chain of eternal detestation of sin." | |
| 811 </p> | |
| 812 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p10"> | |
| 813 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Shame regards sin only as a disgraceful act; wherefore after sin has been taken away as to its guilt, there is no further | |
| 814 motive for shame; but there does remain a motive of sorrow, which is for the guilt, not only as being something disgraceful, | |
| 815 but also as having a hurt connected with it. | |
| 816 </p> | |
| 817 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p11"> | |
| 818 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Servile fear which charity casts out, is opposed to charity by reason of its servility, because it regards the punishment. | |
| 819 But the sorrow of contrition results from charity, as stated above ( | |
| 820 <a id="XP_Q4_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q3_A2.html">Q[3], A[2]</a>): wherefore the comparison fails. | |
| 821 </p> | |
| 822 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p12"> | |
| 823 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although, by penance, the sinner returns to his former state of grace and immunity from the debt of punishment, yet he never | |
| 824 returns to his former dignity of innocence, and so something always remains from his past sin. | |
| 825 </p> | |
| 826 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p13"> | |
| 827 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Just as a man ought not to do evil that good may come of it, so he ought not to rejoice in evil, for the reason that good | |
| 828 may perchance come from it through the agency of Divine grace or providence, because his sins did not cause but hindered those | |
| 829 goods; rather was it Divine providence that was their cause, and in this man should rejoice, whereas he should grieve for | |
| 830 his sins. | |
| 831 </p> | |
| 832 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p14"> | |
| 833 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Satisfaction depends on the punishment appointed, which should be enjoined for sins; hence it can come to an end, so that | |
| 834 there be no further need of satisfaction. But that punishment is proportionate to sin chiefly on the part of its adherence | |
| 835 to a creature whence it derives its finiteness. On the other hand, the sorrow of contrition corresponds to sin on the part | |
| 836 of the aversion, whence it derives a certain infinity; wherefore contrition ought to | |
| 837 continue always; nor is it unreasonable if that which precedes remains, when that which follows is taken away. | |
| 838 </p> | |
| 839 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p15"></p> | |
| 840 <p id="XP_Q4_A1-p16"></p> | |
| 841 <a href="summa.XP_Q4.html"></a> | |
| 842 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A2.html"></a> | |
| 843 </div> | |
| 844 <div id="XP_Q4_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 845 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A1.html"></a> | |
| 846 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A3.html"></a> | |
| 847 <h4 id="XP_Q4_A2-p0.1">Whether it is expedient to grieve for sin continually?</h4> | |
| 848 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 849 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p2"> | |
| 850 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not expedient to grieve for sin continually. For it is sometimes expedient to rejoice, as is evident | |
| 851 from | |
| 852 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q4_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.4.4" target="asv"> Phil. 4:4, </a> where the gloss on the words, "Rejoice in the Lord always," says that "it is necessary to rejoice." Now it is not possible | |
| 853 to rejoice and grieve at the same time. Therefore it is not expedient to grieve for sin continually. | |
| 854 </p> | |
| 855 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p3"> | |
| 856 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which, in itself, is an evil and a thing to be avoided should not be taken upon oneself, except in so far as | |
| 857 it is necessary as a remedy against something, as in the case of burning or cutting a wound. Now sorrow is in itself an evil; | |
| 858 wherefore it is written ( | |
| 859 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q4_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.30.24" target="asv">Ecclus. 30:24</a>): "Drive away sadness far from thee," and the reason is given ( | |
| 860 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q4_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.30.25" target="asv">Ecclus. 30:25</a>): "For sadness hath killed many, and there is no profit | |
| 861 in it." Moreover the Philosopher says the same (Ethic. vii, 13,14; x, 5). Therefore one should not grieve for sin any longer | |
| 862 than suffices for the sin to be blotted out. Now sin is already blotted out after the first sorrow of contrition. Therefore | |
| 863 it is not expedient to grieve any longer. | |
| 864 </p> | |
| 865 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p4"> | |
| 866 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Bernard says (Serm. xi in Cant.): "Sorrow is a good thing, if it is not continual; for honey should be mingled with | |
| 867 wormwood." Therefore it seems that it is inexpedient to grieve continually. | |
| 868 </p> | |
| 869 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p5"> | |
| 870 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, work of an unknown author] says: "The penitent should always grieve, and rejoice | |
| 871 in his grief." | |
| 872 </p> | |
| 873 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p6"> Further, it is expedient always to continue, as far as it is possible, those acts in which beatitude consists. Now such is | |
| 874 sorrow for sin, as is shown by the words of | |
| 875 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q4_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.5" target="asv"> Mat. 5:5, </a> "Blessed are they that mourn." Therefore it is expedient for sorrow to be as continual as possible. | |
| 876 </p> | |
| 877 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p7"> | |
| 878 <b>I answer that,</b> We find this condition in the acts of the virtues, that in them excess and defect are not possible, as is proved in Ethic. | |
| 879 ii, 6,7. Wherefore, since contrition, so far as it is a kind of displeasure seated in the rational appetite, is an act of | |
| 880 the virtue of penance, there can never be excess in it, either as to its intensity, or as to its duration, except in so far | |
| 881 as the act of one virtue hinders the act of another which is more urgent for the time being. | |
| 882 Consequently the more continually a man can perform acts of this displeasure, the better it is, provided he exercises the | |
| 883 acts of other virtues when and how he ought to. On the other hand, passions can have excess and defect, both in intensity | |
| 884 and in duration. Wherefore, as the passion of sorrow, which the will takes upon itself, ought to be moderately intense, so | |
| 885 ought it to be of moderate duration, lest, if it should last too long, man fall into despair, cowardice, and such like vices. | |
| 886 </p> | |
| 887 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p8"> | |
| 888 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sorrow of contrition is a hindrance to worldly joy, but not to the joy which is about God, and which has sorrow itself | |
| 889 for object. | |
| 890 </p> | |
| 891 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p9"> | |
| 892 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The words of Ecclesiasticus refer to worldly joy: and the Philosopher is referring to sorrow as a passion, of which we should | |
| 893 make moderate use, according as the end, for which it is assumed, demands. | |
| 894 </p> | |
| 895 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p10"> | |
| 896 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Bernard is speaking of sorrow as a passion. | |
| 897 </p> | |
| 898 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 899 <p id="XP_Q4_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 900 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A1.html"></a> | |
| 901 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A3.html"></a> | |
| 902 </div> | |
| 903 <div id="XP_Q4_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 904 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A2.html"></a> | |
| 905 <a href="summa.XP_Q5.html"></a> | |
| 906 <h4 id="XP_Q4_A3-p0.1">Whether our souls are contrite for sins even after this life?</h4> | |
| 907 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 908 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p2"> | |
| 909 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that our souls are contrite for sins even after this life. For the love of charity causes displeasure at sin. | |
| 910 Now, after this life, charity remains in some, both as to its act and as to its habit, since "charity never falleth away." | |
| 911 Therefore the displeasure at the sin committed, which is the essence of contrition, remains. | |
| 912 </p> | |
| 913 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p3"> | |
| 914 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we should grieve more for sin than for punishment. But the souls in purgatory grieve for their sensible punishment | |
| 915 and for the delay of glory. Much more, therefore, do they grieve for the sins they committed. | |
| 916 </p> | |
| 917 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p4"> | |
| 918 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the pain of purgatory satisfies for sin. But satisfaction derives its efficacy from the power of contrition. Therefore | |
| 919 contrition remains after this life. | |
| 920 </p> | |
| 921 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p5"> | |
| 922 <b>On the contrary,</b> contrition is a part of the sacrament of Penance. But the sacraments do not endure after this life. Neither, therefore, does | |
| 923 contrition. | |
| 924 </p> | |
| 925 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p6"> Further, contrition can be so great as to blot out both guilt and punishment. If therefore the souls in purgatory could have | |
| 926 contrition, it would be possible for their debt of punishment to be remitted through the power of their contrition, so that | |
| 927 they would be delivered from their sensible pain, which is false. | |
| 928 </p> | |
| 929 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p7"> | |
| 930 <b>I answer that,</b> Three things are to be observed in contrition: first, its genus, viz. sorrow; secondly, its form, for it is an act of virtue | |
| 931 quickened by charity; thirdly, its efficacy, for it is a meritorious and sacramental act, and, to a certain extent, satisfactory. | |
| 932 Accordingly, after this life, those souls which dwell in the heavenly country, cannot have contrition, because they are void | |
| 933 of sorrow by reason of the fulness of their joy: those which are in hell, have no | |
| 934 contrition, for although they have sorrow, they lack the grace which quickens sorrow; while those which are in purgatory have | |
| 935 a sorrow for their sins, that is quickened by grace; yet it is not meritorious, for they are not in the state of meriting. | |
| 936 In this life, however, all these three can be found. | |
| 937 </p> | |
| 938 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p8"> | |
| 939 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Charity does not cause this sorrow, save in those who are capable of it; but the fulness of joy in the Blessed excludes all | |
| 940 capability of sorrow from them: wherefore, though they have charity, they have no contrition. | |
| 941 </p> | |
| 942 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p9"> | |
| 943 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The souls in purgatory grieve for their sins; but their sorrow is not contrition, because it lacks the efficacy of contrition. | |
| 944 </p> | |
| 945 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p10"> | |
| 946 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The pain which the souls suffer in purgatory, cannot, properly speaking, be called satisfaction, because satisfaction demands | |
| 947 a meritorious work; yet, in a broad sense, the payment of the punishment due may be called satisfaction. | |
| 948 </p> | |
| 949 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 950 <p id="XP_Q4_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 951 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A2.html"></a> | |
| 952 <a href="summa.XP_Q5.html"></a> | |
| 953 </div> | |
| 954 <a href="summa.XP_Q3_A3.html"></a> | |
| 955 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A1.html"></a> | |
| 956 </div> | |
| 957 <div id="XP_Q5" class="div3"> | |
| 958 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A3.html"></a> | |
| 959 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A1.html"></a> | |
| 960 <h3 id="XP_Q5-p0.1">OF THE EFFECT OF CONTRITION (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 961 <p id="XP_Q5-p1"></p> | |
| 962 <p id="XP_Q5-p2"> We must now consider the effect of contrition: under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 963 <p id="XP_Q5-p3"> (1) Whether the remission of sin is the effect of contrition?</p> | |
| 964 <p id="XP_Q5-p4"> (2) Whether contrition can take away the debt of punishment entirely?</p> | |
| 965 <p id="XP_Q5-p5"> (3) Whether slight contrition suffices to blot out great sins?</p> | |
| 966 <div id="XP_Q5_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 967 <a href="summa.XP_Q5.html"></a> | |
| 968 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A2.html"></a> | |
| 969 <h4 id="XP_Q5_A1-p0.1">Whether the forgiveness of sin is the effect of contrition?</h4> | |
| 970 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 971 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p2"> | |
| 972 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the forgiveness of sin is not the effect of contrition. For God alone forgives sins. But we are somewhat | |
| 973 the cause of contrition, since it is an act of our own. Therefore contrition is not the cause of forgiveness. | |
| 974 </p> | |
| 975 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p3"> | |
| 976 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, contrition is an act of virtue. Now virtue follows the forgiveness of sin: because virtue and sin are not together | |
| 977 in the soul. Therefore contrition is not the cause of the forgiveness of sin. | |
| 978 </p> | |
| 979 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p4"> | |
| 980 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing but sin is an obstacle to receiving the Eucharist. But the contrite should not go to Communion before going | |
| 981 to confession. Therefore they have not yet received the forgiveness of their sins. | |
| 982 </p> | |
| 983 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p5"> | |
| 984 <b>On the contrary,</b> a gloss on | |
| 985 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q5_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.50.19" target="asv"> Ps. 50:19, </a> "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit," says: "A hearty contrition is the sacrifice by which sins are loosed." | |
| 986 </p> | |
| 987 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p6"> Further, virtue and vice are engendered and corrupted by the same causes, as stated in Ethic. ii, 1,2. Now sin is committed | |
| 988 through the heart's inordinate love. Therefore it is destroyed by sorrow caused by the heart's ordinate love; and consequently | |
| 989 contrition blots out sin. | |
| 990 </p> | |
| 991 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p7"> | |
| 992 <b>I answer that,</b> Contrition can be considered in two ways, either as part of a sacrament, or as an act of virtue, and in either case it is | |
| 993 the cause of the forgiveness of sin, but not in the same way. Because, as part of a sacrament, it operates primarily as an | |
| 994 instrument for the forgiveness of sin, as is evident with regard to the other sacraments (cf. Sent. iv, D, 1, Q[1], A[4]: | |
| 995 | |
| 996 <a id="XP_Q5_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">TP, Q[62], A[1]</a>); while, as an act of virtue, it is the quasi-material | |
| 997 cause of sin's forgiveness. For a disposition is, as it were, a necessary condition for justification, and a disposition is | |
| 998 reduced to a material cause, if it be taken to denote that which disposes matter to receive something. It is otherwise in | |
| 999 the case of an agent's disposition to act, because this is reduced to the genus of efficient cause. | |
| 1000 </p> | |
| 1001 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p8"> | |
| 1002 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God alone is the principal efficient cause of the forgiveness of sin: but the dispositive cause can be from us also, and | |
| 1003 likewise the sacramental cause, since the sacramental forms are words uttered by us, having an instrumental power of conferring | |
| 1004 grace whereby sins are forgiven. | |
| 1005 </p> | |
| 1006 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p9"> | |
| 1007 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The forgiveness of sin precedes virtue and the infusion of grace, in one way, and, in another, follows: and in so far as | |
| 1008 it follows, the act elicited by the virtue can be a cause of the forgiveness of sin. | |
| 1009 </p> | |
| 1010 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p10"> | |
| 1011 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The dispensation of the Eucharist belongs to the ministers of the Church: wherefore a man should not go to Communion until | |
| 1012 his sin has been forgiven through the ministers of the Church, although his sin may be forgiven him before God. | |
| 1013 </p> | |
| 1014 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 1015 <p id="XP_Q5_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 1016 <a href="summa.XP_Q5.html"></a> | |
| 1017 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1018 </div> | |
| 1019 <div id="XP_Q5_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 1020 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1021 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1022 <h4 id="XP_Q5_A2-p0.1">Whether contrition can take away the debt of punishment entirely?</h4> | |
| 1023 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 1024 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p2"> | |
| 1025 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that contrition cannot take away the debt of punishment entirely. For satisfaction and confession are ordained | |
| 1026 for man's deliverance from the debt of punishment. Now no man is so perfectly contrite as not to be bound to confession and | |
| 1027 satisfaction. Therefore contrition is never so great as to blot out the entire debt of punishment. | |
| 1028 </p> | |
| 1029 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p3"> | |
| 1030 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in Penance the punishment should in some way compensate for the sin. Now some sins are accomplished by members of | |
| 1031 the body. Therefore, since it is for the due compensation for sin that "by what things a man sinneth, by the same also he | |
| 1032 is tormented" ( | |
| 1033 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q5_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.11.17" target="asv">Wis. 11:17</a>), it seems that the punishment for suchlike sins can never be remitted by contrition. | |
| 1034 </p> | |
| 1035 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p4"> | |
| 1036 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sorrow of contrition is finite. Now an infinite punishment is due for some, viz. mortal, sins. Therefore contrition | |
| 1037 can never be so great as to remit the whole punishment. | |
| 1038 </p> | |
| 1039 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p5"> | |
| 1040 <b>On the contrary,</b> The affections of the heart are more acceptable to God than external acts. Now man is absolved from both punishment and guilt | |
| 1041 by means of external actions; and therefore he is also by means of the heart's affections, such as contrition is. | |
| 1042 </p> | |
| 1043 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p6"> Further, we have an example of this in the thief, to whom it was said ( | |
| 1044 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q5_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.43" target="asv">Lk. 23:43</a>): "This day shalt thou be with Me in paradise," on account of his one act of repentance. | |
| 1045 </p> | |
| 1046 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p7"> As to whether the whole debt of punishment is always taken away by contrition, this question has already been considered | |
| 1047 above (Sent. iv, D, 14, Q[2], AA[1],2; | |
| 1048 <a id="XP_Q5_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html">TP, Q[86], A[4]</a>), where the same question was raised with regard to Penance. | |
| 1049 </p> | |
| 1050 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p8"> | |
| 1051 <b>I answer that,</b> The intensity of contrition may be regarded in two ways. First, on the part of charity, which causes the displeasure, and | |
| 1052 in this way it may happen that the act of charity is so intense that the contrition resulting therefrom merits not only the | |
| 1053 removal of guilt, but also the remission of all punishment. Secondly, on the part of the sensible sorrow, which the will excites | |
| 1054 in contrition: and since this sorrow is also a kind of punishment, it may be so intense | |
| 1055 as to suffice for the remission of both guilt and punishment. | |
| 1056 </p> | |
| 1057 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p9"> | |
| 1058 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A man cannot be sure that his contrition suffices for the remission of both punishment and guilt: wherefore he is bound to | |
| 1059 confess and to make satisfaction, especially since his contrition would not be true contrition, unless he had the purpose | |
| 1060 of confessing united thereto: which purpose must also be carried into effect, on account of the precept given concerning confession. | |
| 1061 </p> | |
| 1062 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p10"> | |
| 1063 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as inward joy redounds into the outward parts of the body, so does interior sorrow show itself in the exterior members: | |
| 1064 wherefore it is written ( | |
| 1065 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q5_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.17.22" target="asv">Prov. 17:22</a>): "A sorrowful spirit drieth up the bones." | |
| 1066 </p> | |
| 1067 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p11"> | |
| 1068 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the sorrow of contrition is finite in its intensity, even as the punishment due for mortal sin is finite; yet it | |
| 1069 derives infinite power from charity, whereby it is quickened, and so it avails for the remission of both guilt and punishment. | |
| 1070 </p> | |
| 1071 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 1072 <p id="XP_Q5_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 1073 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1074 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1075 </div> | |
| 1076 <div id="XP_Q5_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 1077 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1078 <a href="summa.XP_Q6.html"></a> | |
| 1079 <h4 id="XP_Q5_A3-p0.1">Whether slight contrition suffices to blot out great sins?</h4> | |
| 1080 <p id="XP_Q5_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 1081 <p id="XP_Q5_A3-p2"> | |
| 1082 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that slight contrition does not suffice to blot out great sins. For contrition is the remedy for sin. Now a | |
| 1083 bodily remedy, that heals a lesser bodily infirmity, does not suffice to heal a greater. Therefore the least contrition does | |
| 1084 not suffice to blot out very great sins. | |
| 1085 </p> | |
| 1086 <p id="XP_Q5_A3-p3"> | |
| 1087 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it was stated above ( | |
| 1088 <a id="XP_Q5_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q3_A3.html">Q[3], A[3]</a>) that for greater sins one ought to have greater contrition. Now contrition does not blot out sin, unless it fulfills the | |
| 1089 requisite conditions. Therefore the least contrition does not blot out all sins. | |
| 1090 </p> | |
| 1091 <p id="XP_Q5_A3-p4"> | |
| 1092 <b>On the contrary,</b> Every sanctifying grace blots out every mortal sin, because it is incompatible therewith. Now every contrition is quickened | |
| 1093 by sanctifying grace. Therefore, however slight it be, it blots out all sins. | |
| 1094 </p> | |
| 1095 <p id="XP_Q5_A3-p5"> | |
| 1096 <b>I answer that,</b> As we have often said ( | |
| 1097 <a id="XP_Q5_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q1_A2.html">Q[1], A[2]</a>, ad 1; | |
| 1098 <a id="XP_Q5_A3-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q3_A1.html"> Q[3], A[1]</a>; | |
| 1099 <a id="XP_Q5_A3-p5.3" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q4_A1.html"> Q[4] , A[1]</a>), contrition includes a twofold sorrow. One is in the reason, and is displeasure at the sin committed. This can be so slight | |
| 1100 as not to suffice for real contrition, e.g. if a sin were less displeasing to a man, than separation from his last end ought | |
| 1101 to be; just as love can be so slack as not to suffice for real charity. The | |
| 1102 other sorrow is in the senses, and the slightness of this is no hindrance to real contrition, because it does not, of itself, | |
| 1103 belong essentially to contrition, but is connected with it accidentally: nor again is it under our control. Accordingly we | |
| 1104 must say that sorrow, however slight it be, provided it suffice for true contrition, blots out all sin. | |
| 1105 </p> | |
| 1106 <p id="XP_Q5_A3-p6"> | |
| 1107 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Spiritual remedies derive infinite efficacy from the infinite power which operates in them: wherefore the remedy which suffices | |
| 1108 for healing a slight sin, suffices also to heal a great sin. This is seen in Baptism which looses great and small: and the | |
| 1109 same applies to contrition provided it fulfill the necessary conditions. | |
| 1110 </p> | |
| 1111 <p id="XP_Q5_A3-p7"> | |
| 1112 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It follows of necessity that a man grieves more for a greater sin than for a lesser, according as it is more repugnant to | |
| 1113 the love which causes his sorrow. But if one has the same degree of sorrow for a greater sin, as another has for a lesser, | |
| 1114 this would suffice for the remission of the sin. | |
| 1115 </p> | |
| 1116 <p id="XP_Q5_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 1117 <p id="XP_Q5_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 1118 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1119 <a href="summa.XP_Q6.html"></a> | |
| 1120 </div> | |
| 1121 <a href="summa.XP_Q4_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1122 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1123 </div> | |
| 1124 <div id="XP_Q6" class="div3"> | |
| 1125 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1126 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1127 <h3 id="XP_Q6-p0.1">OF CONFESSION, AS REGARDS ITS NECESSITY (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 1128 <p id="XP_Q6-p1"></p> | |
| 1129 <p id="XP_Q6-p2"> We must now consider confession, about which there are six points for our consideration: (1) The necessity of confession; | |
| 1130 (2) Its nature; (3) Its minister; (4) Its quality; (5) Its effect; (6) The seal of confession. | |
| 1131 </p> | |
| 1132 <p id="XP_Q6-p3"> Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 1133 <p id="XP_Q6-p4"> (1) Whether confession is necessary for salvation?</p> | |
| 1134 <p id="XP_Q6-p5"> (2) Whether confession is according to the natural law?</p> | |
| 1135 <p id="XP_Q6-p6"> (3) Whether all are bound to confession?</p> | |
| 1136 <p id="XP_Q6-p7"> (4) Whether it is lawful to confess a sin of which one is not guilty?</p> | |
| 1137 <p id="XP_Q6-p8"> (5) Whether one is bound to confess at once?</p> | |
| 1138 <p id="XP_Q6-p9"> (6) Whether one can be dispensed from confessing to another man?</p> | |
| 1139 <div id="XP_Q6_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 1140 <a href="summa.XP_Q6.html"></a> | |
| 1141 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1142 <h4 id="XP_Q6_A1-p0.1">Whether confession is necessary for salvation?</h4> | |
| 1143 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 1144 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p2"> | |
| 1145 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that confession is not necessary for salvation. For the sacrament of Penance is ordained for the sake of the | |
| 1146 remission of sin. But sin is sufficiently remitted by the infusion of grace. Therefore confession is not necessary in order | |
| 1147 to do penance for one's sins. | |
| 1148 </p> | |
| 1149 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p3"> | |
| 1150 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we read of some being forgiven their sins without confession, e.g. Peter, Magdalen and Paul. But the grace that | |
| 1151 remits sins is not less efficacious now than it was then. Therefore neither is it necessary for salvation now that man should | |
| 1152 confess. | |
| 1153 </p> | |
| 1154 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p4"> | |
| 1155 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a sin which is contracted from another, should receive its remedy from another. Therefore actual sin, which a man | |
| 1156 has committed through his own act, must take its remedy from the man himself. Now Penance is ordained against such sins. Therefore | |
| 1157 confession is not necessary for salvation. | |
| 1158 </p> | |
| 1159 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p5"> | |
| 1160 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, confession is necessary for a judicial sentence, in order that punishment may be inflicted in proportion to the | |
| 1161 offense. Now a man is able to inflict on himself a greater punishment than even that which might be inflicted on him by another. | |
| 1162 Therefore it seems that confession is not necessary for salvation. | |
| 1163 </p> | |
| 1164 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p6"> | |
| 1165 <b>On the contrary,</b> Boethius says (De Consol. i): "If you want the physician to be of assistance to you, you must make your disease known to | |
| 1166 him." But it is necessary for salvation that man should take medicine for his sins. Therefore it is necessary for salvation | |
| 1167 that man should make his disease known by means of confession. | |
| 1168 </p> | |
| 1169 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p7"> Further, in a civil court the judge is distinct from the accused. Therefore the sinner who is the accused ought not to be | |
| 1170 his own judge, but should be judged by another and consequently ought to confess to him. | |
| 1171 </p> | |
| 1172 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p8"> | |
| 1173 <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's Passion, without whose power, neither original nor actual sin is remitted, produces its effect in us through the | |
| 1174 reception of the sacraments which derive their efficacy from it. Wherefore for the remission of both actual and original sin, | |
| 1175 a sacrament of the Church is necessary, received either actually, or at least in desire, when a man fails to receive the sacrament | |
| 1176 actually, through an unavoidable obstacle, and not through contempt. Consequently | |
| 1177 those sacraments which are ordained as remedies for sin which is incompatible with salvation, are necessary for salvation: | |
| 1178 and so just as Baptism, whereby original sin is blotted out, is necessary for salvation, so also is the sacrament of Penance. | |
| 1179 And just as a man through asking to be baptized, submits to the ministers of the Church, to whom the dispensation of that | |
| 1180 sacrament belongs, even so, by confessing his sin, a man submits to a minister of the Church, that, through the sacrament | |
| 1181 of | |
| 1182 Penance dispensed by him, he may receive the pardon of his sins: nor can the minister apply a fitting remedy, unless he be | |
| 1183 acquainted with the sin, which knowledge he acquires through the penitent's confession. Wherefore confession is necessary | |
| 1184 for the salvation of a man who has fallen into a mortal actual sin. | |
| 1185 </p> | |
| 1186 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p9"> | |
| 1187 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The infusion of grace suffices for the remission of sin; but after the sin has been forgiven, the sinner still owes a debt | |
| 1188 of temporal punishment. Moreover, the sacraments of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, | |
| 1189 and before he receives them, either actually or in his intention, he does not receive grace. This is evident in the case of | |
| 1190 Baptism, and applies to Penance likewise. Again, the penitent expiates his temporal | |
| 1191 punishment by undergoing the shame of confession, by the power of the keys to which he submits, and by the enjoined satisfaction | |
| 1192 which the priest moderates according to the kind of sins made known to him in confession. Nevertheless the fact that confession | |
| 1193 is necessary for salvation is not due to its conducing to the satisfaction for sins, because this punishment to which one | |
| 1194 remains bound after the remission of sin, is temporal, wherefore the way of salvation remains open, without such | |
| 1195 punishment being expiated in this life: but it is due to its conducing to the remission of sin, as explained above. | |
| 1196 </p> | |
| 1197 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p10"> | |
| 1198 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although we do not read that they confessed, it may be that they did; for many things were done which were not recorded in | |
| 1199 writing. Moreover Christ has the power of excellence in the sacraments; so that He could bestow the reality of the sacrament | |
| 1200 without using the things which belong to the sacrament. | |
| 1201 </p> | |
| 1202 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p11"> | |
| 1203 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sin that is contracted from another, viz. original sin, can be remedied by an entirely extrinsic cause, as in the case | |
| 1204 of infants: whereas actual sin, which a man commits of himself, cannot be expiated, without some operation on the part of | |
| 1205 the sinner. Nevertheless man is not sufficient to expiate his sin by himself, though he was sufficient to sin by himself, | |
| 1206 because sin is finite on the part of the thing to which it turns, in which respect the | |
| 1207 sinner returns to self; while, on the part of the aversion, sin derives infinity, in which respect the remission of sin must | |
| 1208 needs begin from someone else, because "that which is last in order of generation is first in the order of intention" (Ethic. | |
| 1209 iii). Consequently actual sin also must needs take its remedy from another. | |
| 1210 </p> | |
| 1211 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p12"> | |
| 1212 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Satisfaction would not suffice for the expiation of sin's punishment, by reason of the severity of the punishment which is | |
| 1213 enjoined in satisfaction, but it does suffice as being a part of the sacrament having the sacramental power; wherefore it | |
| 1214 ought to be imposed by the dispensers of the sacraments, and consequently confession is necessary. | |
| 1215 </p> | |
| 1216 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 1217 <p id="XP_Q6_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 1218 <a href="summa.XP_Q6.html"></a> | |
| 1219 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1220 </div> | |
| 1221 <div id="XP_Q6_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 1222 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1223 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1224 <h4 id="XP_Q6_A2-p0.1">Whether confession is according to the natural law?</h4> | |
| 1225 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 1226 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p2"> | |
| 1227 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that confession is according to the natural law. For Adam and Cain were bound to none but the precepts of the | |
| 1228 natural law, and yet they are reproached for not confessing their sin. Therefore confession of sin is according to the natural | |
| 1229 law. | |
| 1230 </p> | |
| 1231 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p3"> | |
| 1232 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those precepts which are common to the Old and New Law are according to the natural law. But confession was prescribed | |
| 1233 in the Old Law, as may be gathered from | |
| 1234 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q6_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.43.26" target="asv"> Is. 43:26</a>: "Tell, if thou hast anything to justify thyself." Therefore it is according to the natural law. | |
| 1235 </p> | |
| 1236 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p4"> | |
| 1237 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Job was subject only to the natural law. But he confessed his sins, as appears from his words ( | |
| 1238 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q6_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Job.31.33" target="asv">Job 31:33</a>) "If, as a man, I have hid my sin." Therefore confession is according to the natural law. | |
| 1239 </p> | |
| 1240 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p5"> | |
| 1241 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (Etym. v.) that the natural law is the same in all. But confession is not in all in the same way. Therefore | |
| 1242 it is not according to the natural law. Further, confession is made to one who has the keys. But the keys of the Church are | |
| 1243 not an institution of the natural law; neither, therefore, is confession. | |
| 1244 </p> | |
| 1245 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p6"> | |
| 1246 <b>I answer that,</b> The sacraments are professions of faith, wherefore they ought to be proportionate to faith. Now faith surpasses the knowledge | |
| 1247 of natural reason, whose dictate is therefore surpassed by the sacraments. And since "the natural law is not begotten of opinion, | |
| 1248 but a product of a certain innate power," as Tully states (De Inv. Rhet. ii), consequently the sacraments are not part of | |
| 1249 the natural law, but of the Divine law which is above nature. This latter, however, | |
| 1250 is sometimes called natural, in so far as whatever a thing derives from its Creator is natural to it, although, properly speaking, | |
| 1251 those things are said to be natural which are caused by the principles of nature. But such things are above nature as God | |
| 1252 reserves to Himself; and these are wrought either through the agency of nature, or in the working of miracles, or in the revelation | |
| 1253 of mysteries, or in the institution of the sacraments. Hence confession, which is of sacramental necessity, is | |
| 1254 according to Divine, but not according to natural law. | |
| 1255 </p> | |
| 1256 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p7"> | |
| 1257 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Adam is reproached for not confessing his sin before God: because the confession which is made to God by the acknowledgment | |
| 1258 of one's sin, is according to the natural law. whereas here we are speaking of confession made to a man. We may also reply | |
| 1259 that in such a case confession of one's sin is according to the natural law, namely when one is called upon by the judge to | |
| 1260 confess in a court of law, for then the sinner should not lie by excusing or denying | |
| 1261 his sin, as Adam and Cain are blamed for doing. But confession made voluntarily to a man in order to receive from God the | |
| 1262 forgiveness of one's sins, is not according to the natural law. | |
| 1263 </p> | |
| 1264 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p8"> | |
| 1265 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The precepts of the natural law avail in the same way in the law of Moses and in the New Law. But although there was a kind | |
| 1266 of confession in the law of Moses, yet it was not after the same manner as in the New Law, nor as in the law of nature; for | |
| 1267 in the law of nature it was sufficient to acknowledge one's sin inwardly before God; while in the law of Moses it was necessary | |
| 1268 for a man to declare his sin by some external sign, as by making a | |
| 1269 sin-offering, whereby the fact of his having sinned became known to another man; but it was not necessary for him to make | |
| 1270 known what particular sin he had committed, or what were its circumstances, as in the New Law. | |
| 1271 </p> | |
| 1272 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p9"> | |
| 1273 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Job is speaking of the man who hides his sin by denying it or excusing himself when he is accused thereof, as we may gather | |
| 1274 from a gloss [*Cf. Gregory, Moral. xxii, 9] on the passage. | |
| 1275 </p> | |
| 1276 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p10"></p> | |
| 1277 <p id="XP_Q6_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 1278 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1279 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1280 </div> | |
| 1281 <div id="XP_Q6_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 1282 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1283 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A4.html"></a> | |
| 1284 <h4 id="XP_Q6_A3-p0.1">Whether all are bound to confession?</h4> | |
| 1285 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 1286 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p2"> | |
| 1287 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all are bound to confession, for Jerome says on | |
| 1288 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q6_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.3.9" target="asv"> Is. 3:9 </a>("They have proclaimed abroad"), "their sin," etc.: "Penance is the second plank after shipwreck." But some have not suffered | |
| 1289 shipwreck after Baptism. Therefore Penance is not befitting them, and consequently neither is confession which is a part of | |
| 1290 Penance. | |
| 1291 </p> | |
| 1292 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p3"> | |
| 1293 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is to the judge that confession should be made in any court. But some have no judge over them. Therefore they | |
| 1294 are not bound to confession. | |
| 1295 </p> | |
| 1296 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p4"> | |
| 1297 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, some have none but venial sins. Now a man is not bound to confess such sins. Therefore not everyone is bound to | |
| 1298 confession. | |
| 1299 </p> | |
| 1300 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p5"> | |
| 1301 <b>On the contrary,</b> Confession is condivided with satisfaction and contrition. Now all are bound to contrition and satisfaction. Therefore all | |
| 1302 are bound to confession also. | |
| 1303 </p> | |
| 1304 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p6"> Further, this appears from the Decretals (De Poenit. et Remiss. xii), where it is stated that "all of either sex are bound | |
| 1305 to confess their sins as soon as they shall come to the age of discretion." | |
| 1306 </p> | |
| 1307 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p7"> | |
| 1308 <b>I answer that,</b> We are bound to confession on two counts: first, by the Divine law, from the very fact that confession is a remedy, and in | |
| 1309 this way not all are bound to confession, but those only who fall into mortal sin after Baptism; secondly, by a precept of | |
| 1310 positive law, and in this way all are bound by the precept of the Church laid down in the general council (Lateran iv, Can. | |
| 1311 21) under Innocent III, both in order that everyone may acknowledge himself to be a sinner, | |
| 1312 because "all have sinned and need the grace of God" ( | |
| 1313 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q6_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.23" target="asv">Rom. 3:23</a>); and that the Eucharist may be approached with greater reverence; and lastly, that parish priests may know their flock, | |
| 1314 lest a wolf may hide therein. | |
| 1315 </p> | |
| 1316 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p8"> | |
| 1317 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although it is possible for a man, in this mortal life, to avoid shipwreck, i.e. mortal sin, after Baptism, yet he cannot | |
| 1318 avoid venial sins, which dispose him to shipwreck, and against which also Penance is ordained; wherefore there is still room | |
| 1319 for Penance, and consequently for confession, even in those who do not commit mortal sins. | |
| 1320 </p> | |
| 1321 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p9"> | |
| 1322 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All must acknowledge Christ as their judge, to Whom they must confess in the person of His vicar; and although the latter | |
| 1323 may be the inferior if the penitent be a prelate, yet he is the superior, in so far as the penitent is a sinner, while the | |
| 1324 confessor is the minister of Christ. | |
| 1325 </p> | |
| 1326 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p10"> | |
| 1327 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A man is bound to confess his venial sins, not in virtue of the sacrament, but by the institution of the Church, and that, | |
| 1328 when he has no other sins to confess. We may also, with others, answer that the Decretal quoted above does not bind others | |
| 1329 than those who have mortal sins to confess. This is evident from the fact that it orders all sins to be confessed, which cannot | |
| 1330 apply to venial sins, because no one can confess all his venial sins. | |
| 1331 Accordingly, a man who has no mortal sins to confess, is not bound to confess his venial sins, but it suffices for the fulfillment | |
| 1332 of the commandment of the Church that he present himself before the priest, and declare himself to be unconscious of any mortal | |
| 1333 sin: and this will count for his confession. | |
| 1334 </p> | |
| 1335 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 1336 <p id="XP_Q6_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 1337 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1338 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A4.html"></a> | |
| 1339 </div> | |
| 1340 <div id="XP_Q6_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 1341 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1342 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A5.html"></a> | |
| 1343 <h4 id="XP_Q6_A4-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for a man to confess a sin which he has not committed?</h4> | |
| 1344 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 1345 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p2"> | |
| 1346 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is lawful for a man to confess a sin which he has not committed. For, as Gregory says (Regist. xii), | |
| 1347 "it is the mark of a good conscience to acknowledge a fault where there is none." Therefore it is the mark of a good conscience | |
| 1348 to accuse oneself of those sins which one has not committed. | |
| 1349 </p> | |
| 1350 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p3"> | |
| 1351 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by humility a man deems himself worse than another, who is known to be a sinner, and in this he is to be praised. | |
| 1352 But it is lawful for a man to confess himself to be what he thinks he is. Therefore it is lawful to confess having committed | |
| 1353 a more grievous sin than one has. | |
| 1354 </p> | |
| 1355 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p4"> | |
| 1356 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sometimes one doubts about a sin, whether it be mortal or venial, in which case, seemingly, one ought to confess | |
| 1357 it as mortal. Therefore a person must sometimes confess a sin which he has not committed. | |
| 1358 </p> | |
| 1359 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p5"> | |
| 1360 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, satisfaction originates from confession. But a man can do satisfaction for a sin which he has not committed. Therefore | |
| 1361 he can also confess a sin which he has not done. | |
| 1362 </p> | |
| 1363 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p6"> | |
| 1364 <b>On the contrary,</b> Whosoever says he has done what he did not, tells an untruth. But no one ought to tell an untruth in confession, since every | |
| 1365 untruth is a sin. Therefore no one should confess a sin which he has not committed. | |
| 1366 </p> | |
| 1367 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p7"> Further, in the public court of justice, no one should be accused of a crime which cannot be proved by means of proper witnesses. | |
| 1368 Now the witness, in the tribunal of Penance, is the conscience. Therefore a man ought not to accuse himself of a sin which | |
| 1369 is not on his conscience. | |
| 1370 </p> | |
| 1371 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p8"> | |
| 1372 <b>I answer that,</b> The penitent should, by his confession, make his state known to his confessor. Now he who tells the priest something other | |
| 1373 than what he has on his conscience, whether it be good or evil, does not make his state known to the priest, but hides it; | |
| 1374 wherefore his confession is unavailing: and in order for it to be effective his words must agree with his thoughts, so that | |
| 1375 his words accuse him only of what is on his conscience. | |
| 1376 </p> | |
| 1377 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p9"> | |
| 1378 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To acknowledge a fault where there is none, may be understood in two ways: first, as referring to the substance of the act, | |
| 1379 and then it is untrue; for it is a mark, not of a good, but of an erroneous conscience, to acknowledge having done what one | |
| 1380 has not done. Secondly, as referring to the circumstances of the act, and thus the saying of Gregory is true, because a just | |
| 1381 man fears lest, in any act which is good in itself, there should be any defect on | |
| 1382 his part. thus it is written ( | |
| 1383 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q6_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Job.9.28" target="asv">Job 9:28</a>): "I feared all my works." Wherefore it is also the mark of a good conscience that a man should accuse himself in words of | |
| 1384 this fear which he holds in his thoughts. | |
| 1385 </p> | |
| 1386 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p10"> From this may be gathered the Reply to the Second Objection, since a just man, who is truly humble, deems himself worse not | |
| 1387 as though he had committed an act generically worse, but because he fears lest in those things which he seems to do well, | |
| 1388 he may by pride sin more grievously. | |
| 1389 </p> | |
| 1390 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p11"> | |
| 1391 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> When a man doubts whether a certain sin be mortal, he is bound to confess it, so long as he remains in doubt, because he | |
| 1392 sins mortally by committing or omitting anything, while doubting of its being a mortal sin, and thus leaving the matter to | |
| 1393 chance; and, moreover, he courts danger, if he neglect to confess that which he doubts may be a mortal sin. He should not, | |
| 1394 however, affirm that it was a mortal sin, but speak doubtfully, leaving the verdict to | |
| 1395 the priest, whose business it is to discern between what is leprosy and what is not. | |
| 1396 </p> | |
| 1397 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p12"> | |
| 1398 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A man does not commit a falsehood by making satisfaction for a sin which he did not commit, as when anyone confesses a sin | |
| 1399 which he thinks he has not committed. And if he mentions a sin that he has not committed, believing that he has, he does not | |
| 1400 lie; wherefore he does not sin, provided his confession thereof tally with his conscience. | |
| 1401 </p> | |
| 1402 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p13"></p> | |
| 1403 <p id="XP_Q6_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 1404 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1405 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A5.html"></a> | |
| 1406 </div> | |
| 1407 <div id="XP_Q6_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 1408 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A4.html"></a> | |
| 1409 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A6.html"></a> | |
| 1410 <h4 id="XP_Q6_A5-p0.1">Whether one is bound to confess at once?</h4> | |
| 1411 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 1412 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p2"> | |
| 1413 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one is bound to confess at once. For Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii): "The contempt of confession | |
| 1414 is inexcusable, unless there be an urgent reason for delay." But everyone is bound to avoid contempt. Therefore everyone is | |
| 1415 bound to confess as soon as possible. | |
| 1416 </p> | |
| 1417 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p3"> | |
| 1418 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, everyone is bound to do more to avoid spiritual disease than to avoid bodily disease. Now if a man who is sick in | |
| 1419 body were to delay sending for the physician, it would be detrimental to his health. Therefore it seems that it must needs | |
| 1420 be detrimental to a man's health if he omits to confess immediately to a priest if there be one at hand. | |
| 1421 </p> | |
| 1422 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p4"> | |
| 1423 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which is due always, is due at once. But man owes confession to God always. Therefore he is bound to confess | |
| 1424 at once. | |
| 1425 </p> | |
| 1426 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p5"> | |
| 1427 <b>On the contrary,</b> A fixed time both for confession and for receiving the Eucharist is determined by the Decretals (Cap. Omnis utriusque sexus: | |
| 1428 De Poenit. et Remiss.). Now a man does not sin by failing to receive the Eucharist before the fixed time. Therefore he does | |
| 1429 not sin if he does not confess before that time. | |
| 1430 </p> | |
| 1431 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p6"> Further, it is a mortal sin to omit doing what a commandment bids us to do. If therefore a man is bound to confess at once, | |
| 1432 and omits to do so, with a priest at hand, he would commit a mortal sin; and in like manner at any other time, and so on, | |
| 1433 so that he would fall into many mortal sins for the delay in confessing one, which seems unreasonable. | |
| 1434 </p> | |
| 1435 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p7"> | |
| 1436 <b>I answer that,</b> As the purpose of confessing is united to contrition, a man is bound to have this purpose when he is bound to have contrition, | |
| 1437 viz. when he calls his sins to mind, and chiefly when he is in danger of death, or when he is so circumstanced that unless | |
| 1438 his sin be forgiven, he must fall into another sin: for instance, if a priest be bound to say Mass, and a confessor is at | |
| 1439 hand, he is bound to confess or, if there be no confessor, he is bound at least to | |
| 1440 contrition and to have the purpose of confessing. | |
| 1441 </p> | |
| 1442 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p8"> But to actual confession a man is bound in two ways. First, accidentally, viz. when he is bound to do something which he | |
| 1443 cannot do without committing a mortal sin, unless he go to confession first: for then he is bound to confess; for instance, | |
| 1444 if he has to receive the Eucharist, to which no one can approach, after committing a mortal sin, without confessing first, | |
| 1445 if a priest be at hand, and there be no urgent necessity. Hence it is that the Church obliges all to confess once a | |
| 1446 year; because she commands all to receive Holy Communion once a year, viz. at Easter, wherefore all must go to confession | |
| 1447 before that time. | |
| 1448 </p> | |
| 1449 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p9"> Secondly, a man is bound absolutely to go to confession; and here the same reason applies to delay of confession as to delay | |
| 1450 of Baptism, because both are necessary sacraments. Now a man is not bound to receive Baptism as soon as he makes up his mind | |
| 1451 to be baptized; and so he would not sin mortally, if he were not baptized at once: nor is there any fixed time beyond which, | |
| 1452 if he defer Baptism, he would incur a mortal sin. Nevertheless the delay of Baptism may amount to a mortal | |
| 1453 sin, or it may not, and this depends on the cause of the delay, since, as the Philosopher says (Phys. viii, text. 15), the | |
| 1454 will does not defer doing what it wills to do, except for a reasonable cause. Wherefore if the cause of the delay of Baptism | |
| 1455 has a mortal sin connected with it, e.g. if a man put off being baptized through contempt, or some like motive, the delay | |
| 1456 will be a mortal sin, but otherwise not: and the same seems to apply to confession which is not more necessary than Baptism. | |
| 1457 Moreover, since man is bound to fulfill in this life those things that are necessary for salvation, therefore, if he be in | |
| 1458 danger of death, he is bound, even absolutely, then and there to make his confession or to receive Baptism. For this reason | |
| 1459 too, James proclaimed at the same time the commandment about making confession and that about receiving Extreme Unction ( | |
| 1460 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q6_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.14" target="asv">James 5:14</a>, | |
| 1461 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q6_A5-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.16" target="asv">16</a>). Therefore the opinion seems probable of those who say that a man is not bound to confess at | |
| 1462 once, though it is dangerous to delay. | |
| 1463 </p> | |
| 1464 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p10"> Others, however, say that a contrite man is bound to confess at once, as soon as he has a reasonable and proper opportunity. | |
| 1465 Nor does it matter that the Decretal fixes the time limit to an annual confession, because the Church does not favor delay, | |
| 1466 but forbids the neglect involved in a further delay. Wherefore by this Decretal the man who delays is excused, not from sin | |
| 1467 in the tribunal of conscience; but from punishment in the tribunal of the Church; so that such a person would | |
| 1468 not be deprived of proper burial if he were to die before that time. But this seems too severe, because affirmative precepts | |
| 1469 bind, not at once, but at a fixed time; and this, not because it is most convenient to fulfill them then (for in that case | |
| 1470 if a man were not to give alms of his superfluous goods, whenever he met with a man in need, he would commit a mortal sin, | |
| 1471 which is false), but because the time involves urgency. Consequently, if he does not confess at the very first opportunity, | |
| 1472 it | |
| 1473 does not follow that he commits a mortal sin, even though he does not await a better opportunity. unless it becomes urgent | |
| 1474 for him to confess through being in danger of death. Nor is it on account of the Church's indulgence that he is not bound | |
| 1475 to confess at once, but on account of the nature of an affirmative precept, so that before the commandment was made, there | |
| 1476 was still less obligation. | |
| 1477 </p> | |
| 1478 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p11"> Others again say that secular persons are not bound to confess before Lent, which is the time of penance for them; but that | |
| 1479 religious are bound to confess at once, because, for them, all time is a time for penance. But this is not to the point; for | |
| 1480 religious have no obligations besides those of other men, with the exception of such as they are bound to by vow. | |
| 1481 </p> | |
| 1482 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p12"> | |
| 1483 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Hugh is speaking of those who die without this sacrament. | |
| 1484 </p> | |
| 1485 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p13"> | |
| 1486 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is not necessary for bodily health that the physician be sent for at once, except when there is necessity for being healed: | |
| 1487 and the same applies to spiritual disease. | |
| 1488 </p> | |
| 1489 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p14"> | |
| 1490 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The retaining of another's property against the owner's will is contrary to a negative precept, which binds always and for | |
| 1491 always, and therefore one is always bound to make immediate restitution. It is not the same with the fulfillment of an affirmative | |
| 1492 precept, which binds always, but not for always, wherefore one is not bound to fulfill it at once. | |
| 1493 </p> | |
| 1494 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p15"></p> | |
| 1495 <p id="XP_Q6_A5-p16"></p> | |
| 1496 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A4.html"></a> | |
| 1497 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A6.html"></a> | |
| 1498 </div> | |
| 1499 <div id="XP_Q6_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 1500 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A5.html"></a> | |
| 1501 <a href="summa.XP_Q7.html"></a> | |
| 1502 <h4 id="XP_Q6_A6-p0.1">Whether one can be dispensed from confession?</h4> | |
| 1503 <p id="XP_Q6_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 1504 <p id="XP_Q6_A6-p2"> | |
| 1505 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one can be dispensed from confessing his sins to a man. For precepts of positive law are subject to dispensation | |
| 1506 by the prelates of the Church. Now such is confession, as appears from what was said above | |
| 1507 <a id="XP_Q6_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q6_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore one may be dispensed from confession. | |
| 1508 </p> | |
| 1509 <p id="XP_Q6_A6-p3"> | |
| 1510 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a man can grant a dispensation in that which was instituted by a man. But we read of confession being instituted, | |
| 1511 not by God, but by a man ( | |
| 1512 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q6_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.16" target="asv">James 5:16</a>): "Confess your sins, one to another." Now the Pope has the power of dispensation in things instituted by the apostles, as | |
| 1513 appears in the matter of bigamists. Therefore he can also dispense a man from confessing. | |
| 1514 </p> | |
| 1515 <p id="XP_Q6_A6-p4"> | |
| 1516 <b>On the contrary,</b> Penance, whereof confession is a part, is a necessary sacrament, even as Baptism is. Since therefore no one can be dispensed | |
| 1517 from Baptism, neither can one be dispensed from confession. | |
| 1518 </p> | |
| 1519 <p id="XP_Q6_A6-p5"> | |
| 1520 <b>I answer that,</b> The ministers of the Church are appointed in the Church which is founded by God. Wherefore they need to be appointed by the | |
| 1521 Church before exercising their ministry, just as the work of creation is presupposed to the work of nature. And since the | |
| 1522 Church is founded on faith and the sacraments, the ministers of the Church have no power to publish new articles of faith, | |
| 1523 or to do away with those which are already published, or to institute new sacraments, or to | |
| 1524 abolish those that are instituted, for this belongs to the power of excellence, which belongs to Christ alone, Who is the | |
| 1525 foundation of the Church. Consequently, the Pope can neither dispense a man so that he may be saved without Baptism, nor that | |
| 1526 he be saved without confession, in so far as it is obligatory in virtue of the sacrament. He can, however, dispense from confession, | |
| 1527 in so far as it is obligatory in virtue of the commandment of the Church; so that a man may delay confession longer | |
| 1528 than the limit prescribed by the Church. | |
| 1529 </p> | |
| 1530 <p id="XP_Q6_A6-p6"> | |
| 1531 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The precepts of the Divine law do not bind less than those of the natural law: wherefore, just as no dispensation is possible | |
| 1532 from the natural law, so neither can there be from positive Divine law. | |
| 1533 </p> | |
| 1534 <p id="XP_Q6_A6-p7"> | |
| 1535 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The precept about confession was not instituted by a man first of all, though it was promulgated by James: it was instituted | |
| 1536 by God, and although we do not read it explicitly, yet it was somewhat foreshadowed in the fact that those who were being | |
| 1537 prepared by John's Baptism for the grace of Christ, confessed their sins to him, and that the Lord sent the lepers to the | |
| 1538 priests, and though they were not priests of the New Testament, yet the priesthood of | |
| 1539 the New Testament was foreshadowed in them. | |
| 1540 </p> | |
| 1541 <p id="XP_Q6_A6-p8"></p> | |
| 1542 <p id="XP_Q6_A6-p9"></p> | |
| 1543 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A5.html"></a> | |
| 1544 <a href="summa.XP_Q7.html"></a> | |
| 1545 </div> | |
| 1546 <a href="summa.XP_Q5_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1547 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1548 </div> | |
| 1549 <div id="XP_Q7" class="div3"> | |
| 1550 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A6.html"></a> | |
| 1551 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1552 <h3 id="XP_Q7-p0.1">OF THE NATURE OF CONFESSION (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 1553 <p id="XP_Q7-p1"></p> | |
| 1554 <p id="XP_Q7-p2"> We must now consider the nature of confession, under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 1555 <p id="XP_Q7-p3"> (1) Whether Augustine fittingly defines confession?</p> | |
| 1556 <p id="XP_Q7-p4"> (2) Whether confession is an act of virtue?</p> | |
| 1557 <p id="XP_Q7-p5"> (3) Whether confession is an act of the virtue of penance?</p> | |
| 1558 <div id="XP_Q7_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 1559 <a href="summa.XP_Q7.html"></a> | |
| 1560 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1561 <h4 id="XP_Q7_A1-p0.1">Whether Augustine fittingly defines confession?</h4> | |
| 1562 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 1563 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p2"> | |
| 1564 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Augustine defines confession unfittingly, when he says (Super | |
| 1565 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q7_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.21" target="asv">Ps. 21</a>) that confession "lays bare the hidden disease by the hope of pardon." For the disease against which confession is ordained, | |
| 1566 is sin. Now sin is sometimes manifest. Therefore it should not be said that confession is the remedy for a "hidden" disease. | |
| 1567 </p> | |
| 1568 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p3"> | |
| 1569 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the beginning of penance is fear. But confession is a part of Penance. Therefore fear rather than "hope" should | |
| 1570 be set down as the cause of confession. | |
| 1571 </p> | |
| 1572 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p4"> | |
| 1573 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which is placed under a seal, is not laid bare, but closed up. But the sin which is confessed is placed under | |
| 1574 the seal of confession. Therefore sin is not laid bare in confession, but closed up. | |
| 1575 </p> | |
| 1576 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p5"> | |
| 1577 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, other definitions are to be found differing from the above. For Gregory says (Hom. xl in Evang.) that confession | |
| 1578 is "the uncovering of sins, and the opening of the wound." Others say that "confession is a legal declaration of our sins | |
| 1579 in the presence of a priest." Others define it thus: "Confession is the sinner's sacramental self-accusation through shame | |
| 1580 for what he has done, which through the keys of the Church makes satisfaction for his sins, and | |
| 1581 binds him to perform the penance imposed on him." Therefore it seems that the definition in question is insufficient, since | |
| 1582 it does not include all that these include. | |
| 1583 </p> | |
| 1584 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p6"> | |
| 1585 <b>I answer that,</b> Several things offer themselves to our notice in the act of confession: first, the very substance or genus of the act, which | |
| 1586 is a kind of manifestation; secondly, the matter manifested, viz. sin; thirdly, the person to whom the manifestation is made, | |
| 1587 viz. the priest; fourthly, its cause, viz. hope of pardon; fifthly, its effect, viz. release from part of the punishment, | |
| 1588 and the obligation to pay the other part. Accordingly the first definition, given by | |
| 1589 Augustine, indicates the substance of the act, by saying that "it lays bare"---the matter of confession, by saying that it | |
| 1590 is a "hidden disease"---its cause, which is "the hope of pardon"; while the other definitions include one or other of the | |
| 1591 five things aforesaid, as may be seen by anyone who considers the matter. | |
| 1592 </p> | |
| 1593 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p7"> | |
| 1594 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the priest, as a man, may sometimes have knowledge of the penitent's sin, yet he does not know it as a vicar of | |
| 1595 Christ (even as a judge sometimes knows a thing, as a man, of which he is ignorant, as a judge), and in this respect it is | |
| 1596 made known to him by confession. or we may reply that although the external act may be in the open, yet the internal act, | |
| 1597 which is the cause of the external act, is hidden; so that it needs to be revealed by | |
| 1598 confession. | |
| 1599 </p> | |
| 1600 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p8"> | |
| 1601 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Confession presupposes charity, which gives us life, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 17). Now it is in contrition that | |
| 1602 charity is given; while servile fear, which is void of hope, is previous to charity: yet he that has charity is moved more | |
| 1603 by hope than by fear. Hence hope rather than fear is set down as the cause of confession. | |
| 1604 </p> | |
| 1605 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p9"> | |
| 1606 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In every confession sin is laid bare to the priest, and closed to others by the seal of confession. | |
| 1607 </p> | |
| 1608 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p10"> | |
| 1609 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It is not necessary that every definition should include everything connected with the thing defined: and for this reason | |
| 1610 we find some definitions or descriptions that indicate one cause, and some that indicate another. | |
| 1611 </p> | |
| 1612 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 1613 <p id="XP_Q7_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 1614 <a href="summa.XP_Q7.html"></a> | |
| 1615 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1616 </div> | |
| 1617 <div id="XP_Q7_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 1618 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1619 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1620 <h4 id="XP_Q7_A2-p0.1">Whether confession is an act of virtue?</h4> | |
| 1621 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 1622 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p2"> | |
| 1623 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that confession is not an act of virtue. For every act of virtue belongs to the natural law, since "we are | |
| 1624 naturally capable of virtue," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1). But confession does not belong to the natural law. Therefore | |
| 1625 it is not an act of virtue. | |
| 1626 </p> | |
| 1627 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p3"> | |
| 1628 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, an act of virtue is more befitting one who is innocent than one who has sinned. But the confession of a sin, which | |
| 1629 is the confession of which we are speaking now, cannot be befitting an innocent man. Therefore it is not an act of virtue. | |
| 1630 </p> | |
| 1631 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p4"> | |
| 1632 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the grace which is in the sacraments differs somewhat from the grace which is in the virtues and gifts. But confession | |
| 1633 is part of a sacrament. Therefore it is not an act of virtue. | |
| 1634 </p> | |
| 1635 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p5"> | |
| 1636 <b>On the contrary,</b> The precepts of the law are about acts of virtue. But confession comes under a precept. Therefore it is an act of virtue. | |
| 1637 </p> | |
| 1638 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p6"> Further, we do not merit except by acts of virtue. But confession is meritorious, for "it opens the gate of heaven," as the | |
| 1639 Master says (Sent. iv, D, 17). Therefore it seems that it is an act of virtue. | |
| 1640 </p> | |
| 1641 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p7"> | |
| 1642 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( | |
| 1643 <a id="XP_Q7_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q18_A6.html">FS, Q[18], AA[6]</a>,7; | |
| 1644 <a id="XP_Q7_A2-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q80.html">SS, Q[80];</a> | |
| 1645 <a id="XP_Q7_A2-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q85_A3.html">SS, Q[85] , A[3]</a>; | |
| 1646 <a id="XP_Q7_A2-p7.4" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q109_A3.html">SS, Q[109], A[3]</a>), for an act to belong to a virtue it suffices that it be of such a nature as to imply some condition belonging to virtue. | |
| 1647 Now, although confession does not include everything that is required for virtue, yet its very name implies the manifestation | |
| 1648 of that which a man has on his | |
| 1649 conscience: for thus his lips and heart agree. For if a man professes with his lips what he does not hold in his heart, it | |
| 1650 is not a confession but a fiction. Now to express in words what one has in one's thoughts is a condition of virtue; and, consequently, | |
| 1651 confession is a good thing generically, and is an act of virtue: yet it can be done badly, if it be devoid of other due circumstances. | |
| 1652 </p> | |
| 1653 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p8"> | |
| 1654 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Natural reason, in a general way, inclines a man to make confession in the proper way, to confess as he ought, what he ought, | |
| 1655 and when he ought, and in this way confession belongs to the natural law. But it belongs to the Divine law to determine the | |
| 1656 circumstances, when, how, what, and to whom, with regard to the confession of which we are speaking now. Accordingly it is | |
| 1657 evident that the natural law inclines a man to confession, by means of the Divine | |
| 1658 law, which determines the circumstances, as is the case with all matters belonging to the positive law. | |
| 1659 </p> | |
| 1660 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p9"> | |
| 1661 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although an innocent man may have the habit of the virtue whose object is a sin already committed, he has not the act, so | |
| 1662 long as he remains innocent. Wherefore the confession of sins, of which confession we are speaking now, is not befitting an | |
| 1663 innocent man, though it is an act of virtue. | |
| 1664 </p> | |
| 1665 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p10"> | |
| 1666 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Though the grace of the sacraments differs from the grace of the virtues, they are not contrary but disparate; hence there | |
| 1667 is nothing to prevent that which is an act of virtue, in so far as it proceeds from the free-will quickened by grace, from | |
| 1668 being a sacrament, or part of a sacrament, in so far as it is ordained as a remedy for sin. | |
| 1669 </p> | |
| 1670 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 1671 <p id="XP_Q7_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 1672 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1673 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1674 </div> | |
| 1675 <div id="XP_Q7_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 1676 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1677 <a href="summa.XP_Q8.html"></a> | |
| 1678 <h4 id="XP_Q7_A3-p0.1">Whether confession is an act of the virtue of penance?</h4> | |
| 1679 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 1680 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p2"> | |
| 1681 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that confession is not an act of the virtue of penance. For an act belongs to the virtue which is its cause. | |
| 1682 Now the cause of confession is the hope of pardon, as appears from the definition given above | |
| 1683 <a id="XP_Q7_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q7_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore it seems that it is an act of hope and not of penance. | |
| 1684 </p> | |
| 1685 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p3"> | |
| 1686 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, shame is a part of temperance. But confession arises from shame, as appears in the definition given above (A[1], | |
| 1687 OBJ[4]). Therefore it is an act of temperance and not of penance. | |
| 1688 </p> | |
| 1689 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p4"> | |
| 1690 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the act of penance leans on Divine mercy. But confession leans rather on Divine wisdom, by reason of the truth which | |
| 1691 is required in it. Therefore it is not an act of penance. | |
| 1692 </p> | |
| 1693 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p5"> | |
| 1694 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, we are moved to penance by the article of the Creed which is about the Judgment, on account of fear, which is the | |
| 1695 origin of penance. But we are moved to confession by the article which is about life everlasting, because it arises from hope | |
| 1696 of pardon. Therefore it is not an act of penance. | |
| 1697 </p> | |
| 1698 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p6"> | |
| 1699 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it belongs to the virtue of truth that a man shows himself to be what he is. But this is what a man does when he | |
| 1700 goes to confession. Therefore confession is an act of that virtue which is called truth, and not of penance. | |
| 1701 </p> | |
| 1702 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p7"> | |
| 1703 <b>On the contrary,</b> Penance is ordained for the destruction of sin. Now confession is ordained to this also. Therefore it is an act of penance. | |
| 1704 </p> | |
| 1705 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p8"> | |
| 1706 <b>I answer that,</b> It must be observed with regard to virtues, that when a special reason of goodness or difficulty is added over and above | |
| 1707 the object of a virtue, there is need of a special virtue: thus the expenditure of large sums is the object of magnificence, | |
| 1708 although the ordinary kind of average expenditure and gifts belongs to liberality, as appears from Ethic. ii, 7; iv, 1. The | |
| 1709 same applies to the confession of truth, which, although it belongs to the virtue of truth | |
| 1710 absolutely, yet, on account of the additional reason of goodness, begins to belong to another kind of virtue. Hence the Philosopher | |
| 1711 says (Ethic. iv, 7) that a confession made in a court of justice belongs to the virtue of justice rather than to truth. In | |
| 1712 like manner the confession of God's favors in praise of God, belongs not to truth, but to religion: and so too the confession | |
| 1713 of sins, in order to receive pardon for them, is not the elicited act of the virtue of truth, as some say, but of the | |
| 1714 virtue of penance. It may, however, be the commanded act of many virtues, in so far as the act of confession can be directed | |
| 1715 to the end of many virtues. | |
| 1716 </p> | |
| 1717 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p9"> | |
| 1718 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Hope is the cause of confession, not as eliciting but as commanding. | |
| 1719 </p> | |
| 1720 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p10"> | |
| 1721 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In that definition shame is not mentioned as the cause of confession, since it is more of a nature to hinder the act of confession, | |
| 1722 but rather as the joint cause of delivery from punishment (because shame is in itself a punishment), since also the keys of | |
| 1723 the Church are the joint cause with confession, to the same effect. | |
| 1724 </p> | |
| 1725 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p11"> | |
| 1726 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By a certain adaptation the parts of Penance can be ascribed to three Personal Attributes, so that contrition may correspond | |
| 1727 to mercy or goodness, by reason of its being sorrow for evil---confession to wisdom, by reason of its being a manifestation | |
| 1728 of the truth---and satisfaction to power, on account of the labor it entails. And since contrition is the first part of Penance, | |
| 1729 and renders the other parts efficacious, for this reason the same is to be | |
| 1730 said of Penance as a whole, as of contrition. | |
| 1731 </p> | |
| 1732 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p12"> | |
| 1733 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Since confession results from hope rather than from fear, as stated above (A[1], ad 2), it is based on the article about | |
| 1734 eternal life which hope looks to, rather than on the article about the Judgment, which fear considers; although penance, in | |
| 1735 its aspect of contrition, is the opposite. | |
| 1736 </p> | |
| 1737 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p13"> The Reply to the Fifth Objection is to be gathered from what has been said.</p> | |
| 1738 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 1739 <p id="XP_Q7_A3-p15"></p> | |
| 1740 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1741 <a href="summa.XP_Q8.html"></a> | |
| 1742 </div> | |
| 1743 <a href="summa.XP_Q6_A6.html"></a> | |
| 1744 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1745 </div> | |
| 1746 <div id="XP_Q8" class="div3"> | |
| 1747 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1748 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1749 <h3 id="XP_Q8-p0.1">OF THE MINISTER OF CONFESSION (SEVEN ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 1750 <p id="XP_Q8-p1"></p> | |
| 1751 <p id="XP_Q8-p2"> We must now consider the minister of confession, under which head there are seven points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 1752 <p id="XP_Q8-p3"> (1) Whether it is necessary to confess to a priest?</p> | |
| 1753 <p id="XP_Q8-p4"> (2) Whether it is ever lawful to confess to another than a priest?</p> | |
| 1754 <p id="XP_Q8-p5"> (3) Whether outside a case of necessity one who is not a priest can hear the confession of venial sins?</p> | |
| 1755 <p id="XP_Q8-p6"> (4) Whether it is necessary for a man to confess to his own priest?</p> | |
| 1756 <p id="XP_Q8-p7"> (5) Whether it is lawful for anyone to confess to another than his own priest, in virtue of a privilege or of the command | |
| 1757 of a superior? | |
| 1758 </p> | |
| 1759 <p id="XP_Q8-p8"> (6) Whether a penitent, in danger of death can be absolved by any priest?</p> | |
| 1760 <p id="XP_Q8-p9"> (7) Whether the temporal punishment should be enjoined in proportion to the sin?</p> | |
| 1761 <div id="XP_Q8_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 1762 <a href="summa.XP_Q8.html"></a> | |
| 1763 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1764 <h4 id="XP_Q8_A1-p0.1">Whether it is necessary to confess to a priest?</h4> | |
| 1765 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 1766 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p2"> | |
| 1767 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not necessary to confess to a priest. For we are not bound to confession, except in virtue of its | |
| 1768 Divine institution. Now its Divine institution is made known to us ( | |
| 1769 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.16" target="asv">James 5:16</a>): "Confess your sins, one to another," where there is no mention of a priest. Therefore it is not necessary to confess to | |
| 1770 a priest. | |
| 1771 </p> | |
| 1772 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p3"> | |
| 1773 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Penance is a necessary sacrament, as is also Baptism. But any man is the minister of Baptism, on account of its | |
| 1774 necessity. Therefore any man is the minister of Penance. Now confession should be made to the minister of Penance. Therefore | |
| 1775 it suffices to confess to anyone. | |
| 1776 </p> | |
| 1777 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p4"> | |
| 1778 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, confession is necessary in order that the measure of satisfaction should be imposed on the penitent. Now, sometimes | |
| 1779 another than a priest might be more discreet than many priests are in imposing the measure of satisfaction on the penitent. | |
| 1780 Therefore it is not necessary to confess to a priest. | |
| 1781 </p> | |
| 1782 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p5"> | |
| 1783 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, confession was instituted in the Church in order that the rectors might know their sheep by sight. But sometimes | |
| 1784 a rector or prelate is not a priest. Therefore confession should not always be made to a priest. | |
| 1785 </p> | |
| 1786 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p6"> | |
| 1787 <b>On the contrary,</b> The absolution of the penitent, for the sake of which he makes his confession, is imparted by none but priests to whom the | |
| 1788 keys are intrusted. Therefore confession should be made to a priest. | |
| 1789 </p> | |
| 1790 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p7"> Further, confession is foreshadowed in the raising of the dead Lazarus to life. Now our Lord commanded none but the disciples | |
| 1791 to loose Lazarus ( | |
| 1792 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.11.44" target="asv">Jn. 11:44</a>). Therefore confession should be made to a priest. | |
| 1793 </p> | |
| 1794 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p8"> | |
| 1795 <b>I answer that,</b> The grace which is given in the sacraments, descends from the Head to the members. Wherefore he alone who exercises a ministry | |
| 1796 over Christ's true body is a minister of the sacraments, wherein grace is given; and this belongs to a priest alone, who can | |
| 1797 consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, since grace is given in the sacrament of Penance, none but a priest is the minister of | |
| 1798 the sacrament: and consequently sacramental confession which should be made to a | |
| 1799 minister of the Church, should be made to none but a priest. | |
| 1800 </p> | |
| 1801 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p9"> | |
| 1802 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> James speaks on the presupposition of the Divine institutions: and since confession had already been prescribed by God to | |
| 1803 be made to a priest, in that He empowered them, in the person of the apostles, to forgive sins, as related in | |
| 1804 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.23" target="asv"> Jn. 20:23, </a> we must take the words of James as conveying an admonishment to confess to priests. | |
| 1805 </p> | |
| 1806 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p10"> | |
| 1807 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Baptism is a sacrament of greater necessity than Penance, as regards confession and absolution, because sometimes Baptism | |
| 1808 cannot be omitted without loss of eternal salvation, as in the case of children who have not come to the use of reason: whereas | |
| 1809 this cannot be said of confession and absolution, which regard none but adults, in whom contrition, together with the purpose | |
| 1810 of confessing and the desire of absolution, suffices to deliver them from | |
| 1811 everlasting death. Consequently there is no parity between Baptism and confession. | |
| 1812 </p> | |
| 1813 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p11"> | |
| 1814 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In satisfaction we must consider not only the quantity of the punishment but also its power, inasmuch as it is part of a | |
| 1815 sacrament. In this way it requires a dispenser of the sacraments, though the quantity of the punishment may be fixed by another | |
| 1816 than a priest. | |
| 1817 </p> | |
| 1818 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p12"> | |
| 1819 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It may be necessary for two reasons to know the sheep by sight. First, in order to register them as members of Christ's flock, | |
| 1820 and to know the sheep by sight thus belongs to the pastoral charge and care, which is sometimes the duty of those who are | |
| 1821 not priests. Secondly, that they may be provided with suitable remedies for their health; and to know the sheep by sight thus | |
| 1822 belongs to the man, i.e. the priest, whose business it is to provide remedies | |
| 1823 conducive to health, such as the sacrament of the Eucharist, and other like things. It is to this knowledge of the sheep that | |
| 1824 confession is ordained. | |
| 1825 </p> | |
| 1826 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 1827 <p id="XP_Q8_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 1828 <a href="summa.XP_Q8.html"></a> | |
| 1829 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1830 </div> | |
| 1831 <div id="XP_Q8_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 1832 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1833 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1834 <h4 id="XP_Q8_A2-p0.1">Whether it is ever lawful to confess to another than a priest?</h4> | |
| 1835 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 1836 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p2"> | |
| 1837 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is never lawful to confess to another than a priest. For confession is a sacramental accusation, as | |
| 1838 appears from the definition given above ( | |
| 1839 <a id="XP_Q8_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q7_A1.html">Q[7], A[1]</a>). But the dispensing of a sacrament belongs to none but the minister of a sacrament. Since then the proper minister of Penance | |
| 1840 is a priest, it seems that confession should be made to no one else. | |
| 1841 </p> | |
| 1842 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p3"> | |
| 1843 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in every court of justice confession is ordained to the sentence. Now in a disputed case the sentence is void if | |
| 1844 pronounced by another than the proper judge; so that confession should be made to none but a judge. But, in the court of conscience, | |
| 1845 the judge is none but a priest, who has the power of binding and loosing. Therefore confession should be made to no one else. | |
| 1846 </p> | |
| 1847 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p4"> | |
| 1848 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the case of Baptism, since anyone can baptize, if a layman has baptized, even without necessity, the Baptism | |
| 1849 should not be repeated by a priest. But if anyone confess to a layman in a case of necessity, he is bound to repeat his confession | |
| 1850 to a priest, when the cause for urgency has passed. Therefore confession should not be made to a layman in a case of necessity. | |
| 1851 </p> | |
| 1852 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p5"> | |
| 1853 <b>On the contrary,</b> is the authority of the text (Sent. iv, D, 17). | |
| 1854 </p> | |
| 1855 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p6"> | |
| 1856 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is Penance. And Baptism, through being a necessary sacrament has a twofold minister: | |
| 1857 one whose duty it is to baptize, in virtue of his office, viz. the priest, and another, to whom the conferring of Baptism | |
| 1858 is committed, in a case of necessity. In like manner the minister of Penance, to whom, in virtue of his office, confession | |
| 1859 should be made, is a priest; but in a case of necessity even a layman may take the | |
| 1860 place of a priest, and hear a person's confession. | |
| 1861 </p> | |
| 1862 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p7"> | |
| 1863 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the sacrament of Penance there is not only something on the part of the minister, viz. the absolution and imposition of | |
| 1864 satisfaction, but also something on the part of the recipient, which is also essential to the sacrament, viz. contrition and | |
| 1865 confession. Now satisfaction originates from the minister in so far as he enjoins it, and from the penitent who fulfills it; | |
| 1866 and, for the fulness of the sacrament, both these things should concur when | |
| 1867 possible. But when there is reason for urgency, the penitent should fulfill his own part, by being contrite and confessing | |
| 1868 to whom he can; and although this person cannot perfect the sacrament, so as to fulfill the part of the priest by giving absolution, | |
| 1869 yet this defect is supplied by the High Priest. Nevertheless confession made to a layman, through lack* of a priest, is quasi-sacramental, | |
| 1870 although it is not a perfect sacrament, on account of the absence of the part which belongs to the | |
| 1871 priest. [*Here and in the Reply to OBJ[2] the Leonine edition reads "through desire for a priest".] | |
| 1872 </p> | |
| 1873 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p8"> | |
| 1874 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although a layman is not the judge of the person who confesses to him, yet, on account of the urgency, he does take the place | |
| 1875 of a judge over him, absolutely speaking, in so far as the penitent submits to him, through lack of a priest. | |
| 1876 </p> | |
| 1877 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p9"> | |
| 1878 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By means of the sacraments man must needs be reconciled not only to God, but also to the Church. Now he cannot be reconciled | |
| 1879 to the Church, unless the hallowing of the Church reach him. In Baptism the hallowing of the Church reaches a man through | |
| 1880 the element itself applied externally, which is sanctified by "the word of life" ( | |
| 1881 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.26" target="asv">Eph. 5:26</a>), by whomsoever it is conferred: and so when once a man has been baptized, no matter by whom, | |
| 1882 he must not be baptized again. On the other hand, in Penance the hallowing of the Church reaches man by the minister alone, | |
| 1883 because in that sacrament there is no bodily element applied externally, through the hallowing of which grace may be conferred. | |
| 1884 Consequently although the man who, in a case of necessity, has confessed to a layman, has received forgiveness from God, for | |
| 1885 the reason that he fulfilled, so far as he could, the purpose which he conceived in accordance with God's command, he is | |
| 1886 not yet reconciled to the Church, so as to be admitted to the sacraments, unless he first be absolved by a priest, even as | |
| 1887 he who has received the Baptism of desire, is not admitted to the Eucharist. Wherefore he must confess again to a priest, | |
| 1888 as soon as there is one at hand, and the more so since, as stated above (ad 1), the sacrament of Penance was not perfected, | |
| 1889 and so it needs yet to be perfected, in order that by receiving the sacrament, the penitent may receive a more plentiful effect, | |
| 1890 and that he may fulfill the commandment about receiving the sacrament of Penance. | |
| 1891 </p> | |
| 1892 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p10"></p> | |
| 1893 <p id="XP_Q8_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 1894 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A1.html"></a> | |
| 1895 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1896 </div> | |
| 1897 <div id="XP_Q8_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 1898 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1899 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A4.html"></a> | |
| 1900 <h4 id="XP_Q8_A3-p0.1">Whether, outside a case of necessity, anyone who is not a priest may hear the confession of venial sins?</h4> | |
| 1901 <p id="XP_Q8_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 1902 <p id="XP_Q8_A3-p2"> | |
| 1903 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that, outside a case of necessity, no one but a priest may hear the confession of venial sins. For the dispensation | |
| 1904 of a sacrament is committed to a layman by reason of necessity. But the confession of venial sins is not necessary. Therefore | |
| 1905 it is not committed to a layman. | |
| 1906 </p> | |
| 1907 <p id="XP_Q8_A3-p3"> | |
| 1908 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Extreme Unction is ordained against venial sin, just as Penance is. But the former may not be given by a layman, | |
| 1909 as appears from | |
| 1910 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.14" target="asv"> James 5:14.</a> Therefore neither can the confession of venial sins be made to a layman. | |
| 1911 </p> | |
| 1912 <p id="XP_Q8_A3-p4"> | |
| 1913 <b>On the contrary,</b> is the authority of Bede (on | |
| 1914 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.16" target="asv"> James 5:16, </a> "Confess . . . one to another") quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 17). | |
| 1915 </p> | |
| 1916 <p id="XP_Q8_A3-p5"> | |
| 1917 <b>I answer that,</b> By venial sin man is separated neither from God nor from the sacraments of the Church: wherefore he does not need to receive | |
| 1918 any further grace for the forgiveness of such a sin, nor does he need to be reconciled to the Church. Consequently a man does | |
| 1919 not need to confess his venial sins to a priest. And since confession made to a layman is a sacramental, although it is not | |
| 1920 a perfect sacrament, and since it proceeds from charity, it has a natural aptitude to | |
| 1921 remit sins, just as the beating of one's breast, or the sprinkling of holy water (cf. | |
| 1922 <a id="XP_Q8_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html">TP, Q[87], A[3]</a>). | |
| 1923 </p> | |
| 1924 <p id="XP_Q8_A3-p6"> This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection, because there is no need to receive a sacrament for the forgiveness of | |
| 1925 venial sins. and a sacramental, such as holy water or the like, suffices for the purpose. | |
| 1926 </p> | |
| 1927 <p id="XP_Q8_A3-p7"> | |
| 1928 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Extreme Unction is not given directly as a remedy for venial sin, nor is any other sacrament. | |
| 1929 </p> | |
| 1930 <p id="XP_Q8_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 1931 <p id="XP_Q8_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 1932 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A2.html"></a> | |
| 1933 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A4.html"></a> | |
| 1934 </div> | |
| 1935 <div id="XP_Q8_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 1936 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A3.html"></a> | |
| 1937 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A5.html"></a> | |
| 1938 <h4 id="XP_Q8_A4-p0.1">Whether it is necessary for one to confess to one's own priest?</h4> | |
| 1939 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 1940 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p2"> | |
| 1941 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is nol necessary to confess to one's own priest. For Gregory [*Cf. Can. Ex auctoritate xvi, Q[1]] says: | |
| 1942 "By our apostolic authority and in discharge of our solicitude we have decreed that priests, who as monks imitate the ex. | |
| 1943 ample of the apostles, may preach, baptize, give communion, pray for sinners, impose penances, and absolve from sins." Now | |
| 1944 monks are not the proper priests of anyone, since they have not the care of souls. Since, | |
| 1945 therefore confession is made for the sake of absolution it suffices for it to be made to any priest. | |
| 1946 </p> | |
| 1947 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p3"> | |
| 1948 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the minister of this sacrament is a priest, as also of the Eucharist. But any priest can perform the Eucharist. | |
| 1949 Therefore any priest can administer the sacrament of Penance. Therefore there is no need to confess to one's own priest. | |
| 1950 </p> | |
| 1951 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p4"> | |
| 1952 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when we are bound to one thing in particular it is not left to our choice. But the choice of a discreet priest is | |
| 1953 left to us as appears from the authority of Augustine quoted in the text (Sent. ix, D, 17): for he says in De vera et falsa | |
| 1954 Poenitentia [*Work of an unknown author]: "He who wishes to confess his sins, in order to find grace, must seek a priest who | |
| 1955 knows how to loose and to bind." Therefore it seems unnecessary to confess to one's own | |
| 1956 priest. | |
| 1957 </p> | |
| 1958 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p5"> | |
| 1959 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, there are some, such as prelates, who seem to have no priest of their own, since they have no superior: yet they | |
| 1960 are bound to confession. Therefore a man is not always bound to confess to his own priest. | |
| 1961 </p> | |
| 1962 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p6"> | |
| 1963 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, "That which is instituted for the sake of charity, does not militate against charity," as Bernard observes (De Praecept. | |
| 1964 et Dispens. ii). Now confession, which was instituted for the sake of charity, would militate against charity, if a man were | |
| 1965 bound to confess to any particular priest: e.g. if the sinner know that his own priest is a heretic, or a man of evil influence, | |
| 1966 or weak and prone to the very sin that he wishes to confess to him, or | |
| 1967 reasonably suspected of breaking the seal of confession, or if the penitent has to confess a sin committed against his confessor. | |
| 1968 Therefore it seems that one need not always confess to one's own priest. | |
| 1969 </p> | |
| 1970 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p7"> | |
| 1971 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, men should not be straitened in matters necessary for salvation, lest they be hindered in the way of salvation. | |
| 1972 But it seems a great inconvenience to be bound of necessity to confess to one particular man, and many might be hindered from | |
| 1973 going to confession, through either fear, shame, or something else of the kind. Therefore, since confession is necessary for | |
| 1974 salvation, men should not be straitened, as apparently they would be, by having to confess | |
| 1975 to their own priest. | |
| 1976 </p> | |
| 1977 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p8"> | |
| 1978 <b>On the contrary,</b> stands a decree of Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council (Can. 21), who appointed "all of either sex to confess | |
| 1979 once a year to their own priest." | |
| 1980 </p> | |
| 1981 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p9"> Further, as a bishop is to his diocese, so is a priest to his parish. Now it is unlawful, according to canon law (Can. Nullus | |
| 1982 primas ix | |
| 1983 <a id="XP_Q8_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q2.html">, Q[2];</a> Can. Si quis episcoporum xvi | |
| 1984 <a id="XP_Q8_A4-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q5.html">, Q[5])</a>, for a bishop to exercise the episcopal office in another diocese. Therefore it is not lawful for one priest to hear the | |
| 1985 confession of another's parishioner. | |
| 1986 </p> | |
| 1987 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p10"> | |
| 1988 <b>I answer that,</b> The other sacraments do not consist in an action of the recipient, but only in his receiving something, as is evident with | |
| 1989 regard to Baptism and so forth. though the action of the recipient is required as removing an obstacle, i.e. insincerity, | |
| 1990 in order that he may receive the benefit of the sacrament, if he has come to the use of his free-will. On the other hand, | |
| 1991 the action of the man who approaches the sacrament of Penance is essential to the sacrament, | |
| 1992 since contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are acts of the penitent, are parts of Penance. Now our actions, since | |
| 1993 they have their origin in us, cannot be dispensed by others, except through their command. Hence whoever is appointed a dispenser | |
| 1994 of this sacrament, must be such as to be able to command something to be done. Now a man is not competent to command another | |
| 1995 unless he have jurisdiction over him. Consequently it is essential to this sacrament, not only for the minister to be | |
| 1996 in orders, as in the case of the other sacraments, but also for him to have jurisdiction: wherefore he that has no jurisdiction | |
| 1997 cannot administer this sacrament any more than one who is not a priest. Therefore confession should be made not only to a | |
| 1998 priest, but to one's own priest; for since a priest does not absolve a man except by binding him to do something, he alone | |
| 1999 can absolve, who, by his command, can bind the penitent to do something. | |
| 2000 </p> | |
| 2001 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p11"> | |
| 2002 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Gregory is speaking of those monks who have jurisdiction, through having charge of a parish; about whom some had maintained | |
| 2003 that from the very fact that they were monks, they could not absolve or impose penance, which is false. | |
| 2004 </p> | |
| 2005 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p12"> | |
| 2006 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sacrament of the Eucharist does not require the power of command over a man, whereas this sacrament does, as stated above: | |
| 2007 and so the argument proves nothing. Nevertheless it is not lawful to receive the Eucharist from another than one's own priest, | |
| 2008 although it is a real sacrament that one receives from another. | |
| 2009 </p> | |
| 2010 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p13"> | |
| 2011 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The choice of a discreet priest is not left to us in such a way that we can do just as we like; but it is left to the permission | |
| 2012 of a higher authority, if perchance one's own priest happens to be less suitable for applying a salutary remedy to our sins. | |
| 2013 </p> | |
| 2014 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p14"> | |
| 2015 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Since it is the duty of prelates to dispense the sacraments, which the clean alone should handle, they are allowed by law | |
| 2016 (De Poenit. et Remiss., Cap. Ne pro dilatione) to choose a priest for their confessor; who in this respect is the prelate's | |
| 2017 superior; even as one physician is cured by another, not as a physician but as a patient. | |
| 2018 </p> | |
| 2019 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p15"> | |
| 2020 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> In those cases wherein the penitent has reason to fear some harm to himself or to the priest by reason of his confessing | |
| 2021 to him, he should have recourse to the higher authority, or ask permission of the priest himself to confess to another; and | |
| 2022 if he fails to obtain permission, the case is to be decided as for a man who has no priest at hand; so that he should rather | |
| 2023 choose a layman and confess to him. Nor does he disobey the law of the Church by so | |
| 2024 doing, because the precepts of positive law do not extend beyond the intention of the lawgiver, which is the end of the precept, | |
| 2025 and in this case, is charity, according to the Apostle ( | |
| 2026 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A4-p15.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.5" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:5</a>). Nor is any slur cast on the priest, for he deserves to forfeit his privilege, for abusing the power intrusted to him. | |
| 2027 </p> | |
| 2028 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p16"> | |
| 2029 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The necessity of confessing to one's own priest does not straiten the way of salvation, but determines it sufficiently. A | |
| 2030 priest, however, would sin if he were not easy in giving permission to confess to another, because many are so weak that they | |
| 2031 would rather die without confession than confess to such a priest. Wherefore those priests who are too anxious to probe the | |
| 2032 consciences of their subjects by means of confession, lay a snare of damnation for | |
| 2033 many, and consequently for themselves. | |
| 2034 </p> | |
| 2035 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p17"></p> | |
| 2036 <p id="XP_Q8_A4-p18"></p> | |
| 2037 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2038 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A5.html"></a> | |
| 2039 </div> | |
| 2040 <div id="XP_Q8_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 2041 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2042 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A6.html"></a> | |
| 2043 <h4 id="XP_Q8_A5-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for anyone to confess to another than his own priest, in virtue of a privilege or a command given by | |
| 2044 a superior? | |
| 2045 </h4> | |
| 2046 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 2047 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p2"> | |
| 2048 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not lawful for anyone to confess to another than his own priest, even in virtue of a privilege or | |
| 2049 command given by a superior. For no privilege should be given that wrongs a third party. Now it would be prejudicial to the | |
| 2050 subject's own priest, if he were to confess to another. Therefore this cannot be allowed by a superior's privilege, permission, | |
| 2051 or command. | |
| 2052 </p> | |
| 2053 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p3"> | |
| 2054 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which hinders the observance of a Divine command cannot be the subject of a command or privilege given by man. | |
| 2055 Now it is a Divine command to the rectors of churches to "know the countenance of their own cattle" ( | |
| 2056 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.27.23" target="asv">Prov. 27:23</a>); and this is hindered if another than the rector hear the confession of his subjects. Therefore this cannot be prescribed | |
| 2057 by any human privilege or command. | |
| 2058 </p> | |
| 2059 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p4"> | |
| 2060 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, he that hears another's confession is the latter's own judge, else he could not bind or loose him. Now one man cannot | |
| 2061 have several priests or judges of his own, for then he would be bound to obey several men, which would be impossible, if their | |
| 2062 commands were contrary or incompatible. Therefore one may not confess to another than one's own priest, even with the superior's | |
| 2063 permission. | |
| 2064 </p> | |
| 2065 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p5"> | |
| 2066 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is derogatory to a sacrament, or at least useless, to repeat a sacrament over the same matter. But he who has | |
| 2067 confessed to another priest, is bound to confess again to his own priest, if the latter requires him to do so, because he | |
| 2068 is not absolved from his obedience, whereby he is bound to him in this respect. Therefore it cannot be lawful for anyone to | |
| 2069 confess to another than his own priest. | |
| 2070 </p> | |
| 2071 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p6"> | |
| 2072 <b>On the contrary,</b> He that can perform the actions of an order can depute the exercise thereof to anyone who has the same order. Now a superior, | |
| 2073 such as a bishop, can hear the confession of anyone belonging to a priest's parish, for sometimes he reserves certain cases | |
| 2074 to himself, since he is the chief rector. Therefore he can also depute another priest to hear that man. | |
| 2075 </p> | |
| 2076 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p7"> Further, a superior can do whatever his subject can do. But the priest himself can give his parishioner permission to confess | |
| 2077 to another. Much more, therefore, can his superior do this. | |
| 2078 </p> | |
| 2079 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p8"> Further, the power which a priest has among his people, comes to him from the bishop. Now it is through that power that he | |
| 2080 can hear confessions. Therefore, in like manner, another can do so, to whom the bishop gives the same power. | |
| 2081 </p> | |
| 2082 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p9"> | |
| 2083 <b>I answer that,</b> A priest may be hindered in two ways from hearing a man's confession: first, through lack of jurisdiction; secondly, through | |
| 2084 being prevented from exercising his order, as those who are excommunicate, degraded, and so forth. Now whoever has jurisdiction, | |
| 2085 can depute to another whatever comes under his jurisdiction; so that if a priest is hindered from hearing a man's confession | |
| 2086 through want of jurisdiction, anyone who has immediate jurisdiction over that man, | |
| 2087 priest, bishop, or Pope, can depute that priest to hear his confession and absolve him. If, on the other hand, the priest | |
| 2088 cannot hear the confession, on account of an impediment to the exercise of his order, anyone who has the power to remove that | |
| 2089 impediment can permit him to hear confessions. | |
| 2090 </p> | |
| 2091 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p10"> | |
| 2092 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> No wrong is done to a person unless what is taken away from him was granted for his own benefit. Now the power of jurisdiction | |
| 2093 is not granted a man for his own benefit, but for the good of the people and for the glory of God. Wherefore if the higher | |
| 2094 prelates deem it expedient for the furthering of the people's salvation and God's glory, to commit matters of jurisdiction | |
| 2095 to others, no wrong is done to the inferior prelates, except to those who "seek | |
| 2096 the things that are their own; not the things that are Jesus Christ's" ( | |
| 2097 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.21" target="asv">Phil. 2:21</a>), and who rule their flock, not by feeding it, but by feeding on it. | |
| 2098 </p> | |
| 2099 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p11"> | |
| 2100 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The rector of a church should "know the countenance of his own cattle" in two ways. First, by an assiduous attention to their | |
| 2101 external conduct, so as to watch over the flock committed to his care: and in acquiring this knowledge he should not believe | |
| 2102 his subject, but, as far as possible, inquire into the truth of facts. Secondly, by the manifestation of confession; and with | |
| 2103 regard to this knowledge, he cannot arrive at any greater certainty than by | |
| 2104 believing his subject, because this is necessary that he may help his subject's conscience. Consequently in the tribunal of | |
| 2105 confession, the penitent is believed whether he speak for himself or against himself, but not in the court of external judgment: | |
| 2106 wherefore it suffices for this knowledge that he believe the penitent when he says that he has confessed to one who could | |
| 2107 absolve him. It is therefore clear that this knowledge of the flock is not hindered by a privilege granted to another to | |
| 2108 hear confessions. | |
| 2109 </p> | |
| 2110 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p12"> | |
| 2111 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It would be inconvenient, if two men were placed equally over the same people, but there is no inconvenience if over the | |
| 2112 same people two are placed one of whom is over the other. In this way the parish priest, the bishop, and the Pope are placed | |
| 2113 immediately over the same people, and each of them can commit matters of jurisdiction to some other. Now a higher superior | |
| 2114 delegates a man in two ways: first, so that the latter takes the superior's place, as | |
| 2115 when the Pope or a bishop appoints his penitentiaries; and then the man thus delegated is higher than the inferior prelate, | |
| 2116 as the Pope's penitentiary is higher than a bishop, and the bishop's penitentiary than a parish priest, and the penitent is | |
| 2117 bound to obey the former rather than the latter. Secondly, so that the delegate is appointed the coadjutor of this other priest; | |
| 2118 and since a co-adjutor is subordinate to the person he is appointed to help, he holds a lower rank, and the penitent is | |
| 2119 not so bound to obey him as his own priest. | |
| 2120 </p> | |
| 2121 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p13"> | |
| 2122 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> No man is bound to confess sins that he has no longer. Consequently, if a man has confessed to the bishop's penitentiary, | |
| 2123 or to someone else having faculties from the bishop, his sins are forgiven both before the Church and before God, so that | |
| 2124 he is not bound to confess them to his own priest, however much the latter may insist: but on account of the Ecclesiastical | |
| 2125 precept (De Poenit. et Remiss., Cap. Omnis utriusque) which prescribes confession to be | |
| 2126 made once a year to one's own priest, he is under the same obligation as one who has committed none but venial sins. For such | |
| 2127 a one, according to some, is bound to confess none but venial sins, or he must declare that he is free from mortal sin, and | |
| 2128 the priest, in the tribunal of conscience, ought, and is bound, to believe him. If, however, he were bound to confess again, | |
| 2129 his first confession would not be useless, because the more priests one confesses to, the more is the punishment remitted, | |
| 2130 both by reason of the shame in confessing, which is reckoned as a satisfactory punishment, and by reason of the power of the | |
| 2131 keys: so that one might confess so often as to be delivered from all punishment. Nor is repetition derogatory to a sacrament, | |
| 2132 except in those wherein there is some kind of sanctification, either by the impressing of a character, or by the consecration | |
| 2133 of the matter, neither of which applies to Penance. Hence it would be well for him who hears confessions by the bishop's | |
| 2134 authority, to advise the penitent to confess to his own priest, yet he must absolve him, even if he declines to do so. | |
| 2135 </p> | |
| 2136 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 2137 <p id="XP_Q8_A5-p15"></p> | |
| 2138 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2139 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A6.html"></a> | |
| 2140 </div> | |
| 2141 <div id="XP_Q8_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 2142 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A5.html"></a> | |
| 2143 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A7.html"></a> | |
| 2144 <h4 id="XP_Q8_A6-p0.1">Whether a penitent, at the point of death, can be absolved by any priest?</h4> | |
| 2145 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 2146 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p2"> | |
| 2147 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a penitent, at the point of death, cannot be absolved by any priest. For absolution requires jurisdiction, | |
| 2148 as stated above | |
| 2149 <a id="XP_Q8_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q8_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. Now a priest does not acquire jurisdiction over a man who repents at the point of death. Therefore he cannot absolve him. | |
| 2150 </p> | |
| 2151 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p3"> | |
| 2152 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he that receives the sacrament of Baptism, when in danger of death, from another than his own priest, does not need | |
| 2153 to be baptized again by the latter. If, therefore, any priest can absolve, from any sin, a man who is in danger of death, | |
| 2154 the penitent, if he survive the danger, need not go to his own priest; which is false, since otherwise the priest would not | |
| 2155 "know the countenance of his cattle." | |
| 2156 </p> | |
| 2157 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p4"> | |
| 2158 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when there is danger of death, Baptism can be conferred not only by a strange priest, but also by one who is not | |
| 2159 a priest. But one who is not a priest can never absolve in the tribunal of Penance. Therefore neither can a priest absolve | |
| 2160 a man who is not his subject, when he is in danger of death. | |
| 2161 </p> | |
| 2162 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p5"> | |
| 2163 <b>On the contrary,</b> Spiritual necessity is greater than bodily necessity. But it is lawful in a case of extreme necessity, for a man to make | |
| 2164 use of another's property, even against the owner's will, in order to supply a bodily need. Therefore in danger of death, | |
| 2165 a man may be absolved by another than his own priest, in order to supply his spiritual need. | |
| 2166 </p> | |
| 2167 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p6"> Further, the authorities quoted in the text prove the same (Sent. iv, D, 20, Cap. Non Habet).</p> | |
| 2168 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p7"> | |
| 2169 <b>I answer that,</b> If we consider the power of the keys, every priest has power over all men equally and over all sins: and it is due to the | |
| 2170 fact that by the ordination of the Church, he has a limited jurisdiction or none at all, that he cannot absolve all men from | |
| 2171 all sins. But since "necessity knows no law" [*Cap. Consilium, De observ. jejun.; De reg. jur. (v, Decretal)] in cases of | |
| 2172 necessity the ordination of the Church does not hinder him from being able to absolve, since | |
| 2173 he has the keys sacramentally: and the penitent will receive as much benefit from the absolution of this other priest as if | |
| 2174 he had been absolved by his own. Moreover a man can then be absolved by any priest not only from his sins, but also from excommunication, | |
| 2175 by whomsoever pronounced, because such absolution is also a matter of that jurisdiction which by the ordination of the Church | |
| 2176 is con. fined within certain limits. | |
| 2177 </p> | |
| 2178 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p8"> | |
| 2179 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> One person may act on the jurisdiction of another according to the latter's will, since matters of jurisdiction can be deputed. | |
| 2180 Since, therefore, the Church recognizes absolution granted by any priest at the hour of death, from this very fact a priest | |
| 2181 has the use of jurisdiction though he lack the power of jurisdiction. | |
| 2182 </p> | |
| 2183 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p9"> | |
| 2184 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> He needs to go to his own priest, not that he may be absolved again from the sins, from which he was absolved when in danger | |
| 2185 of death, but that his own priest may know that he is absolved. In like manner, he who has been absolved from excommunication | |
| 2186 needs to go to the judge, who in other circumstances could have absolved him, not in order to seek absolution, but in order | |
| 2187 to offer satisfaction. | |
| 2188 </p> | |
| 2189 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p10"> | |
| 2190 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism derives its efficacy from the sanctification of the matter itself, so that a man receives the sacrament whosoever | |
| 2191 baptizes him: whereas the sacramental power of Penance consists in a sanctification pronounced by the minister, so that if | |
| 2192 a man confess to a layman, although he fulfills his own part of the sacramental confession, he does not receive sacramental | |
| 2193 absolution. Wherefore his confession avails him somewhat, as to the lessening of his | |
| 2194 punishment, owing to the merit derived from his confession and to his repentance. but he does not receive that diminution | |
| 2195 of his punishment which results from the power of the keys; and consequently he must confess again to a priest; and one who | |
| 2196 has confessed thus, is more punished hereafter than if he had confessed to a priest. | |
| 2197 </p> | |
| 2198 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p11"></p> | |
| 2199 <p id="XP_Q8_A6-p12"></p> | |
| 2200 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A5.html"></a> | |
| 2201 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A7.html"></a> | |
| 2202 </div> | |
| 2203 <div id="XP_Q8_A7" class="div4"> | |
| 2204 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A6.html"></a> | |
| 2205 <a href="summa.XP_Q9.html"></a> | |
| 2206 <h4 id="XP_Q8_A7-p0.1">Whether the temporal punishment is imposed according to the degree of the fault?</h4> | |
| 2207 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p1"></p> | |
| 2208 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p2"> | |
| 2209 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the temporal punishment, the debt of which remains after Penance, is not imposed according to the degree | |
| 2210 of fault. For it is imposed according to the degree of pleasure derived from the sin, as appears from | |
| 2211 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.18.7" target="asv"> Apoc. 18:7</a>: "As much as she hath glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye her." Yet sometimes where | |
| 2212 there is greater pleasure, there is less fault, since "carnal sins, which afford | |
| 2213 more pleasure than spiritual sins, are less guilty," according to Gregory (Moral. xxxiii, 2). Therefore the punishment is | |
| 2214 not imposed according to the degree of fault. | |
| 2215 </p> | |
| 2216 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p3"> | |
| 2217 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the New Law one is bound to punishment for mortal sins, in the same way as in the Old Law. Now in the Old Law | |
| 2218 the punishment for sin was due to last seven days, in other words, they had to remain unclean seven days for one mortal sin. | |
| 2219 Since therefore, in the New Testament, a punishment of seven years is imposed for one mortal sin, it seems that the quantity | |
| 2220 of the punishment does not answer to the degree of fault. | |
| 2221 </p> | |
| 2222 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p4"> | |
| 2223 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sin of murder in a layman is more grievous than that of fornication in a priest, because the circumstance which | |
| 2224 is taken from the species of a sin, is more aggravating than that which is taken from the person of the sinner. Now a punishment | |
| 2225 of seven years' duration is appointed for a layman guilty of murder, while for fornication a priest is punished for ten years, | |
| 2226 according to Can. Presbyter, Dist. lxxxii. Therefore punishment is not imposed | |
| 2227 according to the degree of fault. | |
| 2228 </p> | |
| 2229 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p5"> | |
| 2230 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a sin committed against the very body of Christ is most grievous, because the greater the person sinned against, | |
| 2231 the more grievous the sin. Now for spilling the blood of Christ in the sacrament of the altar a punishment of forty days or | |
| 2232 a little more is enjoined, while a punishment of seven years is prescribed for fornication, according to the Canons (Can. | |
| 2233 Presbyter, Dist. lxxxii). Therefore the quantity of the punishment does not answer to the degree | |
| 2234 of fault. | |
| 2235 </p> | |
| 2236 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p6"> | |
| 2237 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 2238 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.27.8" target="asv">Is. 27:8</a>): "In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it." Therefore the quantity of punishment adjudicated | |
| 2239 for sin answers the degree of fault. | |
| 2240 </p> | |
| 2241 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p7"> Further, man is reduced to the equality of justice by the punishment inflicted on him. But this would not be so if the quantity | |
| 2242 of the fault and of the punishment did not mutually correspond. Therefore one answers to the other. | |
| 2243 </p> | |
| 2244 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p8"> | |
| 2245 <b>I answer that,</b> After the forgiveness of sin, a punishment is required for two reasons, viz. to pay the debt, and to afford a remedy. Hence | |
| 2246 the punishment may be imposed in consideration of two things. First, in consideration of the debt, and in this way the quantity | |
| 2247 of the punishment corresponds radically to the quantity of the fault, before anything of the latter is forgiven: yet the more | |
| 2248 there is remitted by the first of those things which are of a nature to remit | |
| 2249 punishment, the less there remains to be remitted or paid by the other, because the more contrition remits of the punishment, | |
| 2250 the less there remains to be remitted by confession. Secondly, in consideration of the remedy, either as regards the one who | |
| 2251 sinned, or as regards others: and thus sometimes a greater punishment is enjoined for a lesser sin; either because one man's | |
| 2252 sin is more difficult to resist than another's (thus a heavier punishment is imposed on a young man for fornication, than | |
| 2253 on an old man, though the former's sin be less grievous), or because one man's sin; for instance, a priest's, is more dangerous | |
| 2254 to others, than another's sin, or because the people are more prone to that particular sin, so that it is necessary by the | |
| 2255 punishment of the one man to deter others. Consequently, in the tribunal of Penance, the punishment has to be imposed with | |
| 2256 due regard to both these things: and so a greater punishment is not always imposed for a greater sin. on the other hand, the | |
| 2257 punishment of Purgatory is only for the payment of the debt, because there is no longer any possibility of sinning, so that | |
| 2258 this punishment is meted only according to the measure of sin, with due consideration however for the degree of contrition, | |
| 2259 and for confession and absolution, since all these lessen the punishment somewhat: wherefore the priest in enjoining satisfaction | |
| 2260 should bear them in mind. | |
| 2261 </p> | |
| 2262 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p9"> | |
| 2263 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the words quoted two things are mentioned with regard to the sin, viz. "glorification" and "delicacies" or "delectation"; | |
| 2264 the first of which regards the uplifting of the sinner, whereby he resists God; while the second regards the pleasure of sin: | |
| 2265 and though sometimes there is less pleasure in a greater sin, yet there is greater uplifting; wherefore the argument does | |
| 2266 not prove. | |
| 2267 </p> | |
| 2268 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p10"> | |
| 2269 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This punishment of seven days did not expiate the punishment due for the sin, so that even if the sinner died after that | |
| 2270 time, he would be punished in Purgatory: but it was in expiation of the irregularity incurred, from which all the legal sacrifices | |
| 2271 expiated. Nevertheless, other things being equal, a man sins more grievously under the New Law than under the Old, on account | |
| 2272 of the more plentiful sanctification received in Baptism, and on account of | |
| 2273 the more powerful blessings bestowed by God on the human race. This is evident from | |
| 2274 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q8_A7-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.29" target="asv">Heb. 29</a>: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments," etc. And yet it is not universally true that a seven years' | |
| 2275 penance is exacted for every mortal sin: but it is a kind of general rule applicable to the majority of cases, which must, | |
| 2276 nevertheless, be disregarded, with due consideration for the various circumstances of sins and penitents. | |
| 2277 </p> | |
| 2278 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p11"> | |
| 2279 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A bishop or priest sins with greater danger to others or to himself; wherefore the canons are more anxious to withdraw him | |
| 2280 from sin, by inflicting a greater punishment, in as much as it is intended as a remedy; although sometimes so great a punishment | |
| 2281 is not strictly due. Hence he is punished less in Purgatory. | |
| 2282 </p> | |
| 2283 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p12"> | |
| 2284 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This punishment refers to the case when this happens against the priest's will: for if he spilled it willingly he would deserve | |
| 2285 a much heavier punishment. | |
| 2286 </p> | |
| 2287 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p13"></p> | |
| 2288 <p id="XP_Q8_A7-p14"></p> | |
| 2289 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A6.html"></a> | |
| 2290 <a href="summa.XP_Q9.html"></a> | |
| 2291 </div> | |
| 2292 <a href="summa.XP_Q7_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2293 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2294 </div> | |
| 2295 <div id="XP_Q9" class="div3"> | |
| 2296 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A7.html"></a> | |
| 2297 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2298 <h3 id="XP_Q9-p0.1">OF THE QUALITY OF CONFESSION (FOUR ARTICLES) </h3> | |
| 2299 <p id="XP_Q9-p1"></p> | |
| 2300 <p id="XP_Q9-p2"> We must now consider the quality of confession: under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 2301 <p id="XP_Q9-p3"> (1) Whether confession can be lacking in form?</p> | |
| 2302 <p id="XP_Q9-p4"> (2) Whether confession ought to be entire?</p> | |
| 2303 <p id="XP_Q9-p5"> (3) Whether one can confess through another, or by writing?</p> | |
| 2304 <p id="XP_Q9-p6"> (4) Whether the sixteen conditions, which are assigned by the masters, are necessary for confession?</p> | |
| 2305 <div id="XP_Q9_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 2306 <a href="summa.XP_Q9.html"></a> | |
| 2307 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2308 <h4 id="XP_Q9_A1-p0.1">Whether confession can be lacking in form?</h4> | |
| 2309 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 2310 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p2"> | |
| 2311 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that confession cannot be lacking in form. For it is written ( | |
| 2312 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q9_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.17.26" target="asv">Ecclus. 17:26</a>): "Praise [confession] perisheth from the dead as nothing." But a man without charity is dead, because charity is the life | |
| 2313 of the soul. Therefore there can be no confession without charity. | |
| 2314 </p> | |
| 2315 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p3"> | |
| 2316 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, confession is condivided with contrition and satisfaction. But contrition and satisfaction are impossible without | |
| 2317 charity. Therefore confession is also impossible without charity. | |
| 2318 </p> | |
| 2319 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p4"> | |
| 2320 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is necessary in confession that the word should agree with the thought for the very name of confession requires | |
| 2321 this. Now if a man confess while remaining attached to sin, his word is not in accord with his thought, since in his heart | |
| 2322 he holds to sin, while he condemns it with his lips. Therefore such a man does not confess. | |
| 2323 </p> | |
| 2324 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p5"> | |
| 2325 <b>On the contrary,</b> Every man is bound to confess his mortal sins. Now if a man in mortal sin has confessed once, he is not bound to confess | |
| 2326 the same sins again, because, as no man knows himself to have charity, no man would know of him that he had confessed. Therefore | |
| 2327 it is not necessary that confession should be quickened by charity. | |
| 2328 </p> | |
| 2329 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p6"> | |
| 2330 <b>I answer that,</b> Confession is an act of virtue, and is part of a sacrament. In so far as it is an act of virtue, it has the property of being | |
| 2331 meritorious, and thus is of no avail without charity, which is the principle of merit. But in so far as it is part of a sacrament, | |
| 2332 it subordinates the penitent to the priest who has the keys of the Church, and who by means of the confession knows the conscience | |
| 2333 of the person confessing. In this way it is possible for confession to be | |
| 2334 in one who is not contrite, for he can make his sins known to the priest, and subject himself to the keys of the Church: and | |
| 2335 though he does not receive the fruit of absolution then, yet he will begin to receive it, when he is sincerely contrite, as | |
| 2336 happens in the other sacraments: wherefore he is not bound to repeat his confession, but to confess his lack of sincerity. | |
| 2337 </p> | |
| 2338 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p7"> | |
| 2339 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These words must be understood as referring to the receiving of the fruit of confession, which none can receive who is not | |
| 2340 in the state of charity. | |
| 2341 </p> | |
| 2342 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p8"> | |
| 2343 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Contrition and satisfaction are offered to God: but confession is made to man: hence it is essential to contrition and satisfaction, | |
| 2344 but not to confession, that man should be united to God by charity. | |
| 2345 </p> | |
| 2346 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p9"> | |
| 2347 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> He who declares the sins which he has, speaks the truth; and thus his thought agrees with his lips or words, as to the substance | |
| 2348 of confession, though it is discordant with the purpose of confession. | |
| 2349 </p> | |
| 2350 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p10"></p> | |
| 2351 <p id="XP_Q9_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 2352 <a href="summa.XP_Q9.html"></a> | |
| 2353 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2354 </div> | |
| 2355 <div id="XP_Q9_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 2356 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2357 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2358 <h4 id="XP_Q9_A2-p0.1">Whether confession should be entire?</h4> | |
| 2359 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 2360 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p2"> | |
| 2361 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not necessary for confession to be entire, namely, for a man to confess all his sins to one priest. | |
| 2362 For shame conduces to the diminution of punishment. Now the greater the number of priests to whom a man confesses, the greater | |
| 2363 his shame. Therefore confession is more fruitful if it be divided among several priests. | |
| 2364 </p> | |
| 2365 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p3"> | |
| 2366 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, confession is necessary in Penance in order that punishment may be enjoined for sin according to the judgment of | |
| 2367 the priest. Now a sufficient punishment for different sins can be imposed by different priests. Therefore it is not necessary | |
| 2368 to confess all one's sins to one priest. | |
| 2369 </p> | |
| 2370 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p4"> | |
| 2371 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it may happen that a man after going to confession and performing his penance, remembers a mortal sin, which escaped | |
| 2372 his memory while confessing, and that his own priest to whom he confessed first is no longer available, so that he can only | |
| 2373 confess that sin to another priest, and thus he will confess different sins to different priests. | |
| 2374 </p> | |
| 2375 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p5"> | |
| 2376 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the sole reason for confessing one's sins to a priest is in order to receive absolution. Now sometimes, the priest | |
| 2377 who hears a confession can absolve from some of the sins, but not from all. Therefore in such a case at all events the confession | |
| 2378 need not be entire. | |
| 2379 </p> | |
| 2380 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p6"> | |
| 2381 <b>On the contrary,</b> Hypocrisy is an obstacle to Penance. But it savors of hypocrisy to divide one's confession, as Augustine says [*De vera et | |
| 2382 falsa Poenitentia, work of an unknown author]. Therefore confession should be entire. Further, confession is a part of Penance. | |
| 2383 But Penance should be entire. Therefore confession also should be entire. | |
| 2384 </p> | |
| 2385 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p7"> | |
| 2386 <b>I answer that,</b> In prescribing medicine for the body, the physician should know not only the disease for which he is prescribing, but also | |
| 2387 the general constitution of the sick person, since one disease is aggravated by the addition of another, and a medicine which | |
| 2388 would be adapted to one disease, would be harmful to another. The same is to be said in regard to sins, for one is aggravated | |
| 2389 when another is added to it; and a remedy which would be suitable for one sin, might | |
| 2390 prove an incentive to another, since sometimes a man is guilty of contrary sins, as Gregory says (Pastoral. iii, 3). Hence | |
| 2391 it is necessary for confession that man confess all the sins that he calls to mind, and if he fails to do this, it is not | |
| 2392 a confession, but a pretense of confession. | |
| 2393 </p> | |
| 2394 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p8"> | |
| 2395 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although a man's shame is multiplied when he makes a divided confession to different confessors, yet all his different shames | |
| 2396 together are not so great as that with which he confesses all his sins together: because one sin considered by itself does | |
| 2397 not prove the evil disposition of the sinner, as when it is considered in conjunction with several others, for a man may fall | |
| 2398 into one sin through ignorance or weakness, but a number of sins proves the | |
| 2399 malice of the sinner, or his great corruption. | |
| 2400 </p> | |
| 2401 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p9"> | |
| 2402 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The punishment imposed by different priests would not be sufficient, because each would only consider one sin by itself, | |
| 2403 and not the gravity which it derives from being in conjunction with another. Moreover sometimes the punishment which would | |
| 2404 be given for one sin would foster another. Again the priest in hearing a confession takes the place of God, so that confession | |
| 2405 should be made to him just as contrition is made to God: wherefore as there would be | |
| 2406 no contrition unless one were contrite for all the sins which one calls to mind, so is there no confession unless one confess | |
| 2407 all the sins that one remembers committing. | |
| 2408 </p> | |
| 2409 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p10"> | |
| 2410 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some say that when a man remembers a sin which he had previously forgotten, he ought to confess again the sins which he had | |
| 2411 confessed before, especially if he cannot go to the same priest to whom his previous confession was made, in order that the | |
| 2412 total quantity of his sins may be made known to one priest. But this does not seem necessary, because sin takes its quantity | |
| 2413 both from itself and from the conjunction of another; and as to the sins which he | |
| 2414 confessed he had already manifested their quantity which they have of themselves, while as to the sin which he had forgotten, | |
| 2415 in order that the priest may know the quantity which it has under both the above heads, it is enough that the penitent declare | |
| 2416 it explicitly, and confess the others in general, saying that he had confessed many sins in his previous confession, but had | |
| 2417 forgotten this particular one. | |
| 2418 </p> | |
| 2419 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p11"> | |
| 2420 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although the priest may be unable to absolve the penitent from all his sins, yet the latter is bound to confess all to him, | |
| 2421 that he may know the total quantity of his guilt, and refer him to the superior with regard to the sins from which he cannot | |
| 2422 absolve him. | |
| 2423 </p> | |
| 2424 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 2425 <p id="XP_Q9_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 2426 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2427 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2428 </div> | |
| 2429 <div id="XP_Q9_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 2430 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2431 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2432 <h4 id="XP_Q9_A3-p0.1">Whether one may confess through another, or by writing?</h4> | |
| 2433 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 2434 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p2"> | |
| 2435 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one may confess through another, or by writing. For confession is necessary in order that the penitent's | |
| 2436 conscience may be made known to the priest. But a man can make his conscience known to the priest, through another or by writing. | |
| 2437 Therefore it is enough to confess through another or by writing. | |
| 2438 </p> | |
| 2439 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p3"> | |
| 2440 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, some are not understood by their own priests on account of a difference of language, and consequently cannot confess | |
| 2441 save through others. Therefore it is not essential to the sacrament that one should confess by oneself, so that if anyone | |
| 2442 confesses through another in any way whatever, it suffices for his salvation. | |
| 2443 </p> | |
| 2444 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p4"> | |
| 2445 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is essential to the sacrament that a man should confess to his own priest, as appears from what has been said | |
| 2446 ( | |
| 2447 <a id="XP_Q9_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q8_A5.html">Q[8], A[5]</a> ). Now sometimes a man's own priest is absent, so that the penitent cannot speak to him with his own voice. But he could | |
| 2448 make his conscience known to him by writing. Therefore it seems that he ought to manifest his conscience to him by writing | |
| 2449 to him. | |
| 2450 </p> | |
| 2451 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p5"> | |
| 2452 <b>On the contrary,</b> Man is bound to confess his sins even as he is bound to confess his faith. But confession of faith should be made "with the | |
| 2453 mouth," as appears from | |
| 2454 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q9_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.10" target="asv"> Rom. 10:10</a>: therefore confession of sins should also. | |
| 2455 </p> | |
| 2456 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p6"> Further, who sinned by himself should, by himself, do penance. But confession is part of penance. Therefore the penitent | |
| 2457 should confess his own sins. | |
| 2458 </p> | |
| 2459 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p7"> | |
| 2460 <b>I answer that,</b> Confession is not only an act of virtue, but also part of a sacrament. Now, though, in so far as it is an act of virtue it | |
| 2461 matters not how it is done, even if it be easier to do it in one way than in another, yet, in so far as it is part of a sacrament, | |
| 2462 it has a determinate act, just as the other sacraments have a determinate matter. And as in Baptism, in order to signify the | |
| 2463 inward washing, we employ that element which is chiefly used in washing, so in the | |
| 2464 sacramental act which is intended for manifestation we generally make use of that act which is most commonly employed for | |
| 2465 the purpose of manifestation, viz. our own words; for other ways have been introduced as supplementary to this. | |
| 2466 </p> | |
| 2467 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p8"> | |
| 2468 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as in Baptism it is not enough to wash with anything, but it is necessary to wash with a determinate element, so neither | |
| 2469 does it suffice, in Penance, to manifest one's sins anyhow, but they must be declared by a determinate act. | |
| 2470 </p> | |
| 2471 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p9"> | |
| 2472 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is enough for one who is ignorant of a language, to confess by writing, or by signs, or by an interpreter, because a man | |
| 2473 is not bound to do more than he can: although a man is not able or obliged to receive Baptism, except with water, which is | |
| 2474 from an entirely external source and is applied to us by another: whereas the act of confession is from within and is performed | |
| 2475 by ourselves, so that when we cannot confess in one way, we must confess as we | |
| 2476 can. | |
| 2477 </p> | |
| 2478 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p10"> | |
| 2479 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In the absence of one's own priest, confession may be made even to a layman, so that there is no necessity to confess in | |
| 2480 writing, because the act of confession is more essential than the person to whom confession is made. | |
| 2481 </p> | |
| 2482 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 2483 <p id="XP_Q9_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 2484 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2485 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2486 </div> | |
| 2487 <div id="XP_Q9_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 2488 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2489 <a href="summa.XP_Q10.html"></a> | |
| 2490 <h4 id="XP_Q9_A4-p0.1">Whether the sixteen conditions usually assigned are necessary for confession?</h4> | |
| 2491 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 2492 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p2"> | |
| 2493 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the conditions assigned by masters, and contained in the following lines, are not requisite for confession: | |
| 2494 </p> | |
| 2495 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p3"> Simple, humble, pure, faithful,</p> | |
| 2496 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p4"> Frequent, undisguised, discreet, voluntary,</p> | |
| 2497 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p5"> shamefaced,</p> | |
| 2498 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p6"> Entire, secret, tearful, not delayed,</p> | |
| 2499 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p7"> Courageously accusing, ready to obey.</p> | |
| 2500 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p8">For fidelity, simplicity, and courage are virtues by themselves, and therefore should not be reckoned as conditions of confession.</p> | |
| 2501 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p9"> | |
| 2502 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a thing is "pure" when it is not mixed with anything else: and "simplicity," in like manner, removes composition | |
| 2503 and admixture. Therefore one or the other is superfluous. | |
| 2504 </p> | |
| 2505 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p10"> | |
| 2506 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no one is bound to confess more than once a sin which he has committed but once. Therefore if a man does not commit | |
| 2507 a sin again, his penance need not be "frequent." | |
| 2508 </p> | |
| 2509 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p11"> | |
| 2510 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, confession is directed to satisfaction. But satisfaction is sometimes public. Therefore confession should not always | |
| 2511 be "secret." | |
| 2512 </p> | |
| 2513 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p12"> | |
| 2514 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, that which is not in our power is not required of us. But it is not in our power to shed "tears." Therefore it is | |
| 2515 not required of those who confess. | |
| 2516 </p> | |
| 2517 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p13"> | |
| 2518 <b>On the contrary,</b> We have the authority of the masters who assigned the above. | |
| 2519 </p> | |
| 2520 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p14"> | |
| 2521 <b>I answer that,</b> Some of the above conditions are essential to confession, and some are requisite for its well-being. Now those things which | |
| 2522 are essential to confession belong to it either as to an act of virtue, or as to part of a sacrament. If in the first way, | |
| 2523 it is either by reason of virtue in general, or by reason of the special virtue of which it is the act, or by reason of the | |
| 2524 act itself. Now there are four conditions of virtue in general, as stated in Ethic. ii, 4. | |
| 2525 The first is knowledge, in respect of which confession is said to be "discreet," inasmuch as prudence is required in every | |
| 2526 act of virtue: and this discretion consists in giving greater weight to greater sins. The second condition is choice, because | |
| 2527 acts of virtue should be voluntary, and in this respect confession is said to be "voluntary." The third condition is that | |
| 2528 the act be done for a particular purpose, viz. the due end, and in this respect confession is said to be "pure," i.e. with | |
| 2529 a | |
| 2530 right intention. The fourth condition is that one should act immovably, and in this respect it is said that confession should | |
| 2531 be "courageous," viz. that the truth should not be forsaken through shame. | |
| 2532 </p> | |
| 2533 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p15"> Now confession is an act of the virtue of penance. First of all it takes its origin in the horror which one conceives for | |
| 2534 the shamefulness of sin, and in this respect confession should be "full of shame," so as not to be a boastful account of one's | |
| 2535 sins, by reason of some worldly vanity accompanying it. Then it goes on to deplore the sin committed, and in this respect | |
| 2536 it is said to be "tearful." Thirdly, it culminates in self-abjection, and in this respect it should be "humble," | |
| 2537 so that one confesses one's misery and weakness. | |
| 2538 </p> | |
| 2539 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p16"> By reason of its very nature, viz. confession, this act is one of manifestation: which manifestation can be hindered by four | |
| 2540 things: first, by falsehood, and in this respect confession is said to be "faithful," i.e. true. Secondly, by the use of vague | |
| 2541 words, and against this confession is said to be "open," so as not to be wrapped up in vague words; thirdly, by "multiplicity" | |
| 2542 of words, in which respect it is said to be "simple" indicating that the penitent should relate only | |
| 2543 such matters as affect the gravity of the sin; fourthly none of those things should be suppressed which should be made known, | |
| 2544 and in this respect confession should be "entire." | |
| 2545 </p> | |
| 2546 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p17"> In so far as confession is part of a sacrament it is subject to the judgment of the priest who is the minister of the sacrament. | |
| 2547 Wherefore it should be an "accusation" on the part of the penitent, should manifest his "readiness to obey" the priest, should | |
| 2548 be "secret" as regards the nature of the court wherein the hidden affairs of conscience are tried. | |
| 2549 </p> | |
| 2550 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p18"> The well-being of confession requires that it should be "frequent"; and "not delayed," i.e. that the sinner should confess | |
| 2551 at once. | |
| 2552 </p> | |
| 2553 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p19"> | |
| 2554 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There is nothing unreasonable in one virtue being a condition of the act of another virtue, through this act being commanded | |
| 2555 by that virtue; or through the mean which belongs to one virtue principally, belonging to other virtues by participation. | |
| 2556 </p> | |
| 2557 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p20"> | |
| 2558 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The condition "pure" excludes perversity of intention, from which man is cleansed: but the condition "simple" excludes the | |
| 2559 introduction of unnecessary matter. | |
| 2560 </p> | |
| 2561 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p21"> | |
| 2562 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This is not necessary for confession, but is a condition of its well-being. | |
| 2563 </p> | |
| 2564 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p22"> | |
| 2565 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Confession should be made not publicly but privately, lest others be scandalized, and led to do evil through hearing the | |
| 2566 sins confessed. On the other hand, the penance enjoined in satisfaction does not give rise to scandal, since like works of | |
| 2567 satisfaction are done sometimes for slight sins, and sometimes for none at all. | |
| 2568 </p> | |
| 2569 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p23"> | |
| 2570 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> We must understand this to refer to tears of the heart. | |
| 2571 </p> | |
| 2572 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p24"></p> | |
| 2573 <p id="XP_Q9_A4-p25"></p> | |
| 2574 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2575 <a href="summa.XP_Q10.html"></a> | |
| 2576 </div> | |
| 2577 <a href="summa.XP_Q8_A7.html"></a> | |
| 2578 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2579 </div> | |
| 2580 <div id="XP_Q10" class="div3"> | |
| 2581 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2582 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2583 <h3 id="XP_Q10-p0.1">OF THE EFFECT OF CONFESSION (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 2584 <p id="XP_Q10-p1"></p> | |
| 2585 <p id="XP_Q10-p2"> We must now consider the effect of confession: under which head there are five points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 2586 <p id="XP_Q10-p3"> (1) Whether confession delivers one from the death of sin?</p> | |
| 2587 <p id="XP_Q10-p4"> (2) Whether confession delivers one in any way from punishment?</p> | |
| 2588 <p id="XP_Q10-p5"> (3) Whether confession opens Paradise to us?</p> | |
| 2589 <p id="XP_Q10-p6"> (4) Whether confession gives hope of salvation?</p> | |
| 2590 <p id="XP_Q10-p7"> (5) Whether a general confession blots out mortal sins that one has forgotten?</p> | |
| 2591 <div id="XP_Q10_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 2592 <a href="summa.XP_Q10.html"></a> | |
| 2593 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2594 <h4 id="XP_Q10_A1-p0.1">Whether confession delivers one from the death of sin?</h4> | |
| 2595 <p id="XP_Q10_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 2596 <p id="XP_Q10_A1-p2"> | |
| 2597 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that confession does not deliver one from the death of sin. For confession follows contrition. But contrition | |
| 2598 sufficiently blots out guilt. Therefore confession does not deliver one from the death of sin. | |
| 2599 </p> | |
| 2600 <p id="XP_Q10_A1-p3"> | |
| 2601 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as mortal sin is a fault, so is venial. Now confession renders venial that which was mortal before, as stated | |
| 2602 in the text (Sent. iv, D, 17). Therefore confession does not blot out guilt, but one guilt is changed into another. | |
| 2603 </p> | |
| 2604 <p id="XP_Q10_A1-p4"> | |
| 2605 <b>On the contrary,</b> Confession is part of the sacrament of Penance. But Penance deliver from guilt. Therefore confession does also. | |
| 2606 </p> | |
| 2607 <p id="XP_Q10_A1-p5"> | |
| 2608 <b>I answer that,</b> Penance, as a sacrament, is perfected chiefly in confession, because by the latter a man submits to the ministers of the | |
| 2609 Church, who are the dispensers of the sacraments: for contrition has the desire of confession united thereto, and satisfaction | |
| 2610 is enjoined according to the judgment of the priest who hears the confession. And since in the sacrament of Penance, as in | |
| 2611 Baptism, that grace is infused whereby sins are forgiven, therefore confession in virtue of | |
| 2612 the absolution granted remits guilt, even as Baptism does. Now Baptism delivers one from the death of sin, not only by being | |
| 2613 received actually, but also by being received in desire, as is evident with regard to those who approach the sacrament of | |
| 2614 Baptism after being already sanctified. And unless a man offers an obstacle, he receives, through the very fact of being baptized, | |
| 2615 grace whereby his sins are remitted, if they are not already remitted. The same is to be said of confession, to which | |
| 2616 absolution is added because it delivered the penitent from guilt through being previously in his desire. Afterwards at the | |
| 2617 time of actual confession and absolution he receives an increase of grace, and forgiveness of sins would also be granted to | |
| 2618 him, if his previous sorrow for sin was not sufficient for contrition, and if at the time he offered no obstacle to grace. | |
| 2619 Consequently just as it is said of Baptism that it delivers from death, so can it be said of confession. | |
| 2620 </p> | |
| 2621 <p id="XP_Q10_A1-p6"> | |
| 2622 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Contrition has the desire of confession attached to it, and therefore it delivers penitents from death in the same way as | |
| 2623 the desire of Baptism delivers those who are going to be baptized. | |
| 2624 </p> | |
| 2625 <p id="XP_Q10_A1-p7"> | |
| 2626 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the text venial does not designate guilt, but punishment that is easily expiated. and so it does not follow that one guilt | |
| 2627 is changed into another but that it is wholly done away. For "venial" is taken in three senses [*Cf. | |
| 2628 <a id="XP_Q10_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q88_A2.html">FS, Q[88], A[2]</a>]: first, for what is venial generically, e.g. an idle word: secondly, for what is venial in its cause, i.e. having within | |
| 2629 itself a motive of pardon, e.g. sins due to weakness: thirdly, | |
| 2630 for what is venial in the result, in which sense it is understood here, because the result of confession is that man's past | |
| 2631 guilt is pardoned. | |
| 2632 </p> | |
| 2633 <p id="XP_Q10_A1-p8"></p> | |
| 2634 <p id="XP_Q10_A1-p9"></p> | |
| 2635 <a href="summa.XP_Q10.html"></a> | |
| 2636 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2637 </div> | |
| 2638 <div id="XP_Q10_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 2639 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2640 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2641 <h4 id="XP_Q10_A2-p0.1">Whether confession delivers from punishment in some way?</h4> | |
| 2642 <p id="XP_Q10_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 2643 <p id="XP_Q10_A2-p2"> | |
| 2644 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that confession nowise delivers from punishment. For sin deserves no punishment but what is either eternal | |
| 2645 or temporal. Now eternal punishment is remitted by contrition, and temporal punishment by satisfaction. Therefore nothing | |
| 2646 of the punishment is remitted by confession. | |
| 2647 </p> | |
| 2648 <p id="XP_Q10_A2-p3"> | |
| 2649 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "the will is taken for the deed" [*Cf. Can. Magna Pietas, De Poenit., Dist. i], as stated in the text (Sent. iv, | |
| 2650 D, 17). Now he that is contrite has the intention to confess. wherefore his intention avails him as though he had already | |
| 2651 confessed, and so the confession which he makes afterwards remits no part of the punishment. | |
| 2652 </p> | |
| 2653 <p id="XP_Q10_A2-p4"> | |
| 2654 <b>On the contrary,</b> Confession is a penal work. But all penal works expiate the punishment due to sin. Therefore confession does also. | |
| 2655 </p> | |
| 2656 <p id="XP_Q10_A2-p5"> | |
| 2657 <b>I answer that,</b> Confession together with absolution has the power to deliver from punishment, for two reasons. First, from the power of absolution | |
| 2658 itself: and thus the very desire of absolution delivers a man from eternal punishment, as also from the guilt. Now this punishment | |
| 2659 is one of condemnation and total banishment: and when a man is delivered therefrom he still remains bound to a temporal punishment, | |
| 2660 in so far as punishment is a cleansing and perfecting remedy; and so | |
| 2661 this punishment remains to be suffered in Purgatory by those who also have been delivered from the punishment of hell. Which | |
| 2662 temporal punishment is beyond the powers of the penitent dwelling in this world, but is so far diminished by the power of | |
| 2663 the keys, that it is within the ability of the penitent, and he is able, by making satisfaction, to cleanse himself in this | |
| 2664 life. Secondly, confession diminishes the punishment in virtue of the very nature of the act of the one who confesses, for | |
| 2665 this | |
| 2666 act has the punishment of shame attached to it, so that the oftener one confesses the same sins, the more is the punishment | |
| 2667 diminished. | |
| 2668 </p> | |
| 2669 <p id="XP_Q10_A2-p6"> This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.</p> | |
| 2670 <p id="XP_Q10_A2-p7"> | |
| 2671 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The will is not taken for the deed, if this is done by another, as in the case of Baptism: for the will to receive Baptism | |
| 2672 is not worth as much as the reception of Baptism. But a man's will is taken for the deed, when the latter is something done | |
| 2673 by him, entirely. Again, this is true of the essential reward, but not of the removal of punishment and the like, which come | |
| 2674 under the head of accidental and secondary reward. Consequently one who has | |
| 2675 confessed and received absolution will be less punished in Purgatory than one who has gone no further than contrition. | |
| 2676 </p> | |
| 2677 <p id="XP_Q10_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 2678 <p id="XP_Q10_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 2679 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2680 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2681 </div> | |
| 2682 <div id="XP_Q10_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 2683 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2684 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2685 <h4 id="XP_Q10_A3-p0.1">Whether confession opens paradise?</h4> | |
| 2686 <p id="XP_Q10_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 2687 <p id="XP_Q10_A3-p2"> | |
| 2688 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that confession does not open Paradise. For different sacraments have different effects. But it is the effect | |
| 2689 of Baptism to open Paradise. Therefore it is not the effect of confession. | |
| 2690 </p> | |
| 2691 <p id="XP_Q10_A3-p3"> | |
| 2692 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is impossible to enter by a closed door before it be opened. But a dying man can enter heaven before making his | |
| 2693 confession. Therefore confession does not open Paradise. | |
| 2694 </p> | |
| 2695 <p id="XP_Q10_A3-p4"> | |
| 2696 <b>On the contrary,</b> Confession makes a man submit to the keys of the Church. But Paradise is opened by those keys. Therefore it is opened by | |
| 2697 confession. | |
| 2698 </p> | |
| 2699 <p id="XP_Q10_A3-p5"> | |
| 2700 <b>I answer that,</b> Guilt and the debt of punishment prevent a man from entering into Paradise: and since confession removes these obstacles, | |
| 2701 as shown above ( | |
| 2702 <a id="XP_Q10_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q10_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), it is said to open Paradise. | |
| 2703 </p> | |
| 2704 <p id="XP_Q10_A3-p6"> | |
| 2705 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although Baptism and Penance are different sacraments, they act in virtue of Christ's one Passion, whereby a way was opened | |
| 2706 unto Paradise. | |
| 2707 </p> | |
| 2708 <p id="XP_Q10_A3-p7"> | |
| 2709 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If the dying man was in mortal sin Paradise was closed to him before he conceived the desire to confess his sin, although | |
| 2710 afterwards it was opened by contrition implying a desire for confession, even before he actually confessed. Nevertheless the | |
| 2711 obstacle of the debt of punishment was not entirely removed before confession and satisfaction. | |
| 2712 </p> | |
| 2713 <p id="XP_Q10_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 2714 <p id="XP_Q10_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 2715 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2716 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2717 </div> | |
| 2718 <div id="XP_Q10_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 2719 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2720 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A5.html"></a> | |
| 2721 <h4 id="XP_Q10_A4-p0.1">Whether confession gives hope of salvation?</h4> | |
| 2722 <p id="XP_Q10_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 2723 <p id="XP_Q10_A4-p2"> | |
| 2724 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that hope of salvation should not be reckoned an effect of confession. For hope arises from all meritorious | |
| 2725 acts. Therefore, seemingly, it is not the proper effect of confession. | |
| 2726 </p> | |
| 2727 <p id="XP_Q10_A4-p3"> | |
| 2728 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we arrive at hope through tribulation, as appears from | |
| 2729 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q10_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.3" target="asv"> Rom. 5:3,4.</a> Now man suffers tribulation chiefly in satisfaction. Therefore, satisfaction rather than confession gives hope of salvation. | |
| 2730 </p> | |
| 2731 <p id="XP_Q10_A4-p4"> | |
| 2732 <b>On the contrary,</b>" Confession makes a man more humble and more wary," as the Master states in the text (Sent. iv, D, 17). But the result of | |
| 2733 this is that man conceives a hope of salvation. Therefore it is the effect of confession to give hope of salvation. | |
| 2734 </p> | |
| 2735 <p id="XP_Q10_A4-p5"> | |
| 2736 <b>I answer that,</b> We can have no hope for the forgiveness of our sins except through Christ: and since by confession a man submits to the keys | |
| 2737 of the Church which derive their power from Christ's Passion, therefore do we say that confession gives hope of salvation. | |
| 2738 </p> | |
| 2739 <p id="XP_Q10_A4-p6"> | |
| 2740 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is not our actions, but the grace of our Redeemer, that is the principal cause of the hope of salvation: and since confession | |
| 2741 relies upon the grace of our Redeemer, it gives hope of salvation, not only as a meritorious act, but also as part of a sacrament. | |
| 2742 </p> | |
| 2743 <p id="XP_Q10_A4-p7"> | |
| 2744 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Tribulation gives hope of salvation, by making us exercise our own virtue, and by paying off the debt of punishment: while | |
| 2745 confession does so also in the way mentioned above. | |
| 2746 </p> | |
| 2747 <p id="XP_Q10_A4-p8"></p> | |
| 2748 <p id="XP_Q10_A4-p9"></p> | |
| 2749 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2750 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A5.html"></a> | |
| 2751 </div> | |
| 2752 <div id="XP_Q10_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 2753 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2754 <a href="summa.XP_Q11.html"></a> | |
| 2755 <h4 id="XP_Q10_A5-p0.1">Whether a general confession suffices to blot out forgotten mortal sins?</h4> | |
| 2756 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 2757 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p2"> | |
| 2758 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a general confession does not suffice to blot out forgotten mortal sins. For there is no necessity to | |
| 2759 confess again a sin which has been blotted out by confession. If, therefore, forgotten sins were forgiven by a general confession, | |
| 2760 there would be no need to confess them when they are called to mind. | |
| 2761 </p> | |
| 2762 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p3"> | |
| 2763 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever is not conscious of sin, either is not guilty of sin, or has forgotten his sin. If, therefore, mortal sins | |
| 2764 are forgiven by a general confession, whoever is not conscious of a mortal sin, can be certain that he is free from mortal | |
| 2765 sin, whenever he makes a general confession: which is contrary to what the Apostle says ( | |
| 2766 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q10_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:4</a>), "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified." | |
| 2767 </p> | |
| 2768 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p4"> | |
| 2769 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no man profits by neglect. Now a man cannot forget a mortal sin without neglect, before it is forgiven him. Therefore | |
| 2770 he does not profit by his forgetfulness so that the sin is forgiven him without special mention thereof in confession. | |
| 2771 </p> | |
| 2772 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p5"> | |
| 2773 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, that which the penitent knows nothing about is further from his knowledge than that which he has forgotten. Now | |
| 2774 a general confession does not blot out sins committed through ignorance, else heretics, who are not aware that certain things | |
| 2775 they have done are sinful, and certain simple people, would be absolved by a general confession, which is false. Therefore | |
| 2776 a general confession does not take away forgotten sins. | |
| 2777 </p> | |
| 2778 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p6"> | |
| 2779 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 2780 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q10_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.33.6" target="asv">Ps. 33:6</a>): "Come ye to Him and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be confounded." Now he who confesses all the sins of which | |
| 2781 he is conscious, approaches to God as much as he can: nor can more be required for him. Therefore he will not be confounded | |
| 2782 by being repelled, but will be forgiven. | |
| 2783 </p> | |
| 2784 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p7"> Further, he that confesses is pardoned unless he be insincere. But he who confesses all the sins that he calls to mind, is | |
| 2785 not insincere through forgetting some, because he suffers from ignorance of fact, which excuses from sin. Therefore he receives | |
| 2786 forgiveness, and then the sins which he has forgotten, are loosened, since it is wicked to hope for half a pardon. | |
| 2787 </p> | |
| 2788 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p8"> | |
| 2789 <b>I answer that,</b> Confession produces its effect, on the presupposition that there is contrition which blots out guilt: so that confession | |
| 2790 is directly ordained to the remission of punishment, which it causes in virtue of the shame which it includes, and by the | |
| 2791 power of the keys to which a man submits by confessing. Now it happens sometimes that by previous contrition a sin has been | |
| 2792 blotted out as to the guilt, either in a general way (if it was not remembered at the time) or | |
| 2793 in particular (and yet is forgotten before confession): and then general sacramental confession works for the remission of | |
| 2794 the punishment in virtue of the keys, to which man submits by confessing, provided he offers no obstacle so far as he is concerned: | |
| 2795 but so far as the shame of confessing a sin diminishes its punishment, the punishment for the sin for which a man does not | |
| 2796 express his shame, through failing to confess it to the priest, is not diminished. | |
| 2797 </p> | |
| 2798 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p9"> | |
| 2799 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In sacramental confession, not only is absolution required, but also the judgment of the priest who imposes satisfaction | |
| 2800 is awaited. Wherefore although the latter has given absolution, nevertheless the penitent is bound to confess in order to | |
| 2801 supply what was wanting to the sacramental confession. | |
| 2802 </p> | |
| 2803 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p10"> | |
| 2804 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above, confession does not produce its effect, unless contrition be presupposed; concerning which no man can know | |
| 2805 whether it be true contrition, even as neither can one know for certain if he has grace. Consequently a man cannot know for | |
| 2806 certain whether a forgotten sin has been forgiven him in a general confession, although he may think so on account of certain | |
| 2807 conjectural signs. | |
| 2808 </p> | |
| 2809 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p11"> | |
| 2810 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> He does not profit by his neglect, since he does not receive such full pardon, as he would otherwise have received, nor is | |
| 2811 his merit so great. Moreover he is bound to confess the sin when he calls it to mind. | |
| 2812 </p> | |
| 2813 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p12"> | |
| 2814 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Ignorance of the law does not excuse, because it is a sin by itself: but ignorance of fact does excuse. Therefore if a man | |
| 2815 omits to confess a sin, because he does not know it to be a sin, through ignorance of the Divine law, he is not excused from | |
| 2816 insincerity. on the other hand, he would be excused, if he did not know it to be a sin, through being unaware of some particular | |
| 2817 circumstance, for instance, if he had knowledge of another's wife, thinking | |
| 2818 her his own. Now forgetfulness of an act of sin comes under the head of ignorance of fact, wherefore it excuses from the sin | |
| 2819 of insincerity in confession, which is an obstacle to the fruit of absolution and confession. | |
| 2820 </p> | |
| 2821 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p13"></p> | |
| 2822 <p id="XP_Q10_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 2823 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2824 <a href="summa.XP_Q11.html"></a> | |
| 2825 </div> | |
| 2826 <a href="summa.XP_Q9_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2827 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2828 </div> | |
| 2829 <div id="XP_Q11" class="div3"> | |
| 2830 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A5.html"></a> | |
| 2831 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2832 <h3 id="XP_Q11-p0.1">OF THE SEAL OF CONFESSION (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 2833 <p id="XP_Q11-p1"></p> | |
| 2834 <p id="XP_Q11-p2"> We must now inquire about the seal of confession, about which there are five points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 2835 <p id="XP_Q11-p3"> (1) Whether in every case a man is bound to hide what he knows under the seal of confession?</p> | |
| 2836 <p id="XP_Q11-p4"> (2) Whether the seal of confession extends to other matters than those which have reference to confession?</p> | |
| 2837 <p id="XP_Q11-p5"> (3) Whether the priest alone is bound by the seal of confession?</p> | |
| 2838 <p id="XP_Q11-p6"> (4) Whether, by permission of the penitent, the priest can make known to another, a sin of his which he knew under the seal | |
| 2839 of confession? | |
| 2840 </p> | |
| 2841 <p id="XP_Q11-p7"> (5) Whether he is bound to hide even what he knows through other sources besides?</p> | |
| 2842 <div id="XP_Q11_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 2843 <a href="summa.XP_Q11.html"></a> | |
| 2844 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2845 <h4 id="XP_Q11_A1-p0.1">Whether in every case the priest is bound to hide the sins which he knows under the seal of confession?</h4> | |
| 2846 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 2847 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p2"> | |
| 2848 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the priest is not bound in every case to hide the sins which he knows under the seal of confession. For, | |
| 2849 as Bernard says (De Proecep. et Dispens. ii), "that which is instituted for the sake of charity does not militate against | |
| 2850 charity." Now the secret of confession would militate against charity in certain cases: for instance, if a man knew through | |
| 2851 confession that a certain man was a heretic, whom he cannot persuade to desist from misleading | |
| 2852 the people; or, in like manner, if a man knew, through confession, that certain people who wish to marry are related to one | |
| 2853 another. Therefore such ought to reveal what they know through confession. | |
| 2854 </p> | |
| 2855 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p3"> | |
| 2856 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which is obligatory solely on account of a precept of the Church need not be observed, if the commandment be | |
| 2857 changed to the contrary. Now the secret of confession was introduced solely by a precept of the Church. If therefore the Church | |
| 2858 were to prescribe that anyone who knows anything about such and such a sin must make it known, a man that had such knowledge | |
| 2859 through confession would be bound to speak. | |
| 2860 </p> | |
| 2861 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p4"> | |
| 2862 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man is bound to safeguard his conscience rather than the good name of another, because there is order in charity. | |
| 2863 Now it happens sometimes that a man by hiding a sin injures his own conscience---for instance, if he be called upon to give | |
| 2864 witness of a sin of which he has knowledge through confession, and is forced to swear to tell the truth---or when an abbot | |
| 2865 knows through confession the sin of a prior who is subject to him, which sin would be an | |
| 2866 occasion of ruin to the latter, if he suffers him to retain his priorship, wherefore he is bound to deprive him of the dignity | |
| 2867 of his pastoral charge, and yet in depriving him he seem to divulge the secret of confession. Therefore it seems that in certain | |
| 2868 cases it is lawful to reveal a confession. | |
| 2869 </p> | |
| 2870 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p5"> | |
| 2871 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is possible for a priest through hearing a man's confession to be conscious that the latter is unworthy of ecclesiastical | |
| 2872 preferment. Now everyone is bound to prevent the promotion of the unworthy, if it is his business. Since then by raising an | |
| 2873 objection he seems to raise a suspicion of sin, and so to reveal the confession somewhat, it seems that it is necessary sometimes | |
| 2874 to divulge a confession. | |
| 2875 </p> | |
| 2876 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p6"> | |
| 2877 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Decretal says (De Poenit. et Remiss., Cap. Omnis utriusque): "Let the priest beware lest he betray the sinner, by word, | |
| 2878 or sign, or in any other way whatever." | |
| 2879 </p> | |
| 2880 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p7"> Further, the priest should conform himself to God, Whose minister he is. But God does not reveal the sins which are made | |
| 2881 known to Him in confession, but hides them. Neither, therefore, should the priest reveal them. | |
| 2882 </p> | |
| 2883 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p8"> | |
| 2884 <b>I answer that,</b> Those things which are done outwardly in the sacraments are the signs of what takes place inwardly: wherefore confession, | |
| 2885 whereby a man subjects himself to a priest, is a sign of the inward submission, whereby one submits to God. Now God hides | |
| 2886 the sins of those who submit to Him by Penance; wherefore this also should be signified in the sacrament of Penance, and consequently | |
| 2887 the sacrament demands that the confession should remain hidden, and he who divulges | |
| 2888 a confession sins by violating the sacrament. Besides this there are other advantages in this secrecy, because thereby men | |
| 2889 are more attracted to confession, and confess their sins with greater simplicity. | |
| 2890 </p> | |
| 2891 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p9"> | |
| 2892 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Some say that the priest is not bound by the seal of confession to hide other sins than those in respect of which the penitent | |
| 2893 promises amendment; otherwise he may reveal them to one who can be a help and not a hindrance. But this opinion seems erroneous, | |
| 2894 since it is contrary to the truth of the sacrament; for just as, though the person baptized be insincere, yet his Baptism | |
| 2895 is a sacrament, and there is no change in the essentials of the sacrament on | |
| 2896 that account, so confession does not cease to be sacramental although he that confesses, does not purpose amendment. Therefore, | |
| 2897 this notwithstanding, it must be held secret; nor does the seal of confession militate against charity on that account, because | |
| 2898 charity does not require a man to find a remedy for a sin which he knows not: and that which is known in confession, is, as | |
| 2899 it were, unknown, since a man knows it, not as man, but as God knows it. Nevertheless in the cases quoted one should | |
| 2900 apply some kind of remedy, so far as this can be done without divulging the confession, e.g. by admonishing the penitent, | |
| 2901 and by watching over the others lest they be corrupted by heresy. He can also tell the prelate to watch over his flock with | |
| 2902 great care, yet so as by neither word nor sign to betray the penitent. | |
| 2903 </p> | |
| 2904 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p10"> | |
| 2905 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The precept concerning the secret of confession follows from the sacrament itself. Wherefore just as the obligation of making | |
| 2906 a sacramental confession is of Divine law, so that no human dispensation or command can absolve one therefrom, even so, no | |
| 2907 man can be forced or permitted by another man to divulge the secret of confession. Consequently if he be commanded under pain | |
| 2908 of excommunication to be incurred "ipso facto," to say whether he knows anything | |
| 2909 about such and such a sin, he ought not to say it, because he should assume that the intention of the person in commanding | |
| 2910 him thus, was that he should say what he knew as man. And even if he were expressly interrogated about a confession, he ought | |
| 2911 to say nothing, nor would he incur the excommunication, for he is not subject to his superior, save as a man, and he knows | |
| 2912 this not as a man, but as God knows it. | |
| 2913 </p> | |
| 2914 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p11"> | |
| 2915 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A man is not called upon to witness except as a man, wherefore without wronging his conscience he can swear that he knows | |
| 2916 not, what he knows only as God knows it. In like manner a superior can, without wronging his conscience, leave a sin unpunished | |
| 2917 which he knows only as God knows it, or he may forbear to apply a remedy, since he is not bound to apply a remedy, except | |
| 2918 according as it comes to his knowledge. Wherefore with regard to matters which come | |
| 2919 to his knowledge in the tribunal of Penance, he should apply the remedy, as far as he can, in the same court: thus as to the | |
| 2920 case in point, the abbot should advise the prior to resign his office, and if the latter refuse, he can absolve him from the | |
| 2921 priorship on some other occasion, yet so as to avoid all suspicion of divulging the confession. | |
| 2922 </p> | |
| 2923 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p12"> | |
| 2924 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A man is rendered unworthy of ecclesiastical preferment, by many other causes besides sin, for instance, by lack of knowledge, | |
| 2925 age, or the like: so that by raising an objection one does not raise a suspicion of crime or divulge the secret of confession. | |
| 2926 </p> | |
| 2927 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 2928 <p id="XP_Q11_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 2929 <a href="summa.XP_Q11.html"></a> | |
| 2930 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2931 </div> | |
| 2932 <div id="XP_Q11_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 2933 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2934 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2935 <h4 id="XP_Q11_A2-p0.1">Whether the seal of confession extends to other matters than those which have reference to confession?</h4> | |
| 2936 <p id="XP_Q11_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 2937 <p id="XP_Q11_A2-p2"> | |
| 2938 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the seal of confession extends to other matters besides those which have reference to confession. For | |
| 2939 sins alone have reference to confession. Now sometimes besides sins other matters are told which have no reference to confession. | |
| 2940 Therefore, since such things are told to the priest, as to God, it seems that the seal of confession extends to them also. | |
| 2941 </p> | |
| 2942 <p id="XP_Q11_A2-p3"> | |
| 2943 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sometimes one person tells another a secret, which the latter receives under the seal of confession. Therefore the | |
| 2944 seal of confession extends to matters having no relation to confession. | |
| 2945 </p> | |
| 2946 <p id="XP_Q11_A2-p4"> | |
| 2947 <b>On the contrary,</b> The seal of confession is connected with sacramental confession. But those things which are connected with a sacrament, do | |
| 2948 not extend outside the bounds of the sacrament. Therefore the seal of confession does not extend to matters other than those | |
| 2949 which have reference to sacramental confession. | |
| 2950 </p> | |
| 2951 <p id="XP_Q11_A2-p5"> | |
| 2952 <b>I answer that,</b> The seal of confession does not extend directly to other matters than those which have reference to sacramental confession, | |
| 2953 yet indirectly matters also which are not connected with sacramental confession are affected by the seal of confession, those, | |
| 2954 for instance, which might lead to the discovery of a sinner or of his sin. Nevertheless these matters also must be most carefully | |
| 2955 hidden, both on account of scandal, and to avoid leading others into sin through | |
| 2956 their becoming familiar with it. | |
| 2957 </p> | |
| 2958 <p id="XP_Q11_A2-p6"> This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.</p> | |
| 2959 <p id="XP_Q11_A2-p7"> | |
| 2960 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A confidence ought not easily to be accepted in this way: but if it be done the secret must be kept in the way promised, | |
| 2961 as though one had the secret through confession, though not through the seal of confession. | |
| 2962 </p> | |
| 2963 <p id="XP_Q11_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 2964 <p id="XP_Q11_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 2965 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A1.html"></a> | |
| 2966 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A3.html"></a> | |
| 2967 </div> | |
| 2968 <div id="XP_Q11_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 2969 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A2.html"></a> | |
| 2970 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A4.html"></a> | |
| 2971 <h4 id="XP_Q11_A3-p0.1">Whether the priest alone is bound by the seal of confession?</h4> | |
| 2972 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 2973 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p2"> | |
| 2974 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not only the priest is bound by the seal of confession. For sometimes a priest hears a confession through | |
| 2975 an interpreter, if there be an urgent reason for so doing. But it seems that the interpreter is bound to keep the confession | |
| 2976 secret. Therefore one who is not a priest knows something under the seal of confession. | |
| 2977 </p> | |
| 2978 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p3"> | |
| 2979 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is possible sometimes in cases of urgency for a layman to hear a confession. But he is bound to secrecy with | |
| 2980 regard to those sins, since they are told to him as to God. Therefore not only the priest is bound by the seal of confession. | |
| 2981 </p> | |
| 2982 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p4"> | |
| 2983 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it may happen that a man pretends to be a priest, so that by this deceit he may know what is on another's conscience: | |
| 2984 and it would seem that he also sins if he divulges the confession. Therefore not only the priest is bound by the seal of confession. | |
| 2985 </p> | |
| 2986 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p5"> | |
| 2987 <b>On the contrary,</b> A priest alone is the minister of this sacrament. But the seal of confession is connected with this sacrament. Therefore | |
| 2988 the priest alone is bound by the seal of confession. | |
| 2989 </p> | |
| 2990 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p6"> Further, the reason why a man is bound to keep secret what he hears in confession, is because he knows them, not as man but | |
| 2991 as God knows them. But the priest alone is God's minister. Therefore he alone is bound to secrecy. | |
| 2992 </p> | |
| 2993 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p7"> | |
| 2994 <b>I answer that,</b> The seal of confession affects the priest as minister of this sacrament: which seal is nothing else than the obligation of | |
| 2995 keeping the confession secret, even as the key is the power of absolving. Yet, as one who is not a priest, in a particular | |
| 2996 case has a kind of share in the act of the keys, when he hears a confession in a case of urgency, so also does he have a certain | |
| 2997 share in the act of the seal of confession, and is bound to secrecy, though, properly | |
| 2998 speaking, he is not bound by the seal of confession. | |
| 2999 </p> | |
| 3000 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p8"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 3001 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 3002 <p id="XP_Q11_A3-p10"></p> | |
| 3003 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3004 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A4.html"></a> | |
| 3005 </div> | |
| 3006 <div id="XP_Q11_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 3007 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3008 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A5.html"></a> | |
| 3009 <h4 id="XP_Q11_A4-p0.1">Whether by the penitent's permission, a priest may reveal to another a sin which he knows under the seal of confession?</h4> | |
| 3010 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 3011 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p2"> | |
| 3012 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a priest may not, by the penitent's permission, reveal to another a sin which he knows under the seal | |
| 3013 of confession. For an inferior may not do what his superior may not. Now the Pope cannot give permission for anyone to divulge | |
| 3014 a sin which he knows through confession. Neither therefore can the penitent give him such a permission. | |
| 3015 </p> | |
| 3016 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p3"> | |
| 3017 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which is instituted for the common good of the Church cannot be changed at the will of an individual. Now the | |
| 3018 secrecy of confession was instituted for the good of the whole Church, in order that men might have greater confidence in | |
| 3019 approaching the confessional. Therefore the penitent cannot allow the priest to divulge his confession. | |
| 3020 </p> | |
| 3021 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p4"> | |
| 3022 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the priest could grant such a permission, this would seem to palliate the wickedness of bad priests, for they | |
| 3023 might pretend to have received the permission and so they might sin with impunity, which would be unbecoming. Therefore it | |
| 3024 seems that the penitent cannot grant this permission. | |
| 3025 </p> | |
| 3026 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p5"> | |
| 3027 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the one to whom this sin is divulged does not know that sin under the seal of confession, so that he may publish | |
| 3028 a sin which is already blotted out, which is unbecoming. Therefore this permission cannot be granted. | |
| 3029 </p> | |
| 3030 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p6"> | |
| 3031 <b>On the contrary,</b> If the sinner consent, a superior may refer him by letter to an inferior priest. Therefore with the consent of the penitent, | |
| 3032 the priest may reveal a sin of his to another. | |
| 3033 </p> | |
| 3034 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p7"> Further, whosoever can do a thing of his own authority, can do it through another. But the penitent can by his own authority | |
| 3035 reveal his sin to another. Therefore he can do it through the priest. | |
| 3036 </p> | |
| 3037 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p8"> I answer that There are two reasons for which the priest is bound to keep a sin secret: first and chiefly, because this very | |
| 3038 secrecy is essential to the sacrament, in so far as the priest knows that sin, as it is known to God, Whose place he holds | |
| 3039 in confession: secondly, in order to avoid scandal. Now the penitent can make the priest know, as a man, what he knew before | |
| 3040 only as God knows it, and he does this when he allows him to divulge it: so that if the priest does reveal it, | |
| 3041 he does not break the seal of confession. Nevertheless he should beware of giving scandal by revealing the sin, lest he be | |
| 3042 deemed to have broken the seal. | |
| 3043 </p> | |
| 3044 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p9"> | |
| 3045 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Pope cannot permit a priest to divulge a sin, because he cannot make him to know it as a man, whereas he that has confessed | |
| 3046 it, can. | |
| 3047 </p> | |
| 3048 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p10"> | |
| 3049 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When that is told which was known through another source, that which is instituted for the common good is not done away with, | |
| 3050 because the seal of confession is not broken. | |
| 3051 </p> | |
| 3052 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p11"> | |
| 3053 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This does not bestow impunity on wicked priests, because they are in danger of having to prove that they had the penitent's | |
| 3054 permission to reveal the sin, if they should be accused of the contrary. | |
| 3055 </p> | |
| 3056 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p12"> | |
| 3057 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> He that is informed of a sin through the priest with the penitent's consent, shares in an act of the priest's, so that the | |
| 3058 same applies to him as to an interpreter, unless perchance the penitent wish him to know it unconditionally and freely. | |
| 3059 </p> | |
| 3060 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p13"></p> | |
| 3061 <p id="XP_Q11_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 3062 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3063 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A5.html"></a> | |
| 3064 </div> | |
| 3065 <div id="XP_Q11_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 3066 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A4.html"></a> | |
| 3067 <a href="summa.XP_Q12.html"></a> | |
| 3068 <h4 id="XP_Q11_A5-p0.1">Whether a man may reveal that which he knows through confession and through some other source besides?</h4> | |
| 3069 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 3070 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p2"> | |
| 3071 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man may not reveal what he knows through confession and through some other source besides. For the seal | |
| 3072 of confession is not broken unless one reveals a sin known through confession. If therefore a man divulges a sin which he | |
| 3073 knows through confession, no matter how he knows it otherwise, he seems to break the seal. | |
| 3074 </p> | |
| 3075 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p3"> | |
| 3076 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever hears someone's confession, is under obligation to him not to divulge his sins. Now if one were to promise | |
| 3077 someone to keep something secret, he would be bound to do so, even if he knew it through some other source. Therefore a man | |
| 3078 is bound to keep secret what he knows through the confession, no matter how he knows it otherwise. | |
| 3079 </p> | |
| 3080 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p4"> | |
| 3081 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the stronger of two things draws the other to itself. Now the knowledge whereby a man knows a sin as God knows it, | |
| 3082 is stronger and more excellent than the knowledge whereby he knows a sin as man. Therefore it draws the latter to itself: | |
| 3083 and consequently a man cannot reveal that sin, because this is demanded by his knowing it as God knows it. | |
| 3084 </p> | |
| 3085 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p5"> | |
| 3086 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the secrecy of confession was instituted in order to avoid scandal, and to prevent men being shy of going to confession. | |
| 3087 But if a man might say what he had heard in confession, though he knew it otherwise, scandal would result all the same. Therefore | |
| 3088 he can nowise say what he has heard. | |
| 3089 </p> | |
| 3090 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p6"> | |
| 3091 <b>On the contrary,</b> No one can put another under a new obligation, unless he be his superior, who can bind him by a precept. Now he who knew | |
| 3092 of a sin by witnessing it was not bound to keep it secret. Therefore he that confesses to him, not being his superior, cannot | |
| 3093 put him under an obligation of secrecy by confessing to him. | |
| 3094 </p> | |
| 3095 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p7"> Further, the justice of the Church would be hindered if a man, in order to escape a sentence of excommunication, incurred | |
| 3096 on account of some sin, of which he has been convicted, were to confess to the person who has to sentence him. Now the execution | |
| 3097 of justice falls under a precept. Therefore a man is not bound to keep a sin secret, which he has heard in confession, but | |
| 3098 knows from some other source. | |
| 3099 </p> | |
| 3100 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p8"> | |
| 3101 <b>I answer that,</b> There are three opinions about this question. For some say that a man can by no means tell another what he has heard in confession, | |
| 3102 even if he knew it from some other source either before or after the confession: while others assert that the confession debars | |
| 3103 him from speaking of what he knew already, but not from saying what he knew afterwards and in another way. Now both these | |
| 3104 opinions, by exaggerating the seal of confession, are prejudicial to the truth | |
| 3105 and to the safeguarding of justice. For a man might be more inclined to sin, if he had no fear of being accused by his confessor | |
| 3106 supposing that he repeated the sin in his presence: and furthermore it would be most prejudicial to justice if a man could | |
| 3107 not bear witness to a deed which he has seen committed again after being confessed to him. Nor does it matter that, as some | |
| 3108 say, he ought to declare that he cannot keep it secret, for he cannot make such a declaration until the sin has already | |
| 3109 been confessed to him, and then every priest could, if he wished, divulge a sin, by making such a declaration, if this made | |
| 3110 him free to divulge it. Consequently there is a third and truer opinion, viz. that what a man knows through another source | |
| 3111 either before or after confession, he is not bound to keep secret, in so far as he knows it as a man, for he can say: "I know | |
| 3112 so end so since I saw it." But he is bound to keep it secret in so far as he knows it as God knows it, for he cannot say: | |
| 3113 "I | |
| 3114 heard so and so in confession." Nevertheless, on account of the scandal he should refrain from speaking of it unless there | |
| 3115 is an urgent reason. | |
| 3116 </p> | |
| 3117 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p9"> | |
| 3118 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> If a man says that he has seen what he has heard in the confessional, he does not reveal what he heard in confession, save | |
| 3119 indirectly: even as one who knows something through hearing and seeing it, does not, properly speaking, divulge what he saw, | |
| 3120 if he says he heard it, but only indirectly, because he says he has heard what he incidentally saw. Wherefore he does not | |
| 3121 break the seal of confession. | |
| 3122 </p> | |
| 3123 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p10"> | |
| 3124 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The confessor is not forbidden to reveal a sin simply, but to reveal it as heard in confession: for in no case is he allowed | |
| 3125 to say that he has heard it in the confessional. | |
| 3126 </p> | |
| 3127 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p11"> | |
| 3128 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This is true of things that are in opposition to one another: whereas to know a sin as God knows it, and to know it as man | |
| 3129 knows it, are not in opposition; so that the argument proves nothing. | |
| 3130 </p> | |
| 3131 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p12"> | |
| 3132 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It would not be right to avoid scandal so as to desert justice: for the truth should not be gainsayed for fear of scandal. | |
| 3133 Wherefore when justice and truth are in the balance, a man should not be deterred by the fear of giving scandal, from divulging | |
| 3134 what he has heard in confession, provided he knows it from some other source: although he ought to avoid giving scandal, as | |
| 3135 far as he is able. | |
| 3136 </p> | |
| 3137 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p13"></p> | |
| 3138 <p id="XP_Q11_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 3139 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A4.html"></a> | |
| 3140 <a href="summa.XP_Q12.html"></a> | |
| 3141 </div> | |
| 3142 <a href="summa.XP_Q10_A5.html"></a> | |
| 3143 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3144 </div> | |
| 3145 <div id="XP_Q12" class="div3"> | |
| 3146 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A5.html"></a> | |
| 3147 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3148 <h3 id="XP_Q12-p0.1">OF SATISFACTION, AS TO ITS NATURE (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 3149 <p id="XP_Q12-p1"></p> | |
| 3150 <p id="XP_Q12-p2"> We must now consider satisfaction; about which four things have to be considered: (1) Its nature; (2) Its possibility; (3) | |
| 3151 Its quality; (4) The means whereby man offers satisfaction to God. | |
| 3152 </p> | |
| 3153 <p id="XP_Q12-p3"> Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 3154 <p id="XP_Q12-p4"> (1) Whether satisfaction is a virtue or an act of virtue?</p> | |
| 3155 <p id="XP_Q12-p5"> (2) Whether it is an act of justice?</p> | |
| 3156 <p id="XP_Q12-p6"> (3) Whether the definition of satisfaction contained in the text is suitable?</p> | |
| 3157 <div id="XP_Q12_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 3158 <a href="summa.XP_Q12.html"></a> | |
| 3159 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3160 <h4 id="XP_Q12_A1-p0.1">Whether satisfaction is a virtue or an act of virtue?</h4> | |
| 3161 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 3162 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p2"> | |
| 3163 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that satisfaction is neither a virtue nor an act of virtue. For every act of virtue is meritorious; whereas, | |
| 3164 seemingly, satisfaction is not, since merit is gratuitous, while satisfaction answers to a debt. Therefore satisfaction is | |
| 3165 not an act of virtue. | |
| 3166 </p> | |
| 3167 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p3"> | |
| 3168 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every act of virtue is voluntary. But sometimes a man has to make satisfaction for something against his will, as | |
| 3169 when anyone is punished by the judge for an offense against another. Therefore satisfaction is not an act of virtue. | |
| 3170 </p> | |
| 3171 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p4"> | |
| 3172 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 13): "Choice holds the chief place in moral virtue." But satisfaction | |
| 3173 is not an act of choice but regards chiefly external works. Therefore it is not an act of virtue. | |
| 3174 </p> | |
| 3175 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p5"> | |
| 3176 <b>On the contrary,</b> Satisfaction belongs to penance. Now penance is a virtue. Therefore satisfaction is also an act of virtue. | |
| 3177 </p> | |
| 3178 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p6"> Further, none but an act of virtue has the effect of blotting out sin, for one contrary is destroyed by the other. Now satisfaction | |
| 3179 destroys sin altogether. Therefore it is an act of virtue. | |
| 3180 </p> | |
| 3181 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p7"> | |
| 3182 <b>I answer that,</b> An act is said to be the act of a virtue in two ways. First, materially; and thus any act which implies no malice, or defect | |
| 3183 of a due circumstance, may be called an act of virtue, because virtue can make use of any such act for its end, e.g. to walk, | |
| 3184 to speak, and so forth. Secondly, an act is said to belong to a virtue formally, because its very name implies the form and | |
| 3185 nature of virtue; thus to suffer courageously is an act of courage. Now the formal | |
| 3186 element in every moral virtue is the observance of a mean. wherefore every act that implies the observance of a mean is formally | |
| 3187 an act of virtue. And since equality is the mean implied in the name of satisfaction (for a thing is said to be satisfied | |
| 3188 by reason of an equal proportion to something), it is evident that satisfaction also is formally an act of virtue. | |
| 3189 </p> | |
| 3190 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p8"> | |
| 3191 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although to make satisfaction is due in itself, yet, in so far as the deed is done voluntarily by the one who offers satisfaction, | |
| 3192 it becomes something gratuitous on the part of the agent, so that he makes a virtue of necessity. For debt diminishes merit | |
| 3193 through being necessary and consequently against the will, so that if the will consent to the necessity, the element of merit | |
| 3194 is not forfeited. | |
| 3195 </p> | |
| 3196 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p9"> | |
| 3197 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> An act of virtue demands voluntariness not in the patient but in the agent, for it is his act. Consequently since he on whom | |
| 3198 the judge wreaks vengeance is the patient and not the agent as regards satisfaction, it follows that satisfaction should be | |
| 3199 voluntary not in him but in the judge as agent. | |
| 3200 </p> | |
| 3201 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p10"> | |
| 3202 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The chief element of virtue can be understood in two ways. First, as being the chief element of virtue as virtue, and thus | |
| 3203 the chief element of virtue denotes whatever belongs to the nature of virtue or is most akin thereto; thus choice and other | |
| 3204 internal acts hold the chief place in virtue. Secondly, the chief element of virtue may be taken as denoting that which holds | |
| 3205 the first place in such and such a virtue; and then the first place belongs to | |
| 3206 that which gives its determination. Now the interior act, in certain virtues, is determined by some external act, since choice, | |
| 3207 which is common to all virtues, becomes proper to such and such a virtue through being directed to such and such an act. Thus | |
| 3208 it is that external acts hold the chief place in certain virtues; and this is the case with satisfaction. | |
| 3209 </p> | |
| 3210 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 3211 <p id="XP_Q12_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 3212 <a href="summa.XP_Q12.html"></a> | |
| 3213 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3214 </div> | |
| 3215 <div id="XP_Q12_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 3216 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3217 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3218 <h4 id="XP_Q12_A2-p0.1">Whether satisfaction is an act of justice?</h4> | |
| 3219 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 3220 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p2"> | |
| 3221 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that satisfaction is not an act of justice. Because the purpose of satisfaction is that one may be reconciled | |
| 3222 to the person offended. But reconciliation, being an act of love, belongs to charity. Therefore satisfaction is an act of | |
| 3223 charity and not of justice. | |
| 3224 </p> | |
| 3225 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p3"> | |
| 3226 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the causes of sin in us are the passions of the soul, which incline us to evil. But justice, according to the Philosopher | |
| 3227 (Ethic. v, 2,3), is not about passions, but about operations. Since therefore satisfaction aims at removing the causes of | |
| 3228 sin, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 15), it seems that it is not an act of justice. | |
| 3229 </p> | |
| 3230 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p4"> | |
| 3231 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to be careful about the future is not an act of justice but of prudence of which caution is a part. But it belongs | |
| 3232 to satisfaction, "to give no opening to the suggestions of sin" [*Cf. XP/Q[12]/A[3]/OBJ[1]]. Therefore satisfaction is not | |
| 3233 an act of justice. | |
| 3234 </p> | |
| 3235 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p5"> | |
| 3236 <b>On the contrary,</b> No virtue but justice considers the notion of that which is due. But satisfaction gives due honor to God, as Anselm states | |
| 3237 (Cur Deus Homo i). Therefore satisfaction is an act of justice. | |
| 3238 </p> | |
| 3239 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p6"> Further, no virtue save justice establishes equality between external things. But this is done by satisfaction which establishes | |
| 3240 equality between amendment and the previous offense. Therefore satisfaction is an act of justice. | |
| 3241 </p> | |
| 3242 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p7"> | |
| 3243 <b>I answer that,</b> According to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 3,4), the mean of justice is considered with regard to an equation between thing | |
| 3244 and thing according to a certain proportion. Wherefore, since the very name of satisfaction implies an equation of the kind, | |
| 3245 because the adverb "satis" [enough] denotes an equality of proportion, it is evident that satisfaction is formally an act | |
| 3246 of justice. Now the act of justice, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 2,4), is either an | |
| 3247 act done by one man to another, as when a man pays another what he owes him, or an act done by one man between two others, | |
| 3248 as when a judge does justice between two men. When it is an act of justice of one man to another, the equality is set up in | |
| 3249 the agent, while when it is something done between two others, the equality is set up in the subject that has suffered an | |
| 3250 injustice. And since satisfaction expresses equality in the agent, it denotes, properly speaking, an act of justice of one | |
| 3251 man to | |
| 3252 another. Now a man may do justice to another either in actions and passions or in external things; even as one may do an injustice | |
| 3253 to another, either by taking something away, or by a hurtful action. And since to give is to use an external thing, the act | |
| 3254 of justice, in so far as it establishes equality between external things, signifies, properly speaking, a giving back: but | |
| 3255 to make satisfaction clearly points to equality between actions, although sometimes one is put for the other. Now | |
| 3256 equalization concerns only such things as are unequal, wherefore satisfaction presupposes inequality among actions, which | |
| 3257 inequality constitutes an offense; so that satisfaction regards a previous offense. But no part of justice regards a previous | |
| 3258 offense, except vindictive justice, which establishes equality indifferently, whether the patient be the same subject as the | |
| 3259 agent, as when anyone punishes himself, or whether they be distinct, as when a judge punishes another man, since vindictive | |
| 3260 justice deals with both cases. The same applies to penance, which implies equality in the agent only, since it is the penitent | |
| 3261 who holds to the penance [poenam tenet], so that penance is in a way a species of vindictive justice. This proves that satisfaction, | |
| 3262 which implies equality in the agent with respect to a previous offense, is a work of justice, as to that part which is called | |
| 3263 penance. | |
| 3264 </p> | |
| 3265 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p8"> | |
| 3266 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Satisfaction, as appears from what has been said, is compensation for injury inflicted. Wherefore as the injury inflicted | |
| 3267 entailed of itself an inequality of justice, and consequently an inequality opposed to friendship, so satisfaction brings | |
| 3268 back directly equality of justice, and consequently equality of friendship. And since an act is elicited by the habit to whose | |
| 3269 end it is immediately directed, but is commanded by that habit to whose end it is | |
| 3270 directed ultimately, hence satisfaction is elicited by justice but is commanded by charity. | |
| 3271 </p> | |
| 3272 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p9"> | |
| 3273 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although justice is chiefly about operations, yet it is consequently about passions, in so far as they are the causes of | |
| 3274 operations. Wherefore as justice curbs anger, lest it inflict an unjust injury on another, and concupiscence from invading | |
| 3275 another's marriage right, so satisfaction removes the causes of other sins. | |
| 3276 </p> | |
| 3277 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p10"> | |
| 3278 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Each moral virtue shares in the act of prudence, because this virtue completes in it the conditions essential to virtue, | |
| 3279 since each moral virtue takes its mean according to the ruling of prudence, as is evident from the definition of virtue given | |
| 3280 in Ethic. ii, 6. | |
| 3281 </p> | |
| 3282 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 3283 <p id="XP_Q12_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 3284 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3285 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3286 </div> | |
| 3287 <div id="XP_Q12_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 3288 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3289 <a href="summa.XP_Q13.html"></a> | |
| 3290 <h4 id="XP_Q12_A3-p0.1">Whether the definition of satisfaction given in the text is suitable?</h4> | |
| 3291 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 3292 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p2"> | |
| 3293 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the definition of satisfaction given in the text (Sent. iv, D, 15) and quoted from Augustine [*Gennadius | |
| 3294 Massiliensis, De Eccl. Dogm. liv] is unsuitable---viz. that "satisfaction is to uproot the causes of sins, and to give no | |
| 3295 opening to the suggestions thereof." For the cause of actual sin is the fomes. [*"Fomes" signifies literally "fuel," and metaphorically, | |
| 3296 "incentive." As used by the theologian, it denotes the quasi-material element and | |
| 3297 effect of original sin, and sometimes goes under the name of "concupiscence," Cf. | |
| 3298 <a id="XP_Q12_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q82_A3.html">FS, Q[82], A[3]</a>.] But we cannot remove the "fomes" in this life. Therefore satisfaction does not consist in removing the causes of sins. | |
| 3299 </p> | |
| 3300 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p3"> | |
| 3301 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the cause of sin is stronger than sin itself. But man by himself cannot remove sin. Much less therefore can he remove | |
| 3302 the cause of sin; and so the same conclusion follows. | |
| 3303 </p> | |
| 3304 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p4"> | |
| 3305 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, since satisfaction is a part of Penance, it regards the past and not the future. Now "to give no opening to the | |
| 3306 suggestions of sin" regards the future. Therefore it should not be put in the definition of satisfaction. | |
| 3307 </p> | |
| 3308 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p5"> | |
| 3309 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, satisfaction regards a past offense. Yet no mention is made of this. Therefore the definition of satisfaction is | |
| 3310 unsuitable. | |
| 3311 </p> | |
| 3312 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p6"> | |
| 3313 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Anselm gives another definition (Cur Deus homo i): "Satisfaction consists in giving God due honor," wherein no reference | |
| 3314 is made to the things mentioned by Augustine [*Gennadius, OBJ[1]] in this definition. Therefore one or the other is unsuitable. | |
| 3315 </p> | |
| 3316 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p7"> | |
| 3317 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, an innocent man can give due honor to God: whereas satisfaction is not compatible with innocence. Therefore Anselm's | |
| 3318 definition is faulty. | |
| 3319 </p> | |
| 3320 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p8"> | |
| 3321 <b>I answer that,</b> Justice aims not only at removing inequality already existing, by punishing the past fault, but also at safeguarding equality | |
| 3322 for the future, because according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3) "punishments are medicinal." Wherefore satisfaction which | |
| 3323 is the act of justice inflicting punishment, is a medicine healing past sins and preserving from future sins: so that when | |
| 3324 one man makes satisfaction to another, he offers compensation for the past, and takes | |
| 3325 heed for the future. Accordingly satisfaction may be defined in two ways, first with regard to past sin, which it heals by | |
| 3326 making compensation, and thus it is defined as "compensation for an inflicted injury according to the equality of justice." | |
| 3327 The definition of Anselm amounts to the same, for he says that "satisfaction consists in giving God due honor"; where duty | |
| 3328 is considered in respect of the sin committed. Secondly, satisfaction may be defined, considered as preserving us from future | |
| 3329 sins; and as Augustine (Cf. OBJ[1]) defines it. Now preservation from bodily sickness is assured by removing the causes from | |
| 3330 which the sickness may ensue, for if they be taken away the sickness cannot follow. But it is not thus in spiritual diseases, | |
| 3331 for the free-will cannot be forced, so that even in the presence of their causes, they can, though with difficulty, be avoided, | |
| 3332 while they can be incurred even when their causes are removed. Hence he puts two things in the definition of | |
| 3333 satisfaction, viz. removal of the causes, as to the first, and the free-will's refusal to sin. | |
| 3334 </p> | |
| 3335 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p9"> | |
| 3336 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By "causes" we must understand the proximate causes of actual sin, which are twofold: viz. the lust of sin through the habit | |
| 3337 or act of a sin that has been given up, and those things which are called the remnants of past sin; and external occasions | |
| 3338 of sin, such as place, bad company and so forth. Such causes are removed by satisfaction in this life, albeit the "fomes," | |
| 3339 which is the remote cause of actual sin, is not entirely removed by satisfaction in | |
| 3340 this life though it is weakened. | |
| 3341 </p> | |
| 3342 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p10"> | |
| 3343 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Since the cause of evil or of privation (according as it has a cause) is nothing else than a defective good, and since it | |
| 3344 is easier to destroy good than to set it up, it follows that it is easier to uproot the causes of privation and of evil than | |
| 3345 to remove the evil itself, which can only be removed by setting up good, as may be seen in the case of blindness and its causes. | |
| 3346 Yet the aforesaid are not sufficient causes of sin, for sin does not, of | |
| 3347 necessity, ensue therefrom, but they are occasions of sin. Nor again can satisfaction be made without God's help, since it | |
| 3348 is not possible without charity, as we shall state further on ( | |
| 3349 <a id="XP_Q12_A3-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q14_A2.html">Q[14], A[2]</a>). | |
| 3350 </p> | |
| 3351 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p11"> | |
| 3352 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although Penance was primarily instituted and intended with a view to the past, yet, as a consequence, it regards the future, | |
| 3353 in so far as it is a safeguarding remedy; and the same applies to satisfaction. | |
| 3354 </p> | |
| 3355 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p12"> | |
| 3356 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Augustine [*Gennadius Massiliensis, De Eccl. Dogm. liv] defined satisfaction, as made to God, from Whom, in reality, nothing | |
| 3357 can be taken, though the sinner, for his own part, takes something away. Consequently in such like satisfaction, amendment | |
| 3358 for future time is of greater weight than compensation for the past. Hence Augustine defines satisfaction from this point | |
| 3359 of view. And yet it is possible to gauge the compensation for the past from the heed | |
| 3360 taken for the future, for the latter regards the same object as the former, but in the opposite way: since when looking at | |
| 3361 the past we detest the causes of sins on account of the sins themselves, which are the starting-point of the movement of detestation: | |
| 3362 whereas when taking heed of the future, we begin from the causes, that by their removal we may avoid sins the more easily. | |
| 3363 </p> | |
| 3364 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p13"> | |
| 3365 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> There is no reason why the same thing should not be described in different ways according to the various things found in | |
| 3366 it: and such is the case here, as explained above. | |
| 3367 </p> | |
| 3368 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p14"> | |
| 3369 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> By debt is meant the debt we owe to God by reason of the sins we have committed, because Penance regards a debt, as stated | |
| 3370 above | |
| 3371 <a id="XP_Q12_A3-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q12_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. | |
| 3372 </p> | |
| 3373 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p15"></p> | |
| 3374 <p id="XP_Q12_A3-p16"></p> | |
| 3375 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3376 <a href="summa.XP_Q13.html"></a> | |
| 3377 </div> | |
| 3378 <a href="summa.XP_Q11_A5.html"></a> | |
| 3379 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3380 </div> | |
| 3381 <div id="XP_Q13" class="div3"> | |
| 3382 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3383 <a href="summa.XP_Q13_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3384 <h3 id="XP_Q13-p0.1">OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 3385 <p id="XP_Q13-p1"></p> | |
| 3386 <p id="XP_Q13-p2"> We must now consider the possibility of satisfaction, under which head there are two points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 3387 <p id="XP_Q13-p3"> (1) Whether man can make satisfaction to God?</p> | |
| 3388 <p id="XP_Q13-p4"> (2) Whether one man can make satisfaction for another?</p> | |
| 3389 <div id="XP_Q13_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 3390 <a href="summa.XP_Q13.html"></a> | |
| 3391 <a href="summa.XP_Q13_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3392 <h4 id="XP_Q13_A1-p0.1">Whether man can make satisfaction to God?</h4> | |
| 3393 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 3394 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p2"> | |
| 3395 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that man cannot make satisfaction to God. For satisfaction should balance the offense, as shown above ( | |
| 3396 <a id="XP_Q13_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q12_A2.html">Q[12], AA[2]</a>,3). But an offense against God is infinite, since it is measured by the person against whom it is committed, for it is a | |
| 3397 greater offense to strike a prince than anyone else. Therefore, as no action of man can be infinite, it seems that he cannot | |
| 3398 make satisfaction to God. | |
| 3399 </p> | |
| 3400 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p3"> | |
| 3401 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a slave cannot make compensation for a debt, since all that he has is his master's. But we are the slaves of God, | |
| 3402 and whatever good we have, we owe to Him. Therefore, as satisfaction is compensation for a past offense, it seems that we | |
| 3403 cannot offer it to God. | |
| 3404 </p> | |
| 3405 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p4"> | |
| 3406 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if all that a man has suffices not to pay one debt, he cannot pay another debt. Now all that man is, all that he | |
| 3407 can do, and all that he has, does not suffice to pay what he owes for the blessing of creation, wherefore it is written ( | |
| 3408 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q13_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.40.16" target="asv">Is. 40:16</a>) that "the wood of Libanus shall not be enough for a burnt offering [*Vulg.: 'Libanus shall not be enough to burn, nor the | |
| 3409 beasts thereof for a burnt offering']." Therefore by no means can | |
| 3410 he make satisfaction for the debt resulting from the offense committed. | |
| 3411 </p> | |
| 3412 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p5"> | |
| 3413 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, man is bound to spend all his time in the service of God. Now time once lost cannot be recovered, wherefore, as | |
| 3414 Seneca observes (Lib. i, Ep. i, ad Lucilium) loss of time is a very grievous matter. Therefore man cannot make compensation | |
| 3415 to God, and the same conclusion follows as before. | |
| 3416 </p> | |
| 3417 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p6"> | |
| 3418 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, mortal actual sin is more grievous than original sin. But none could satisfy for original sin unless he were both | |
| 3419 God and man. Neither, therefore, can he satisfy for actual sin. | |
| 3420 </p> | |
| 3421 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p7"> | |
| 3422 <b>On the contrary,</b> Jerome [*Pelagius, Expos. Fidei ad Damasum] says: "Whoever maintains that God has commanded anything impossible to man, let | |
| 3423 him be anathema." But satisfaction is commanded ( | |
| 3424 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q13_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.8" target="asv">Lk. 3:8</a>): "Bring forth . . . fruits worthy of penance." Therefore it is possible to make satisfaction to God. | |
| 3425 </p> | |
| 3426 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p8"> Further, God is more merciful than any man. But it is possible to make satisfaction to a man. Therefore it is possible to | |
| 3427 make satisfaction to God. | |
| 3428 </p> | |
| 3429 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p9"> Further, there is due satisfaction when the punishment balances the fault, since "justice is the same as counterpassion," | |
| 3430 as the Pythagoreans said [*Aristotle, Ethic. v, 5; Cf. | |
| 3431 <a id="XP_Q13_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q61_A4.html">SS, Q[61], A[4]</a>]. Now punishment may equal the pleasure contained in a sin committed. Therefore satisfaction can be made to God. | |
| 3432 </p> | |
| 3433 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p10"> | |
| 3434 <b>I answer that,</b> Man becomes God's debtor in two ways; first, by reason of favors received, secondly, by reason of sin committed: and just | |
| 3435 as thanksgiving or worship or the like regard the debt for favors received, so satisfaction regards the debt for sin committed. | |
| 3436 Now in giving honor to one's parents or to the gods, as indeed the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 14), it is impossible to | |
| 3437 repay them measure for measure, but it suffices that man repay as much as he can, for | |
| 3438 friendship does not demand measure for measure, but what is possible. Yet even this is equal somewhat, viz. according to proportion, | |
| 3439 for as the debt due to God is, in comparison with God, so is what man can do, in comparison with himself, so that in another | |
| 3440 way the form of justice is preserved. It is the same as regards satisfaction. Consequently man cannot make satisfaction to | |
| 3441 God if "satis" [enough] denotes quantitative equality; but he can, if it denote proportionate equality, as explained | |
| 3442 above, and as this suffices for justice, so does it suffice for satisfaction. | |
| 3443 </p> | |
| 3444 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p11"> | |
| 3445 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as the offense derived a certain infinity from the infinity of the Divine majesty, so does satisfaction derive a certain | |
| 3446 infinity from the infinity of Divine mercy, in so far as it is quickened by grace, whereby whatever man is able to repay becomes | |
| 3447 acceptable. Others, however, say that the offense is infinite as regards the aversion, and in this respect it is pardoned | |
| 3448 gratuitously, but that it is finite as turning to a mutable good, in which | |
| 3449 respect it is possible to make satisfaction for it. But this is not to the point, since satisfaction does not answer to sin, | |
| 3450 except as this is an offense against God, which is a matter, not of turning to a creature but of turning away from God. Others | |
| 3451 again say that even as regards the aversion it is possible to make satisfaction for sin in virtue of Christ's merit, which | |
| 3452 was, in a way, infinite. And this comes to the same as what we said before, since grace is given to believers through faith | |
| 3453 in the Mediator. If, however, He were to give grace otherwise, satisfaction would suffice in the way explained above. | |
| 3454 </p> | |
| 3455 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p12"> | |
| 3456 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Man, who was made to God's image, has a certain share of liberty, in so far as he is master of his actions through his free-will; | |
| 3457 so that, through acting by his free-will, he can make satisfaction to God, for though it belongs to God, in so far as it was | |
| 3458 bestowed on him by God, yet it was freely bestowed on him, that he might be his own master, which cannot be said of a slave. | |
| 3459 </p> | |
| 3460 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p13"> | |
| 3461 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument proves that it is impossible to make equivalent satisfaction to God, but not that it is impossible to make | |
| 3462 sufficient satisfaction to Him. For though man owes God all that he is able to give Him, yet it is not necessary for his salvation | |
| 3463 that he should actually do the whole of what he is able to do, for it is impossible for him, according to his present state | |
| 3464 of life, to put forth his whole power into any one single thing, since he has | |
| 3465 to be heedful about many things. And so his conduct is subject to a certain measure, viz. the fulfillment of God's commandments, | |
| 3466 over and above which he can offer something by way of satisfaction. | |
| 3467 </p> | |
| 3468 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p14"> | |
| 3469 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Though man cannot recover the time that is past, he can in the time that follows make compensation for what he should have | |
| 3470 done in the past, since the commandment did not exact from him the fulfillment of his whole power, as stated above (ad 3). | |
| 3471 </p> | |
| 3472 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p15"> | |
| 3473 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Though original sin has less of the nature of sin than actual sin has, yet it is a more grievous evil, because it is an infection | |
| 3474 of human nature itself, so that, unlike actual sin, it could not be expiated by the satisfaction of a mere man. | |
| 3475 </p> | |
| 3476 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p16"></p> | |
| 3477 <p id="XP_Q13_A1-p17"></p> | |
| 3478 <a href="summa.XP_Q13.html"></a> | |
| 3479 <a href="summa.XP_Q13_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3480 </div> | |
| 3481 <div id="XP_Q13_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 3482 <a href="summa.XP_Q13_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3483 <a href="summa.XP_Q14.html"></a> | |
| 3484 <h4 id="XP_Q13_A2-p0.1">Whether one man can fulfill satisfactory punishment for another? </h4> | |
| 3485 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 3486 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p2"> | |
| 3487 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one man cannot fulfill satisfactory punishment for another. Because merit is requisite for satisfaction. | |
| 3488 Now one man cannot merit or demerit for another, since it is written ( | |
| 3489 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q13_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.61.12" target="asv">Ps. 61:12</a>): "Thou wilt render to every man according to his works." Therefore one man cannot make satisfaction for another. | |
| 3490 </p> | |
| 3491 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p3"> | |
| 3492 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, satisfaction is condivided with contrition and confession. But one man cannot be contrite or confess for another. | |
| 3493 Neither therefore can one make satisfaction for another. | |
| 3494 </p> | |
| 3495 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p4"> | |
| 3496 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by praying for another one merits also for oneself. If therefore a man can make satisfaction for another, he satisfies | |
| 3497 for himself by satisfying for another, so that if a man satisfy for another he need not make satisfaction for his own sins. | |
| 3498 </p> | |
| 3499 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p5"> | |
| 3500 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if one can satisfy for another, as soon as he takes the debt of punishment on himself, this other is freed from | |
| 3501 his debt. Therefore the latter will go straight to heaven, if he die after the whole of his debt of punishment has been taken | |
| 3502 up by another; else, if he be punished all the same, a double punishment will be paid for the same sin, viz. by him who has | |
| 3503 begun to make satisfaction, and by him who is punished in Purgatory. | |
| 3504 </p> | |
| 3505 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p6"> | |
| 3506 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 3507 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q13_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.6.2" target="asv">Gal. 6:2</a>): "Bear ye one another's burdens." Therefore it seems that one can bear the burden of punishment laid upon another. | |
| 3508 </p> | |
| 3509 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p7"> Further, charity avails more before God than before man. Now before man, one can pay another's debt for love of him. Much | |
| 3510 more, therefore, can this be done before the judgment seat of God. | |
| 3511 </p> | |
| 3512 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p8"> | |
| 3513 <b>I answer that,</b> Satisfactory punishment has a twofold purpose, viz. to pay the debt, and to serve as a remedy for the avoidance of sin. Accordingly, | |
| 3514 as a remedy against future sin, the satisfaction of one does not profit another, for the flesh of one man is not tamed by | |
| 3515 another's fast; nor does one man acquire the habit of well-doing, through the actions of another, except accidentally, in | |
| 3516 so far as a man, by his good actions, may merit an increase of grace for another, | |
| 3517 since grace is the most efficacious remedy for the avoidance of sin. But this is by way of merit rather than of satisfaction. | |
| 3518 on the other hand, as regards the payment of the debt, one man can satisfy for another, provided he be in a state of charity, | |
| 3519 so that his works may avail for satisfaction. Nor is it necessary that he who satisfies for another should undergo a greater | |
| 3520 punishment than the principal would have to undergo (as some maintain, who argue that a man profits more by his own | |
| 3521 punishment than by another's), because punishment derives its power of satisfaction chiefly from charity whereby man bears | |
| 3522 it. And since greater charity is evidenced by a man satisfying for another than for himself, less punishment is required of | |
| 3523 him who satisfies for another, than of the principal: wherefore we read in the Lives of the Fathers (v, 5) of one who for | |
| 3524 love of his brother did penance for a sin which his brother had not committed, and that on account of his charity his brother | |
| 3525 was | |
| 3526 released from a sin which he had committed. Nor is it necessary that the one for whom satisfaction is made should be unable | |
| 3527 to make satisfaction himself, for even if he were able, he would be released from his debt when the other satisfied in his | |
| 3528 stead. But this is necessary in so far as the satisfactory punishment is medicinal: so that a man is not to be allowed to | |
| 3529 do penance for another, unless there be evidence of some defect in the penitent, either bodily, so that he is unable to bear | |
| 3530 it, | |
| 3531 or spiritual, so that he is not ready to undergo it. | |
| 3532 </p> | |
| 3533 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p9"> | |
| 3534 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The essential reward is bestowed on a man according to his disposition, because the fulness of the sight of God will be according | |
| 3535 to the capacity of those who see Him. Wherefore just as one man is not disposed thereto by another's act, so one man does | |
| 3536 not merit the essential reward for another, unless his merit has infinite efficacy, as the merit of Christ, whereby children | |
| 3537 come to eternal life through Baptism. On the other hand, the temporal | |
| 3538 punishment due to sin after the guilt has been forgiven is not measured according to the disposition of the man to whom it | |
| 3539 is due, since sometimes the better man owes a greater debt of punishment. Consequently one man can merit for another as regards | |
| 3540 release from punishment, and one man's act becomes another's, by means of charity whereby we are "all one in Christ" ( | |
| 3541 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q13_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.28" target="asv">Gal. 3:28</a>). | |
| 3542 </p> | |
| 3543 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p10"> | |
| 3544 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Contrition is ordained against the guilt which affects a man's disposition to goodness or malice, so that one man is not | |
| 3545 freed from guilt by another's contrition. In like manner by confession a man submits to the sacraments of the Church: nor | |
| 3546 can one man receive a sacrament instead of another, since in a sacrament grace is given to the recipient, not to another. | |
| 3547 Consequently there is no comparison between satisfaction and contrition and | |
| 3548 confession. | |
| 3549 </p> | |
| 3550 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p11"> | |
| 3551 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In the payment of the debt we consider the measure of the punishment, whereas in merit we regard the root which is charity: | |
| 3552 wherefore he that, through charity, merits for another, at least congruously, merits more for himself; yet he that satisfies | |
| 3553 for another does not also satisfy for himself, because the measure of the punishment does not suffice for the sins of both, | |
| 3554 although by satisfying for another he merits something greater than the release | |
| 3555 from punishment, viz. eternal life. | |
| 3556 </p> | |
| 3557 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p12"> | |
| 3558 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> If this man bound himself to undergo a certain punishment, he would not be released from the debt before paying it: wherefore | |
| 3559 he himself will suffer the punishment, as long as the other makes satisfaction for him: and if he do not this, then both are | |
| 3560 debtors in respect of fulfilling this punishment, one for the sin committed, the other for his omission, so that it does not | |
| 3561 follow that one sin is twice punished. | |
| 3562 </p> | |
| 3563 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 3564 <p id="XP_Q13_A2-p14"></p> | |
| 3565 <a href="summa.XP_Q13_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3566 <a href="summa.XP_Q14.html"></a> | |
| 3567 </div> | |
| 3568 <a href="summa.XP_Q12_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3569 <a href="summa.XP_Q13_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3570 </div> | |
| 3571 <div id="XP_Q14" class="div3"> | |
| 3572 <a href="summa.XP_Q13_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3573 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3574 <h3 id="XP_Q14-p0.1">OF THE QUALITY OF SATISFACTION (FIVE ARTICLES) </h3> | |
| 3575 <p id="XP_Q14-p1"></p> | |
| 3576 <p id="XP_Q14-p2"> We must now consider the quality of satisfaction, under which head there are five points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 3577 <p id="XP_Q14-p3"> (1) Whether a man can satisfy for one sin without satisfying for another?</p> | |
| 3578 <p id="XP_Q14-p4"> (2) Whether if a man fall into sin after being contrite for all his sins, he can, now that he has lost charity, satisfy for | |
| 3579 his other sins which were pardoned him through his contrition? | |
| 3580 </p> | |
| 3581 <p id="XP_Q14-p5"> (3) Whether a man's previous satisfaction begins to avail when he recovers charity?</p> | |
| 3582 <p id="XP_Q14-p6"> (4) Whether works done without charity merit any good?</p> | |
| 3583 <p id="XP_Q14-p7"> (5) Whether such works avail for the mitigation of the pains of hell?</p> | |
| 3584 <div id="XP_Q14_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 3585 <a href="summa.XP_Q14.html"></a> | |
| 3586 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3587 <h4 id="XP_Q14_A1-p0.1">Whether a man can satisfy for one sin without satisfying for another?</h4> | |
| 3588 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 3589 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p2"> | |
| 3590 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man can satisfy for one sin without satisfying for another. Because when several things are not connected | |
| 3591 together one can be taken away without another. Now sins are not connected together, else whoever had one would have them | |
| 3592 all. Therefore one sin can be expiated by satisfaction, without another. | |
| 3593 </p> | |
| 3594 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p3"> | |
| 3595 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, God is more merciful than man. But man accepts the payment of one debt without the payment of another. Therefore | |
| 3596 God accepts satisfaction for one sin without the other. | |
| 3597 </p> | |
| 3598 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p4"> | |
| 3599 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 15), "satisfaction is to uproot the causes of sin, and give no opening to the | |
| 3600 suggestions thereof." Now this can be done with regard to one sin and not another, as when a mall curbs his lust and perseveres | |
| 3601 in covetousness. Therefore we can make satisfaction for one sin without satisfying for another. | |
| 3602 </p> | |
| 3603 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p5"> | |
| 3604 <b>On the contrary,</b> The fast of those who fasted "for debates and strifes" ( | |
| 3605 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.58.4" target="asv">Is. 58:4,5</a>) was not acceptable to God, though fasting be a work of satisfaction. Now satisfaction cannot be made save by works that | |
| 3606 are acceptable to God. Therefore he that has a sin on his conscience cannot make satisfaction to God. | |
| 3607 </p> | |
| 3608 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p6"> Further, satisfaction is a remedy for the healing of past sins, and for preserving from future sins, as stated above ( | |
| 3609 <a id="XP_Q14_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q12_A3.html">Q[12], A[3]</a>). But without grace it is impossible to avoid sins. Therefore, since each sin excludes grace, it is not possible to make | |
| 3610 satisfaction for one sin and not for another. | |
| 3611 </p> | |
| 3612 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p7"> | |
| 3613 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have held that it is possible to make satisfaction for one sin and not for another, as the Master states (Sent. iv, | |
| 3614 D, 15). But this cannot be. For since the previous offense has to be removed by satisfaction, the mode of satisfaction must | |
| 3615 needs be consistent with the removal of the offense. Now removal of offense is renewal of friendship: wherefore if there be | |
| 3616 anything to hinder the renewal of friendship there can be no satisfaction. Since, therefore, | |
| 3617 every sin is a hindrance to the friendship of charity, which is the friendship of man for God, it is impossible for man to | |
| 3618 make satisfaction for one sin while holding to another: even as neither would a man make satisfaction to another for a blow, | |
| 3619 if while throwing himself at his feet he were to give him another. | |
| 3620 </p> | |
| 3621 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p8"> | |
| 3622 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As sins are not connected together in some single one, a man can incur one without incurring another; whereas all sins are | |
| 3623 remitted by reason of one same thing, so that the remissions of various sins are connected together. Consequently satisfaction | |
| 3624 cannot be made for one and not for another. | |
| 3625 </p> | |
| 3626 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p9"> | |
| 3627 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When a man is under obligation to another by reason of a debt, the only inequality between them is that which is opposed | |
| 3628 to justice, so that for restitution nothing further is required than that the equality of justice should be reinstated, and | |
| 3629 this can be done in respect of one debt without another. But when the obligation is based on an offense, there is inequality | |
| 3630 not only of justice but also of friendship, so that for the offense to be removed by | |
| 3631 satisfaction, not only must the equality of justice be restored by the payment of a punishment equal to the offense, but also | |
| 3632 the equality of friendship must be reinstated, which is impossible so long as an obstacle to friendship remains. | |
| 3633 </p> | |
| 3634 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p10"> | |
| 3635 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By its weight, one sin drags us down to another, as Gregory says (Moral. xxv): so that when a man holds to one sin, he does | |
| 3636 not sufficiently cut himself off from the causes of further sin. | |
| 3637 </p> | |
| 3638 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 3639 <p id="XP_Q14_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 3640 <a href="summa.XP_Q14.html"></a> | |
| 3641 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3642 </div> | |
| 3643 <div id="XP_Q14_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 3644 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3645 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3646 <h4 id="XP_Q14_A2-p0.1">Whether, when deprived of charity, a man can make satisfaction for sins for which he was previously contrite?</h4> | |
| 3647 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 3648 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p2"> | |
| 3649 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that if a man fall into sin after being contrite for all his sins, he can, now that he has lost charity, satisfy | |
| 3650 for his other sins which were already pardoned him through his contrition. For Daniel said to Nabuchodonosor ( | |
| 3651 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.4.24" target="asv">Dan. 4:24</a>): "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Yet he was still a sinner, as is shown by his subsequent punishment. Therefore a man | |
| 3652 can make satisfaction while in a state of sin. | |
| 3653 </p> | |
| 3654 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p3"> | |
| 3655 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred" ( | |
| 3656 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.9.1" target="asv">Eccles. 9:1</a>). If therefore one cannot make satisfaction unless one be in a state of charity, it would be impossible to know whether one | |
| 3657 had made satisfaction, which would be unseemly. | |
| 3658 </p> | |
| 3659 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p4"> | |
| 3660 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man's entire action takes its form from the intention which he had at the beginning. But a penitent is in a state | |
| 3661 of charity when he begins to repent. Therefore his whole subsequent satisfaction will derive its efficacy from the charity | |
| 3662 which quickens his intention. | |
| 3663 </p> | |
| 3664 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p5"> | |
| 3665 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, satisfaction consists in a certain equalization of guilt to punishment. But these things can be equalized even in | |
| 3666 one who is devoid of charity. Therefore, etc. | |
| 3667 </p> | |
| 3668 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p6"> | |
| 3669 <b>On the contrary,</b> "Charity covereth all sins" ( | |
| 3670 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.10.12" target="asv">Prov. 10:12</a>). But satisfaction has the power of blotting out sins. Therefore it is powerless without charity. | |
| 3671 </p> | |
| 3672 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p7"> Further, the chief work of satisfaction is almsdeeds. But alms given by one who is devoid of charity avail nothing, as is | |
| 3673 clearly stated | |
| 3674 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:3</a>, "If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor . . . and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Therefore there | |
| 3675 can be no satisfaction with mortal sin. | |
| 3676 </p> | |
| 3677 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p8"> | |
| 3678 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have said that if, when all a man's sins have been pardoned through contrition, and before he has made satisfaction | |
| 3679 for them, he falls into sin, and then makes satisfaction, such satisfaction will be valid, so that if he die in that sin, | |
| 3680 he will not be punished in hell for the other sins. | |
| 3681 </p> | |
| 3682 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p9"> But this cannot be, because satisfaction requires the reinstatement of friendship and the restoration of the equality of | |
| 3683 justice, the contrary of which destroys friendship, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 1,3). Now in satisfaction made to | |
| 3684 God, the equality is based, not on equivalence but rather on God's acceptation: so that, although the offense be already removed | |
| 3685 by previous contrition, the works of satisfaction must be acceptable to God, and for this they are dependent | |
| 3686 on charity. Consequently works done without charity are not satisfactory. | |
| 3687 </p> | |
| 3688 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p10"> | |
| 3689 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Daniel's advice meant that he should give up sin and repent, and so make satisfaction by giving alms. | |
| 3690 </p> | |
| 3691 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p11"> | |
| 3692 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even as man knows not for certain whether he had charity when making satisfaction, or whether he has it now, so too he knows | |
| 3693 not for certain whether he made full satisfaction: wherefore it is written ( | |
| 3694 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.5.5" target="asv">Ecclus. 5:5</a>): "Be not without fear about sin forgiven." And yet man need not, on account of that fear, repeat the satisfaction made, | |
| 3695 if he is not conscious of a mortal sin. For although he may not have expiated his punishment by that | |
| 3696 satisfaction, he does not incur the guilt of omission through neglecting to make satisfaction; even as he who receives the | |
| 3697 Eucharist without being conscious of a mortal sin of which he is guilty, does not incur the guilt of receiving unworthily. | |
| 3698 </p> | |
| 3699 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p12"> | |
| 3700 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> His intention was interrupted by his subsequent sin, so that it gives no virtue to the works done after that sin. | |
| 3701 </p> | |
| 3702 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p13"> | |
| 3703 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Sufficient equalization is impossible both as to the Divine acceptation and as to equivalence: so that the argument proves | |
| 3704 nothing. | |
| 3705 </p> | |
| 3706 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p14"></p> | |
| 3707 <p id="XP_Q14_A2-p15"></p> | |
| 3708 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3709 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3710 </div> | |
| 3711 <div id="XP_Q14_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 3712 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3713 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A4.html"></a> | |
| 3714 <h4 id="XP_Q14_A3-p0.1">Whether previous satisfaction begins to avail after man is restored to charity? </h4> | |
| 3715 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 3716 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p2"> | |
| 3717 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that when a man has recovered charity his previous satisfaction begins to avail, because a gloss on | |
| 3718 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.25.25" target="asv"> Lev. 25:25, </a> "If thy brother being impoverished," etc., says that "the fruit of a man's good works should be counted from the time when | |
| 3719 he sinned." But they would not be counted, unless they derived some efficacy from his subsequent charity. Therefore they begin | |
| 3720 to avail after he recovers charity. | |
| 3721 </p> | |
| 3722 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p3"> | |
| 3723 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as the efficacy of satisfaction is hindered by sin, so the efficacy of Baptism is hindered by insincerity. Now Baptism | |
| 3724 begins to avail when insincerity ceases. Therefore satisfaction begins to avail when sin is taken away. | |
| 3725 </p> | |
| 3726 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p4"> | |
| 3727 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if a man is given as a penance for the sins he has committed, to fast for several days, and then, after falling | |
| 3728 again into sin, he completes his penance, he is not told, when he goes to confession a second time, to fast once again. But | |
| 3729 he would be told to do so, if he did not fulfill his duty of satisfaction by them. Therefore his previous works become valid | |
| 3730 unto satisfaction, through his subsequent repentance. | |
| 3731 </p> | |
| 3732 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p5"> | |
| 3733 <b>On the contrary,</b> Works done without charity were not satisfactory, through being dead works. But they are not quickened by penance. Therefore | |
| 3734 they do not begin to be satisfactory. | |
| 3735 </p> | |
| 3736 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p6"> Further, charity does not quicken a work, unless in some way that work proceeds therefrom. But works cannot be acceptable | |
| 3737 to God, and therefore cannot be satisfactory, unless they be quickened by charity. Since then the works done without charity, | |
| 3738 in no way proceeded from charity, nor ever can proceed therefrom, they can by no means count towards satisfaction. | |
| 3739 </p> | |
| 3740 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p7"> | |
| 3741 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have said that works done while in a state of charity, which are called living works, are meritorious in respect of | |
| 3742 eternal life, and satisfactory in respect of paying off the debt of punishment; and that by subsequent charity, works done | |
| 3743 without charity are quickened so as to be satisfactory, but not so as to be meritorious of eternal life. But this is impossible, | |
| 3744 because works done in charity produce both these effects for the same reason, viz. | |
| 3745 because they are pleasing to God: wherefore just as charity by its advent cannot make works done without charity to be pleasing | |
| 3746 in one respect, so neither can it make them pleasing in the other respect. | |
| 3747 </p> | |
| 3748 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p8"> | |
| 3749 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This means that the fruits are reckoned, not from the time when he was first in sin, but from the time when he ceased to | |
| 3750 sin, when, to wit, he was last in sin; unless he was contrite as soon as he had sinned, and did many good actions before he | |
| 3751 confessed. Or we may say that the greater the contrition the more it alleviates the punishment, and the more good actions | |
| 3752 a man does while in sin, the more he disposes himself to the grace of contrition, so | |
| 3753 that it is probable that he owes a smaller debt of punishment. For this reason the priest should use discretion in taking | |
| 3754 them into account, so as to give him a lighter penance, according as he finds him better disposed. | |
| 3755 </p> | |
| 3756 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p9"> | |
| 3757 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Baptism imprints a character on the soul, whereas satisfaction does not. Hence on the advent of charity, which removes both | |
| 3758 insincerity and sin, it causes Baptism to have its effect, whereas it does not do this for satisfaction. Moreover Baptism | |
| 3759 confers justification in virtue of the deed [ex opere operato] which is not man's deed but God's, wherefore it does not become | |
| 3760 a lifeless deed as satisfaction does, which is a deed of man. | |
| 3761 </p> | |
| 3762 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p10"> | |
| 3763 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Sometimes satisfaction is such as to leave an effect in the person who makes satisfaction, even after the act of satisfaction | |
| 3764 has been done; thus fasting leaves the body weak, and almsdeeds result in a diminution of a person's substance, and so on. | |
| 3765 In such cases there is no need to repeat the works of satisfaction if they have been done while in a state of sin, because | |
| 3766 through penance they are acceptable to God in the result they leave behind. But | |
| 3767 when a work of satisfaction leaves behind no effect in the person that does satisfaction, it needs to be repeated, as in the | |
| 3768 case of prayer and so forth. Interior works, since they pass away altogether, are nowise quickened, and must be repeated. | |
| 3769 </p> | |
| 3770 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 3771 <p id="XP_Q14_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 3772 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3773 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A4.html"></a> | |
| 3774 </div> | |
| 3775 <div id="XP_Q14_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 3776 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3777 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A5.html"></a> | |
| 3778 <h4 id="XP_Q14_A4-p0.1">Whether works done without charity merit any, at least temporal, good?</h4> | |
| 3779 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 3780 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p2"> | |
| 3781 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that works done without charity merit some, at least a temporal, good. For as punishment is to the evil act, | |
| 3782 so is reward to a good act. Now no evil deed is unpunished by God the just judge. Therefore no good deed is unrewarded, and | |
| 3783 so every good deed merits some good. | |
| 3784 </p> | |
| 3785 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p3"> | |
| 3786 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, reward is not given except for merit. Now some reward is given for works done without charity, wherefore it is written | |
| 3787 ( | |
| 3788 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.2" target="asv">Mat. 6:2</a>, | |
| 3789 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.5" target="asv">5</a>, | |
| 3790 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A4-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.16" target="asv">16</a>) of those who do good actions for the sake of human glory, that "they have received their reward." Therefore those works | |
| 3791 merit some good. | |
| 3792 </p> | |
| 3793 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p4"> | |
| 3794 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if there be two men both in sin, one of whom does many deeds that are good in themselves and in their circumstances, | |
| 3795 while the other does none, they are not equally near to the reception of good things from Gods else the latter need not be | |
| 3796 advised to do any good deeds. Now he that is nearer to God receives more of His good things. Therefore the former, on account | |
| 3797 of his good works, merits some good from God. | |
| 3798 </p> | |
| 3799 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p5"> | |
| 3800 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says that "the sinner is not worthy of the bread he eats." Therefore he cannot merit anything from God. | |
| 3801 </p> | |
| 3802 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p6"> Further, he that is nothing, can merit nothing. But a sinner, through not having charity, is nothing in respect of spiritual | |
| 3803 being, according to | |
| 3804 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.2" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:2.</a> Therefore he can merit nothing. | |
| 3805 </p> | |
| 3806 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p7"> | |
| 3807 <b>I answer that,</b> Properly speaking a merit is an action on account of which it is just that the agent should be given something. Now justice | |
| 3808 is twofold: first, there is justice properly so called, which regards something due on the part of the recipient. Secondly, | |
| 3809 there is metaphorical justice, so to speak, which regards something due on the part of the giver, for it may be right for | |
| 3810 the giver to give something to which the receiver has no claim. In this sense the "fitness | |
| 3811 of the Divine goodness" is justice; thus Anselm says (Proslog. x) that "God is just when He spares the sinner, because this | |
| 3812 is befitting." And in this way merit is also twofold. The first is an act in respect of which the agent himself has a claim | |
| 3813 to receive something, and this is called merit of "condignity." The second is an act the result of which is that there is | |
| 3814 a duty of giving in the giver by reason of fittingness, wherefore it is called merit of "congruity." Now since in all gratuitous | |
| 3815 givings, the primary reason of the giving is love, it is impossible for anyone, properly speaking, to lay claim to a gift, | |
| 3816 if he lack friendship. Wherefore, as all things, whether temporal or eternal, are bestowed on us by the bounty of God, no | |
| 3817 one can acquire a claim to any of them, save through charity towards God: so that works done without charity are not condignly | |
| 3818 meritorious of any good from God either eternal or temporal. But since it is befitting the goodness of God, that wherever | |
| 3819 He | |
| 3820 finds a disposition He should grant the perfection, a man is said to merit congruously some good by means of good works done | |
| 3821 without charity. Accordingly suchlike works avail for a threefold good, acquisition of temporal goods, disposition to grace, | |
| 3822 habituation to good works. Since, however, this is not merit properly so called, we should grant that such works are not meritorious | |
| 3823 of any good, rather than that they are. | |
| 3824 </p> | |
| 3825 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p8"> | |
| 3826 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14), since no matter what a son may do, he can never give back to his father the | |
| 3827 equal of what he has received from him a father can never become his son's debtor: and much less can man make God his debtor | |
| 3828 on account of equivalence of work. Consequently no work of ours can merit a reward by reason of its measure of goodness, but | |
| 3829 it can by reason of charity, which makes friends hold their possessions in common. | |
| 3830 Therefore, no matter how good a work may be, if it be done without charity, it does not give man a claim to receive anything | |
| 3831 from God. On the other hand, an evil deed deserves an equivalent punishment according to the measure of its malice, because | |
| 3832 no evil has been done to us on the part of God, like the good which He has done. Therefore, although an evil deed deserves | |
| 3833 condign punishment, nevertheless a good deed without charity does not merit condign reward. | |
| 3834 </p> | |
| 3835 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p9"> Reply OBJ 2 and 3: These arguments consider merit of congruity; while the other arguments consider merit of condignity.</p> | |
| 3836 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p10"></p> | |
| 3837 <p id="XP_Q14_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 3838 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3839 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A5.html"></a> | |
| 3840 </div> | |
| 3841 <div id="XP_Q14_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 3842 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A4.html"></a> | |
| 3843 <a href="summa.XP_Q15.html"></a> | |
| 3844 <h4 id="XP_Q14_A5-p0.1">Whether the aforesaid works avail for the mitigation of the pains of hell?</h4> | |
| 3845 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 3846 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p2"> | |
| 3847 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the aforesaid works do not avail for the mitigation of the pains of hell. For the measure of punishment | |
| 3848 in hell will answer to the measure of guilt. But works done without charity do not diminish the measure of guilt. Neither, | |
| 3849 therefore, do they lessen the pains of hell. | |
| 3850 </p> | |
| 3851 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p3"> | |
| 3852 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the pain of hell, though infinite in duration, is nevertheless finite in intensity. Now anything finite is done | |
| 3853 away with by finite subtraction. If therefore works done without charity canceled any of the punishment due for sins, those | |
| 3854 works might be so numerous, that the pain of hell would be done away with altogether: which is false. | |
| 3855 </p> | |
| 3856 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p4"> | |
| 3857 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the suffrages of the Church are more efficacious than works done without charity. But, according to Augustine (Enchiridion | |
| 3858 cx), "the suffrages of the Church do not profit the damned in hell." Much less therefore are those pains mitigated by works | |
| 3859 done without charity. | |
| 3860 </p> | |
| 3861 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p5"> | |
| 3862 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine also says (Enchiridion cx): "Whomsoever they profit, either receive a full pardon, or at least find damnation itself | |
| 3863 more tolerable." | |
| 3864 </p> | |
| 3865 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p6"> Further, it is a greater thing to do a good deed than to omit an evil deed. But the omission of an evil deed always avoids | |
| 3866 a punishment, even in one who lacks charity. Much more, therefore, do good deeds void punishment. | |
| 3867 </p> | |
| 3868 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p7"> | |
| 3869 <b>I answer that,</b> Mitigation of the pains of hell can be understood in two ways: first, as though one were delivered from the punishment which | |
| 3870 he already deserved, and thus, since no one is delivered from punishment unless he be absolved from guilt, (for an effect | |
| 3871 is not diminished or taken away unless its cause be diminished or taken away), the pain of hell cannot be mitigated by works | |
| 3872 done without charity, since they are unable to remove or diminish guilt. Secondly, so that | |
| 3873 the demerit of punishment is hindered; and thus the aforesaid works diminish the pain of hell---first because he who does | |
| 3874 such works escapes being guilty of omitting them---secondly, because such works dispose one somewhat to good, so that a man | |
| 3875 sins from less contempt, and indeed is drawn away from many sins thereby. | |
| 3876 </p> | |
| 3877 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p8"> These works do, however merit a diminution or postponement of temporal punishment, as in the case of Achab ( | |
| 3878 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q14_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 21:27, </a> seqq.), as also the acquisition of temporal goods. | |
| 3879 </p> | |
| 3880 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p9"> Some, however, say that they mitigate the pains of hell, not by subtracting any of their substance, but by strengthening | |
| 3881 the subject, so that he is more able to bear them. But this is impossible, because there is no strengthening without a diminution | |
| 3882 of passibility. Now passibility is according to the measure of guilt, wherefore if guilt is not removed, neither can the subject | |
| 3883 be strengthened. | |
| 3884 </p> | |
| 3885 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p10"> Some again say that the punishment is mitigated as to the remorse of conscience, though not as to the pain of fire. But neither | |
| 3886 will this stand, because as the pain of fire is equal to the guilt, so also is the pain of the remorse of conscience: so that | |
| 3887 what applies to one applies to the other. | |
| 3888 </p> | |
| 3889 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p11"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 3890 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p12"></p> | |
| 3891 <p id="XP_Q14_A5-p13"></p> | |
| 3892 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A4.html"></a> | |
| 3893 <a href="summa.XP_Q15.html"></a> | |
| 3894 </div> | |
| 3895 <a href="summa.XP_Q13_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3896 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3897 </div> | |
| 3898 <div id="XP_Q15" class="div3"> | |
| 3899 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A5.html"></a> | |
| 3900 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3901 <h3 id="XP_Q15-p0.1">OF THE MEANS OF MAKING SATISFACTION (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 3902 <p id="XP_Q15-p1"></p> | |
| 3903 <p id="XP_Q15-p2"> We must now consider the means of making satisfaction, under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 3904 <p id="XP_Q15-p3"> (1) Whether satisfaction must be made by means of penal works?</p> | |
| 3905 <p id="XP_Q15-p4"> (2) Whether the scourges whereby God punishes man in this life, are satisfactory?</p> | |
| 3906 <p id="XP_Q15-p5"> (3) Whether the works of satisfaction are suitably reckoned, by saying that there are three, viz. almsdeeds, fasting, and | |
| 3907 prayer? | |
| 3908 </p> | |
| 3909 <div id="XP_Q15_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 3910 <a href="summa.XP_Q15.html"></a> | |
| 3911 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3912 <h4 id="XP_Q15_A1-p0.1">Whether satisfaction must be made by means of penal works?</h4> | |
| 3913 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 3914 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p2"> | |
| 3915 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that satisfaction need not be made by means of penal works. For satisfaction should make compensation for the | |
| 3916 offense committed against God. Now, seemingly, no compensation is given to God by penal works, for God does not delight in | |
| 3917 our sufferings, as appears from | |
| 3918 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Tob.3.22" target="asv"> Tob. 3:22.</a> Therefore satisfaction need not be made by means of penal works. | |
| 3919 </p> | |
| 3920 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p3"> | |
| 3921 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the greater the charity from which a work proceeds, the less penal is that work, for "charity hath no pain [*Vulg.: | |
| 3922 'Perfect charity casteth out fear, because fear hath pain']" according to | |
| 3923 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.4.18" target="asv">1 Jn. 4:18</a>. If therefore works of satisfaction need to be penal, the more they proceed from charity, the less satisfactory will they | |
| 3924 be: which is false. | |
| 3925 </p> | |
| 3926 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p4"> | |
| 3927 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "Satisfaction," as Anselm states (Cur Deus homo i) "consists in giving due honor to God." But this can be done by | |
| 3928 other means than penal works. Therefore satisfaction needs not to be made by means of penal works. | |
| 3929 </p> | |
| 3930 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p5"> | |
| 3931 <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xx): "It is just that the sinner, by his repentance, should inflict on himself so much the greater | |
| 3932 suffering, as he has brought greater harm on himself by his sin." | |
| 3933 </p> | |
| 3934 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p6"> Further, the wound caused by sin should be perfectly healed by satisfaction. Now punishment is the remedy for sins, as the | |
| 3935 Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3). Therefore satisfaction should be made by means of penal works. | |
| 3936 </p> | |
| 3937 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p7"> | |
| 3938 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( | |
| 3939 <a id="XP_Q15_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q12_A3.html">Q[12], A[3]</a>), satisfaction regards both the past offense, for which compensation is made by its means, and also future sin wherefrom | |
| 3940 we are preserved thereby: and in both respects satisfaction needs to be made by means of penal works. For compensation for | |
| 3941 an offense implies equality, which must needs be between the offender and the person whom he offends. Now equalization in | |
| 3942 human justice consists in taking away from | |
| 3943 one that which he has too much of, and giving it to the person from whom something has been taken. And, although nothing can | |
| 3944 be taken away from God, so far as He is concerned, yet the sinner, for his part, deprives Him of something by sinning as stated | |
| 3945 above ( | |
| 3946 <a id="XP_Q15_A1-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q12_A3.html">Q[12], AA[3]</a>,4). Consequently, in order that compensation be made, something by way of satisfaction that may conduce to the glory of God | |
| 3947 must be taken away from the sinner. Now a good work, as such, does not | |
| 3948 deprive the agent of anything, but perfects him: so that the deprivation cannot be effected by a good work unless it be penal. | |
| 3949 Therefore, in order that a work be satisfactory it needs to be good that it may conduce to God's honor, and it must be penal, | |
| 3950 so that something may be taken away from the sinner thereby. | |
| 3951 </p> | |
| 3952 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p8"> Again punishment preserves from future sin, because a man does not easily fall back into sin when he has had experience of | |
| 3953 the punishment. Wherefore, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3) punishments are medicinal. | |
| 3954 </p> | |
| 3955 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p9"> | |
| 3956 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Though God does not delight in our punishments as such, yet He does, in so far as they are just, and thus they can be satisfactory. | |
| 3957 </p> | |
| 3958 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p10"> | |
| 3959 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as, in satisfaction, we have to note the penality of the work, so, in merit, we must observe its difficulty. Now if | |
| 3960 the difficulty of the work itself be diminished, other things being equal, the merit is also diminished; but if the difficulty | |
| 3961 be diminished on the part of the promptitude of the will, this does not diminish the merit, but increases it; and, in like | |
| 3962 manner, diminution of the penality of a work, on account of the will being made more | |
| 3963 prompt by charity, does not lessen the efficacy of satisfaction, but increases it. | |
| 3964 </p> | |
| 3965 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p11"> | |
| 3966 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> That which is due for sin is compensation for the offense, and this cannot be done without punishment of the sinner. It is | |
| 3967 of this debt that Anselm speaks. | |
| 3968 </p> | |
| 3969 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 3970 <p id="XP_Q15_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 3971 <a href="summa.XP_Q15.html"></a> | |
| 3972 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A2.html"></a> | |
| 3973 </div> | |
| 3974 <div id="XP_Q15_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 3975 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A1.html"></a> | |
| 3976 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A3.html"></a> | |
| 3977 <h4 id="XP_Q15_A2-p0.1">Whether the scourges of the present life are satisfactory?</h4> | |
| 3978 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 3979 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p2"> | |
| 3980 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the scourges whereby we are punished by God in this life, cannot be satisfactory. For nothing but what | |
| 3981 is meritorious can be satisfactory, as is clear from what has been said ( | |
| 3982 <a id="XP_Q15_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q14_A2.html">Q[14], A[2]</a>). But we do not merit except by what is in our own power. Since therefore the scourges with which God punishes us are not | |
| 3983 in our power, it seems that they cannot be satisfactory. | |
| 3984 </p> | |
| 3985 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p3"> | |
| 3986 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, only the good make satisfaction. But these scourges are inflicted on the wicked also, and are deserved by them most | |
| 3987 of all. Therefore they cannot be satisfactory. | |
| 3988 </p> | |
| 3989 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p4"> | |
| 3990 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, satisfaction regards past sins. But these scourges are sometimes inflicted on those who have no sins, as in the | |
| 3991 case of Job. Therefore it seems that they are not satisfactory. | |
| 3992 </p> | |
| 3993 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p5"> | |
| 3994 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 3995 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.3" target="asv">Rom. 5:3,4</a>): "Tribulation worketh patience, and patience trial, i.e. deliverance from sin," as a gloss explains it. | |
| 3996 </p> | |
| 3997 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p6"> Further, Ambrose says (Super | |
| 3998 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118" target="asv">Ps. 118</a>): "Although faith," i.e. the consciousness of sin, "be lacking, the punishment satisfies." Therefore the scourges of this | |
| 3999 life are satisfactory. | |
| 4000 </p> | |
| 4001 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p7"> | |
| 4002 <b>I answer that,</b> Compensation for a past offense can be enforced either by the offender or by another. When it is enforced by another, such | |
| 4003 compensation is of a vindictive rather than of a satisfactory nature, whereas when it is made by the offender, it is also | |
| 4004 satisfactory. Consequently, if the scourges, which are inflicted by God on account of sin, become in some way the act of the | |
| 4005 sufferer they acquire a satisfactory character. Now they become the act of the sufferer in | |
| 4006 so far as he accepts them for the cleansing of his sins, by taking advantage of them patiently. If, however, he refuse to | |
| 4007 submit to them patiently, then they do not become his personal act in any way, and are not of a satisfactory, but merely of | |
| 4008 a vindictive character. | |
| 4009 </p> | |
| 4010 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p8"> | |
| 4011 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although these scourges are not altogether in our power, yet in some respect they are, in so far as we use them patiently. | |
| 4012 In this way man makes a virtue of necessity, so that such things can become both meritorious and satisfactory. | |
| 4013 </p> | |
| 4014 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p9"> | |
| 4015 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei i, 8), even as "the same fire makes gold glisten and straw reek," so by the same scourges | |
| 4016 are the good cleansed and the wicked worsened on account of their impatience. Hence, though the scourges are common to both, | |
| 4017 satisfaction is only on the side of the good. | |
| 4018 </p> | |
| 4019 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p10"> | |
| 4020 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These scourges always regard past guilt, not always the guilt of the person, but sometimes the guilt of nature. For had there | |
| 4021 not been guilt in human nature, there would have been no punishment. But since guilt preceded in nature, punishment is inflicted | |
| 4022 by God on a person without the person's fault, that his virtue may be meritorious, and that he may avoid future sin. Moreover, | |
| 4023 these two things are necessary in satisfaction. For the work needs to be | |
| 4024 meritorious, that honor may be given to God, and it must be a safeguard of virtue, that we may be preserved from future sins. | |
| 4025 </p> | |
| 4026 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 4027 <p id="XP_Q15_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 4028 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4029 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4030 </div> | |
| 4031 <div id="XP_Q15_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 4032 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4033 <a href="summa.XP_Q16.html"></a> | |
| 4034 <h4 id="XP_Q15_A3-p0.1">Whether the works of satisfaction are suitably enumerated?</h4> | |
| 4035 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 4036 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p2"> | |
| 4037 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the works of satisfaction are unsuitably enumerated by saying that there are three, viz. almsdeeds, fasting, | |
| 4038 and prayer. For a work of satisfaction should be penal. But prayer is not penal, since it is a remedy against penal sorrow, | |
| 4039 and is a source of pleasure, wherefore it is written ( | |
| 4040 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.13" target="asv">James 5:13</a>): "Is any of you sad? Let him pray. Is he cheerful in mind? Let him sing." Therefore prayer should not be reckoned among | |
| 4041 the | |
| 4042 works of satisfaction. | |
| 4043 </p> | |
| 4044 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p3"> | |
| 4045 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every sin is either carnal or spiritual. Now, as Jerome says on | |
| 4046 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.9.28" target="asv"> Mk. 9:28, </a> "This kind" of demons "can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting: Diseases of the body are healed by fasting, diseases | |
| 4047 of the mind, by prayer." Therefore no other work of satisfaction is necessary. | |
| 4048 </p> | |
| 4049 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p4"> | |
| 4050 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, satisfaction is necessary in order for us to be cleansed from our sins. But almsgiving cleanses from all sins, according | |
| 4051 to | |
| 4052 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.41" target="asv">Lk. 11:41</a>: "Give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you." Therefore the other two are in excess. | |
| 4053 </p> | |
| 4054 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p5"> | |
| 4055 <b>Objection 4:</b> On the other hand, it seems that there should be more. For contrary heals contrary. But there are many more than three kinds | |
| 4056 of sin. Therefore more works of satisfaction should be enumerated. | |
| 4057 </p> | |
| 4058 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p6"> | |
| 4059 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, pilgrimages and scourgings are also enjoined as works of satisfaction, and are not included among the above. Therefore | |
| 4060 they are not sufficiently enumerated. | |
| 4061 </p> | |
| 4062 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p7"> | |
| 4063 <b>I answer that,</b> Satisfaction should be of such a nature as to involve something taken away from us for the honor of God. Now we have but | |
| 4064 three kinds of goods, bodily, spiritual, and goods of fortune, or external goods. By alms-deeds we deprive ourselves of some | |
| 4065 goods of fortune, and by fasting we retrench goods of the body. As to goods of the soul, there is no need to deprive ourselves | |
| 4066 of any of them, either in whole or in part, since thereby we become acceptable to God, | |
| 4067 but we should submit them entirely to God, which is done by prayer. | |
| 4068 </p> | |
| 4069 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p8"> This number is shown to be suitable in so far as satisfaction uproots the causes of sin, for these are reckoned to be three | |
| 4070 ( | |
| 4071 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.16" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:16</a>), viz. "concupiscence of the flesh," "concupiscence of the eyes," and "pride of life." Fasting is directed against concupiscence | |
| 4072 of the "flesh," alms-deeds against concupiscence of the "eyes," and "prayer" against "pride of life," as Augustine says (Enarr. | |
| 4073 in | |
| 4074 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.42" target="asv">Ps. 42</a>). | |
| 4075 </p> | |
| 4076 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p9"> This number is also shown to be suitable in so far as satisfaction does not open a way to the suggestions of sin, because | |
| 4077 every sin is committed either against God, and this is prevented by "prayer," or against our neighbor, and this is remedied | |
| 4078 by "alms-deeds," or against ourselves, and this is forestalled by "fasting." | |
| 4079 </p> | |
| 4080 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p10"> | |
| 4081 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> According to some, prayer is twofold. There is the prayer of contemplatives whose "conversation is in heaven": and this, | |
| 4082 since it is altogether delightful, is not a work of satisfaction. The other is a prayer which pours forth sighs for sin; this | |
| 4083 is penal and a part of satisfaction. | |
| 4084 </p> | |
| 4085 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p11"> It may also be replied, and better, that every prayer has the character of satisfaction, for though it be sweet to the soul | |
| 4086 it is painful to the body, since, as Gregory says (Super Ezech., Hom. xiv), "doubtless, when our soul's love is strengthened, | |
| 4087 our body's strength is weakened"; hence we read ( | |
| 4088 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q15_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.32.25" target="asv">Gn. 32:25</a>) that the sinew of Jacob's thigh shrank through his wrestling with the angel. | |
| 4089 </p> | |
| 4090 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p12"> | |
| 4091 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Carnal sin is twofold; one which is completed in carnal delectation, as gluttony and lust. and, another which is completed | |
| 4092 in things relating to the flesh, though it be completed in the delectation of the soul rather than of the flesh, as covetousness. | |
| 4093 Hence such like sins are between spiritual and carnal sins, so that they need a satisfaction proper to them, viz. almsdeeds. | |
| 4094 </p> | |
| 4095 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p13"> | |
| 4096 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although each of these three, by a kind of likeness, is appropriated to some particular kind of sin because it is reasonable | |
| 4097 that, whereby a man sins, in that he should be punished, and that satisfaction should cut out the very root of the sin committed, | |
| 4098 yet each of them can satisfy for any kind of sin. Hence if a man is unable to perform one of the above, another is imposed | |
| 4099 on him, chiefly almsdeeds, which can take the place of the others, in so far | |
| 4100 as in those to whom a man gives alms he purchases other works of satisfaction thereby. Consequently even if almsgiving washes | |
| 4101 all sins away, it does not follow that other works are in excess. | |
| 4102 </p> | |
| 4103 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p14"> | |
| 4104 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Though there are many kinds of sins, all are reduced to those three roots or to those three kinds of sin, to which, as we | |
| 4105 have said, the aforesaid works of satisfaction correspond. | |
| 4106 </p> | |
| 4107 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p15"> | |
| 4108 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Whatever relates to affliction of the body is all referred to fasting, and whatever is spent for the benefit of one's neighbor | |
| 4109 is a kind of alms, and whatever act of worship is given to God becomes a kind of prayer, so that even one work can be satisfactory | |
| 4110 in several ways. | |
| 4111 </p> | |
| 4112 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p16"></p> | |
| 4113 <p id="XP_Q15_A3-p17"></p> | |
| 4114 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4115 <a href="summa.XP_Q16.html"></a> | |
| 4116 </div> | |
| 4117 <a href="summa.XP_Q14_A5.html"></a> | |
| 4118 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4119 </div> | |
| 4120 <div id="XP_Q16" class="div3"> | |
| 4121 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4122 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4123 <h3 id="XP_Q16-p0.1">OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 4124 <p id="XP_Q16-p1"></p> | |
| 4125 <p id="XP_Q16-p2"> We must now consider the recipients of the sacrament of Penance: under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 4126 <p id="XP_Q16-p3"> (1) Whether penance can be in the innocent?</p> | |
| 4127 <p id="XP_Q16-p4"> (2) Whether it can be in the saints in glory?</p> | |
| 4128 <p id="XP_Q16-p5"> (3) Whether in the good or bad angels?</p> | |
| 4129 <div id="XP_Q16_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 4130 <a href="summa.XP_Q16.html"></a> | |
| 4131 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4132 <h4 id="XP_Q16_A1-p0.1">Whether penance can be in the innocent?</h4> | |
| 4133 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 4134 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p2"> | |
| 4135 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance cannot be in the innocent. For penance consists in bewailing one's evil deeds: whereas the innocent | |
| 4136 have done no evil. Therefore penance cannot be in them. | |
| 4137 </p> | |
| 4138 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p3"> | |
| 4139 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the very name of penance [poenitentia] implies punishment [poena]. But the innocent do not deserve punishment. Therefore | |
| 4140 penance is not in them. | |
| 4141 </p> | |
| 4142 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p4"> | |
| 4143 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, penance coincides with vindictive justice. But if all were innocent, there would be no room for vindictive justice. | |
| 4144 Therefore there would be no penance, so that there is none in the innocent. | |
| 4145 </p> | |
| 4146 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p5"> | |
| 4147 <b>On the contrary,</b> All the virtues are infused together. But penance is a virtue. Since, therefore, other virtues are infused into the innocent | |
| 4148 at Baptism, penance is infused with them. | |
| 4149 </p> | |
| 4150 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p6"> Further, a man is said to be curable though he has never been sick in body: therefore in like manner, one who has never been | |
| 4151 sick spiritually. Now even as there can be no actual cure from the wound of sin without an act of penance, so is there no | |
| 4152 possibility of cure without the habit of penance. Therefore one who has never had the disease of sin, has the habit of penance. | |
| 4153 </p> | |
| 4154 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p7"> | |
| 4155 <b>I answer that,</b> Habit comes between power and act: and since the removal of what precedes entails the removal of what follows, but not conversely, | |
| 4156 the removal of the habit ensues from the removal of the power to act, but not from the removal of the act. And because removal | |
| 4157 of the matter entails the removal of the act, since there can be no act without the matter into which it passes, hence the | |
| 4158 habit of a virtue is possible in one for whom the matter is not available, for | |
| 4159 the reason that it can be available, so that the habit can proceed to its act---thus a poor man can have the habit of magnificence, | |
| 4160 but not the act, because he is not possessed of great wealth which is the matter of magnificence, but he can be possessed | |
| 4161 thereof. | |
| 4162 </p> | |
| 4163 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p8"> | |
| 4164 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the innocent have committed no sin, nevertheless they can, so that they are competent to have the habit of penance. | |
| 4165 Yet this habit can never proceed to its act, except perhaps with regard to their venial sins, because mortal sins destroy | |
| 4166 the habit. Nevertheless it is not without its purpose, because it is a perfection of the natural power. | |
| 4167 </p> | |
| 4168 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p9"> | |
| 4169 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although they deserve no punishment actually, yet it is possible for something to be in them for which they would deserve | |
| 4170 to be punished. | |
| 4171 </p> | |
| 4172 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p10"> | |
| 4173 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> So long as the power to sin remains, there would be room for vindictive justice as to the habit, though not as to the act, | |
| 4174 if there were no actual sins. | |
| 4175 </p> | |
| 4176 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 4177 <p id="XP_Q16_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 4178 <a href="summa.XP_Q16.html"></a> | |
| 4179 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4180 </div> | |
| 4181 <div id="XP_Q16_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 4182 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4183 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4184 <h4 id="XP_Q16_A2-p0.1">Whether the saints in glory have penance?</h4> | |
| 4185 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 4186 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p2"> | |
| 4187 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the saints in glory have not penance. For, as Gregory says (Moral. iv), "the blessed remember their sins, | |
| 4188 even as we, without grief, remember our griefs after we have been healed." But penance is grief of the heart. Therefore the | |
| 4189 saints in heaven have not penance. | |
| 4190 </p> | |
| 4191 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p3"> | |
| 4192 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the saints in heaven are conformed to Christ. But there was no penance in Christ, since there was no faith which | |
| 4193 is the principle of penance. Therefore there will be no penance in the saints in heaven. | |
| 4194 </p> | |
| 4195 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p4"> | |
| 4196 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a habit is useless if it is not reduced to its act. But the saints in heaven will not repent actually, because, | |
| 4197 if they did, there would be something in them against their wish. Therefore the habit of penance will not be in them. | |
| 4198 </p> | |
| 4199 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p5"> | |
| 4200 <b>Objection 4:</b> On the other hand, penance is a part of justice. But justice is "perpetual and immortal" ( | |
| 4201 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q16_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.1.15" target="asv">Wis. 1:15</a>), and will remain in heaven. Therefore penance will also. | |
| 4202 </p> | |
| 4203 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p6"> | |
| 4204 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, we read in the Lives of the Fathers, that one of them said that even Abraham will repent of not having done more | |
| 4205 good. But one ought to repent of evil done more than of good left undone, and which one was not bound to do, for such is the | |
| 4206 good in question. Therefore repentance will be there of evil done. | |
| 4207 </p> | |
| 4208 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p7"> | |
| 4209 <b>I answer that,</b> The cardinal virtues will remain in heaven, but only as regards the acts which they exercise in respect of their end. Wherefore, | |
| 4210 since the virtue of penance is a part of justice which is a cardinal virtue, whoever has the habit of penance in this life, | |
| 4211 will have it in the life to come: but he will not have the same act as now, but another, viz. thanksgiving to God for His | |
| 4212 mercy in pardoning his sins. | |
| 4213 </p> | |
| 4214 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p8"> | |
| 4215 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument proves that they do not have the same act as penance has now; and we grant this. | |
| 4216 </p> | |
| 4217 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p9"> | |
| 4218 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ could not sin, wherefore the matter of this virtue was lacking in His respect both actually and potentially: so that | |
| 4219 there is no comparison between Him and others. | |
| 4220 </p> | |
| 4221 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p10"> | |
| 4222 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Repentance, properly speaking, considered as that act of penance which is in this life, will not be in heaven: and yet the | |
| 4223 habit will not be without its use, for it will have another act. | |
| 4224 </p> | |
| 4225 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p11"> Reply OBJ 4,5: We grant the Fourth argument. But since the Fifth Objection proves that there will be the same act of penance | |
| 4226 in heaven as now, we answer the latter by saying that in heaven one will be altogether conformed to the will of God. Wherefore, | |
| 4227 as God, by His antecedent will, but not by His consequent will, wishes that all things should be good, and therefore that | |
| 4228 there should be no evil, so is it with the blessed. It is this will that this holy father improperly calls | |
| 4229 penance. | |
| 4230 </p> | |
| 4231 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 4232 <p id="XP_Q16_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 4233 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4234 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4235 </div> | |
| 4236 <div id="XP_Q16_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 4237 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4238 <a href="summa.XP_Q17.html"></a> | |
| 4239 <h4 id="XP_Q16_A3-p0.1">Whether an angel can be the subject of penance?</h4> | |
| 4240 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 4241 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p2"> | |
| 4242 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that even a good or bad angel can be a subject of penance. For fear is the beginning of penance. But fear is | |
| 4243 in the angels, according to | |
| 4244 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q16_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.2.19" target="asv"> James 2:19</a>: "The devils . . . believe and tremble." Therefore there can be penance in them. | |
| 4245 </p> | |
| 4246 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p3"> | |
| 4247 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 4) that "evil men are full of repentance, and this is a great punishment for them." | |
| 4248 Now the devils are exceeding evil, nor is there any punishment that they lack. Therefore they can repent. | |
| 4249 </p> | |
| 4250 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p4"> | |
| 4251 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a thing is more easily moved to that which is according to its nature than to that which is against its nature: | |
| 4252 thus water which has by violence been heated, of itself returns to its natural property. Now angels can be moved to sin which | |
| 4253 is contrary to their common nature. Much more therefore can they return to that which is in accord with their nature. But | |
| 4254 this is done by penance. Therefore they are susceptible to penance. | |
| 4255 </p> | |
| 4256 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p5"> | |
| 4257 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, what applies to angels, applies equally to separated souls, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 4). But there can | |
| 4258 be penance in separated souls, as some say, as in the souls of the blessed in heaven. Therefore there can be penance in the | |
| 4259 angels. | |
| 4260 </p> | |
| 4261 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p6"> | |
| 4262 <b>On the contrary,</b> By penance man obtains pardon for the sin he has committed. But this is impossible in the angels. Therefore they are not | |
| 4263 subjects of penance. | |
| 4264 </p> | |
| 4265 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p7"> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 4) that man is subject to penance on account of the weakness of his body. But | |
| 4266 the angels are not united to a body. Therefore no penance can be in them. | |
| 4267 </p> | |
| 4268 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p8"> | |
| 4269 <b>I answer that,</b> In us, penance is taken in two senses; first, as a passion, and thus it is nothing but pain or sorrow on account of a sin | |
| 4270 committed: and though, as a passion it is only in the concupiscible part, yet, by way of comparison, the name of penance is | |
| 4271 given to that act of the will, whereby a man detests what he has done, even as love and other passions are spoken of as though | |
| 4272 they were in the intellectual appetite. Secondly, penance is taken as a virtue, and in | |
| 4273 this way its act consists in the detestation of evil done, together with the purpose of amendment and the intention of expiating | |
| 4274 the evil, or of placating God for the offense committed. Now detestation of evil befits a person according as he is naturally | |
| 4275 ordained to good. And since this order or inclination is not entirely destroyed in any creature, it remains even in the damned, | |
| 4276 and consequently the passion of repentance, or something like it, remains in them too, as stated in | |
| 4277 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q16_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.5.3" target="asv"> Wis. | |
| 4278 5:3 | |
| 4279 </a>"(saying) within themselves, repenting," etc. This repentance, as it is not a habit, but a passion or act, can by no means | |
| 4280 be in the blessed angels, who have not committed any sins: but it is in the wicked angels, since the same applies to them | |
| 4281 as to the lost souls, for, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 4), "death is to men what sin is to an angel." But no | |
| 4282 forgiveness is possible for the sin of an angel. Now sin is the proper object of the virtue itself which we call | |
| 4283 penance, in so far as it can be pardoned or expiated. Therefore, since the wicked angels cannot have the matter, they have | |
| 4284 not the power to produce the act, so that neither can they have the habit. Hence the angels cannot be subjects of the virtue | |
| 4285 of penance. | |
| 4286 </p> | |
| 4287 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p9"> | |
| 4288 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A certain movement of penance is engendered in them from fear, but not such as is a virtue. | |
| 4289 </p> | |
| 4290 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p10"> This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.</p> | |
| 4291 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p11"> | |
| 4292 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Whatever is natural in them is entirely good, and inclines to good: but their free-will is fixed on evil. And since the movement | |
| 4293 of virtue and vice follows the inclination, not of nature, but of the free-will, there is no need that there should be movements | |
| 4294 of virtue in them either actually or possibly, although they are inclined to good by nature. | |
| 4295 </p> | |
| 4296 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p12"> | |
| 4297 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> There is no parity between the holy angels and the beatified souls, because in the latter there has been or could have been | |
| 4298 a sin that could be pardoned, but not in the former: so that though they are like as to their present state, they differ as | |
| 4299 to their previous states, which penance regards directly. | |
| 4300 </p> | |
| 4301 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 4302 <p id="XP_Q16_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 4303 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4304 <a href="summa.XP_Q17.html"></a> | |
| 4305 </div> | |
| 4306 <a href="summa.XP_Q15_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4307 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4308 </div> | |
| 4309 <div id="XP_Q17" class="div3"> | |
| 4310 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4311 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4312 <h3 id="XP_Q17-p0.1">OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 4313 <p id="XP_Q17-p1"></p> | |
| 4314 <p id="XP_Q17-p2"> We must now consider the power of the ministers of this sacrament, which power depends on the keys. As to this matter, in | |
| 4315 the first place we shall treat of the keys, secondly, of excommunication, thirdly, of indulgences, since these two things | |
| 4316 are connected with the power of the keys. The first of these considerations will be fourfold: (1) the nature and meaning of | |
| 4317 the keys. (2) the use of the keys; (3) the ministers of the keys; (4) those on whom the use of the keys can be | |
| 4318 exercised. | |
| 4319 </p> | |
| 4320 <p id="XP_Q17-p3"> Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 4321 <p id="XP_Q17-p4"> (1) Whether there ought to be keys in the Church?</p> | |
| 4322 <p id="XP_Q17-p5"> (2) Whether the key is the power of binding and loosing, etc.?</p> | |
| 4323 <p id="XP_Q17-p6"> (3) Whether there are two keys or only one?</p> | |
| 4324 <div id="XP_Q17_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 4325 <a href="summa.XP_Q17.html"></a> | |
| 4326 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4327 <h4 id="XP_Q17_A1-p0.1">Whether there should be keys in the Church?</h4> | |
| 4328 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 4329 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p2"> | |
| 4330 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there is no necessity for keys in the Church. For there is no need for keys that one may enter a house | |
| 4331 the door of which is open. But it is written ( | |
| 4332 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q17_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.4.1" target="asv">Apoc. 4:1</a>): "I looked and behold a door was opened in heaven," which door is Christ, for He said of Himself ( | |
| 4333 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q17_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#John.10.7" target="asv">Jn. 10:7</a>): "I am the door." Therefore the Church needs no keys for the entrance into heaven. | |
| 4334 </p> | |
| 4335 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p3"> | |
| 4336 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a key is needed for opening and shutting. But this belongs to Christ alone, "Who openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth | |
| 4337 and no man openeth" ( | |
| 4338 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q17_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.3.7" target="asv">Apoc. 3:7</a>). Therefore the Church has no keys in the hands of her ministers. | |
| 4339 </p> | |
| 4340 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p4"> | |
| 4341 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, hell is opened to whomever heaven is closed, and vice versa. Therefore whoever has the keys of heaven, has the keys | |
| 4342 of hell. But the Church is not said to have the keys of hell. Therefore neither has she the keys of heaven. | |
| 4343 </p> | |
| 4344 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p5"> | |
| 4345 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 4346 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q17_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>): "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven." | |
| 4347 </p> | |
| 4348 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p6"> Further, every dispenser should have the keys of the things that he dispenses. But the ministers of the Church are the dispensers | |
| 4349 of the divine mysteries, as appears from | |
| 4350 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q17_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.1" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:1.</a> Therefore they ought to have the keys. | |
| 4351 </p> | |
| 4352 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p7"> | |
| 4353 <b>I answer that,</b> In material things a key is an instrument for opening a door. Now the door of the kingdom is closed to us through sin, both | |
| 4354 as to the stain and as to the debt of punishment. Wherefore the power of removing this obstacle is called a key. Now this | |
| 4355 power is in the Divine Trinity by authority; hence some say that God has the key of "authority." But Christ Man had the power | |
| 4356 to remove the above obstacle, through the merit of His Passion, which also is said to open | |
| 4357 the door; hence some say that He has the keys of "excellence." And since "the sacraments of which the Church is built, flowed | |
| 4358 from the side of Christ while He lay asleep on the cross" [*Augustine, Enarr. in | |
| 4359 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q17_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.138" target="asv">Ps. 138</a>], the efficacy of the Passion abides in the sacraments of the Church. Wherefore a certain power for the removal of the aforesaid | |
| 4360 obstacle is bestowed on the ministers of the Church, who are the dispensers of the sacraments, not by their own, but by a | |
| 4361 Divine power and by the Passion | |
| 4362 of Christ. This power is called metaphorically the Church's key, and is the key of "ministry." | |
| 4363 </p> | |
| 4364 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p8"> | |
| 4365 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The door of heaven, considered in itself, is ever open, but it is said to be closed to someone, on account of some obstacle | |
| 4366 against entering therein, which is in himself. The obstacle which the entire human nature inherited from the sin of the first | |
| 4367 man was removed by Christ's Passion; hence, after the Passion, John saw an opened door in heaven. Yet that door still remains | |
| 4368 closed to this or that man, on account of the original sin which he has | |
| 4369 contracted, or the actual sin which he has committed: hence we need the sacraments and the keys of the Church. | |
| 4370 </p> | |
| 4371 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p9"> | |
| 4372 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This refers to His closing Limbo, so that thenceforth no one should go there, and to His opening of Paradise, the obstacle | |
| 4373 of nature being removed by His Passion. | |
| 4374 </p> | |
| 4375 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p10"> | |
| 4376 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The key whereby hell is opened and closed, is the power of bestowing grace, whereby hell is opened to man, so that he is | |
| 4377 taken out from sin which is the door of hell, and closed, so that by the help of grace man should no more fall into sin. Now | |
| 4378 the power of bestowing grace belongs to God alone, wherefore He kept this key to Himself. But the key of the kingdom is also | |
| 4379 the power to remit the debt of temporal punishment, which debt prevents man from | |
| 4380 entering the kingdom Consequently the key of the kingdom can be given to man rather than the key of hell, for they are not | |
| 4381 the same, as is clear from what has been said. For a man may be set free from hell by the remission of the debt of eternal | |
| 4382 punishment, without being at once admitted to the kingdom, on account of his yet owing a debt of temporal punishment. | |
| 4383 </p> | |
| 4384 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p11"> It may also be replied, as some state, that the key of heaven is also the key of hell, since if one is opened to a man, the | |
| 4385 other, for that very reason, is closed to him, but it takes its name from the better of the two. | |
| 4386 </p> | |
| 4387 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 4388 <p id="XP_Q17_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 4389 <a href="summa.XP_Q17.html"></a> | |
| 4390 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4391 </div> | |
| 4392 <div id="XP_Q17_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 4393 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4394 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4395 <h4 id="XP_Q17_A2-p0.1">Whether the key is the power of binding and loosing, etc.?</h4> | |
| 4396 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 4397 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p2"> | |
| 4398 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the key is not the power of binding and loosing, whereby "the ecclesiastical judge has to admit the worthy | |
| 4399 to the kingdom and exclude the unworthy" therefrom, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 16). For the spiritual power conferred | |
| 4400 in a sacrament is the same as the character. But the key and the character do not seem to be the same, since by the character | |
| 4401 man is referred to God, whereas by the key he is referred to his subjects. Therefore | |
| 4402 the key is not a power. | |
| 4403 </p> | |
| 4404 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p3"> | |
| 4405 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, an ecclesiastical judge is only one who has jurisdiction, which is not given at the same time as orders. But the | |
| 4406 keys are given in the conferring of orders. Therefore there should have been no mention of the ecclesiastical judge in the | |
| 4407 definition of the keys. | |
| 4408 </p> | |
| 4409 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p4"> | |
| 4410 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when a man has something of himself, he needs not to be reduced to act by some active power. Now a man is admitted | |
| 4411 to the kingdom from the very fact that he is worthy. Therefore it does not concern the power of the keys to admit the worthy | |
| 4412 to the kingdom. | |
| 4413 </p> | |
| 4414 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p5"> | |
| 4415 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, sinners are unworthy of the kingdom. But the Church prays for sinners, that they may go to heaven. Therefore she | |
| 4416 does not exclude the unworthy, but admits them, so far as she is concerned. | |
| 4417 </p> | |
| 4418 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p6"> | |
| 4419 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, in every ordered series of agents, the last end belongs to the principal and not to the instrumental agent. But | |
| 4420 the principal agent in view of man's salvation is God. Therefore admission to the kingdom, which is the last end, belongs | |
| 4421 to Him, and not to those who have the keys, who are as instrumental or ministerial agents. | |
| 4422 </p> | |
| 4423 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p7"> | |
| 4424 <b>I answer that,</b> According to the Philosopher (De Anima ii, text. 33), "powers are defined from their acts." Wherefore, since the key is a | |
| 4425 kind of power, it should be defined from its act or use, and reference to the act should include its object from which it | |
| 4426 takes its species, and the mode of acting whereby the power is shown to be well-ordered. Now the act of the spiritual power | |
| 4427 is to open heaven, not absolutely, since it is already open, as stated above (A[1], ad 1), but | |
| 4428 for this or that man; and this cannot be done in an orderly manner without due consideration of the worthiness of the one | |
| 4429 to be admitted to heaven. Hence the aforesaid definition of the key gives the genus, viz. "power," the subject of the power, | |
| 4430 viz. the "ecclesiastical judge," and the act, viz. "of excluding or admitting," corresponding to the two acts of a material | |
| 4431 key which are to open and shut; the object of which act is referred to in the words "from the kingdom," and the mode, in the | |
| 4432 words, "worthy" and "unworthy," because account is taken of the worthiness or unworthiness of those on whom the act is exercised. | |
| 4433 </p> | |
| 4434 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p8"> | |
| 4435 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The same power is directed to two things, of which one is the cause of the other, as heat, in fire, is directed to make a | |
| 4436 thing hot and to melt it. And since every grace and remission in a mystical body comes to it from its head, it seems that | |
| 4437 it is essentially the same power whereby a priest can consecrate, and whereby he can loose and bind, if he has jurisdiction, | |
| 4438 and that there is only a logical difference, according as it is referred to different | |
| 4439 effects, even as fire in one respect is said to have the power of heating, and in another, the power of melting. And because | |
| 4440 the character of the priestly order is nothing else than the power of exercising that act to which the priestly order is chiefly | |
| 4441 ordained (if we maintain that it is the same as a spiritual power), therefore the character, the power of consecrating, and | |
| 4442 the power of the keys are one and the same essentially, but differ logically. | |
| 4443 </p> | |
| 4444 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p9"> | |
| 4445 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All spiritual power is conferred by some kind of consecration. Therefore the key is given together with the order: yet the | |
| 4446 use of the key requires due matter, i.e. a people subject through jurisdiction, so that until he has jurisdiction, the priest | |
| 4447 has the keys, but he cannot exercise the act of the keys. And since the key is defined from its act, its definition contains | |
| 4448 a reference to jurisdiction. | |
| 4449 </p> | |
| 4450 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p10"> | |
| 4451 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A person may be worthy to have something in two ways, either so as to have a right to possess it, and thus whoever is worthy | |
| 4452 has heaven already opened to him---or so that it is meet that he should receive it, and thus the power of the keys admits | |
| 4453 those who are worthy, but to whom heaven is not yet altogether opened. | |
| 4454 </p> | |
| 4455 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p11"> | |
| 4456 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Even as God hardens not by imparting malice, but by withholding grace, so a priest is said to exclude, not as though he placed | |
| 4457 an obstacle to entrance, but because he does not remove an obstacle which is there, since he cannot remove it unless God has | |
| 4458 already removed it. [*St. Thomas here follows the opinion of Peter Lombard, and replies in the negative. Later in life he | |
| 4459 altered his opinion. Cf. | |
| 4460 <a id="XP_Q17_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">TP, Q[62], A[1]</a>; | |
| 4461 | |
| 4462 <a id="XP_Q17_A2-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html">TP, Q[64], A[1]</a>; | |
| 4463 <a id="XP_Q17_A2-p11.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html">TP, Q[86], A[6]</a>.] Hence God is prayed that He may absolve, so that there may be room for the priest's absolution. | |
| 4464 </p> | |
| 4465 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p12"> | |
| 4466 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The priest's act does not bear immediately on the kingdom, but on the sacraments, by means of which man wins to the kingdom. | |
| 4467 </p> | |
| 4468 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 4469 <p id="XP_Q17_A2-p14"></p> | |
| 4470 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4471 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4472 </div> | |
| 4473 <div id="XP_Q17_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 4474 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4475 <a href="summa.XP_Q18.html"></a> | |
| 4476 <h4 id="XP_Q17_A3-p0.1">Whether there are two keys or only one?</h4> | |
| 4477 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 4478 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p2"> | |
| 4479 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there are not two keys but only one. For one lock requires but one key. Now the lock for the removal of | |
| 4480 which the keys of the Church are required, is sin. Therefore the Church does not require two keys for one sin. | |
| 4481 </p> | |
| 4482 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p3"> | |
| 4483 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the keys are given when orders are conferred. But knowledge is not always due to infusion, but sometimes is acquired, | |
| 4484 nor is it possessed by all those who are ordained, and is possessed by some who are not ordained. Therefore knowledge is not | |
| 4485 a key, so that there is but one key, viz. the power of judging. | |
| 4486 </p> | |
| 4487 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p4"> | |
| 4488 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the power which the priest has over the mystic body of Christ flows from the power which he has over Christ's true | |
| 4489 body. Now the power of consecrating Christ's true body is but one. Therefore the power which regards Christ's mystic body | |
| 4490 is but one. But this is a key. Therefore, etc. | |
| 4491 </p> | |
| 4492 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p5"> | |
| 4493 <b>Objection 4:</b> On the other hand, It seems that there are more than two keys. For just as knowledge and power are requisite for man to act, | |
| 4494 so is will. But the knowledge of discretion is reckoned as a key, and so is the power of judging. Therefore the will to absolve | |
| 4495 should be counted as a key. | |
| 4496 </p> | |
| 4497 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p6"> | |
| 4498 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, all three Divine Persons remit sins. Now the priest, through the keys, is the minister for the remission of sins. | |
| 4499 Therefore he should have three keys, so that he may be conformed to the Trinity. | |
| 4500 </p> | |
| 4501 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p7"> | |
| 4502 <b>I answer that,</b> Whenever an act requires fitness on the part of the recipient, two things are necessary in the one who has to perform the | |
| 4503 act, viz. judgment of the fitness of the recipient, and accomplishment of the act. Therefore in the act of justice whereby | |
| 4504 a man is given what he deserves, there needs to be a judgment in order to discern whether he deserves to receive. Again, an | |
| 4505 authority or power is necessary for both these things, for we cannot give save what we have | |
| 4506 in our power; nor can there be judgment, without the right to enforce it, since judgment is determined to one particular thing, | |
| 4507 which determination it derives, in speculative matters, from the first principles which cannot be gainsaid, and, in practical | |
| 4508 matters, from the power of command vested in the one who judges. And since the act of the key requires fitness in the person | |
| 4509 on whom it is exercised---because the ecclesiastical judge, by means of the key, "admits the worthy and excludes the | |
| 4510 unworthy," as may be seen from the definition given above | |
| 4511 <a id="XP_Q17_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q17_A2.html">(A[2])</a>---therefore the judge requires both judgment of discretion whereby he judges a man to be worthy, and also the very act of | |
| 4512 receiving (that man's confession); and for both these things a certain power or authority is necessary. Accordingly we may | |
| 4513 distinguish two keys, the first of which regards the judgment about the worthiness of the person to be absolved, while the | |
| 4514 other regards the absolution. | |
| 4515 </p> | |
| 4516 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p8"> These two keys are distinct, not in the essence of authority, since both belong to the minister by virtue of his office, | |
| 4517 but in comparison with their respective acts, one of which presupposes the other. | |
| 4518 </p> | |
| 4519 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p9"> | |
| 4520 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> One key is ordained immediately to the opening of one lock, but it is not unfitting that one key should be ordained to the | |
| 4521 act of another. Thus it is in the case in point. For it is the second key, which is the power of binding and loosing, that | |
| 4522 opens the lock of sin immediately, but the key of knowledge shows to whom that lock should be opened. | |
| 4523 </p> | |
| 4524 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p10"> | |
| 4525 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There are two opinions about the key of knowledge. For some say that knowledge considered as a habit, acquired or infused, | |
| 4526 is the key in this case, and that it is not the principal key, but is called a key through being subordinate to another key: | |
| 4527 so that it is not called a key when the other key is wanting, for instance, in an educated man who is not a priest. And although | |
| 4528 priests lack this key at times, through being without knowledge, acquired or | |
| 4529 infused, of loosing and binding, yet sometimes they make use of their natural endeavors, which they who hold this opinion | |
| 4530 call a little key, so that although knowledge be not bestowed together with orders, yet with the conferring of orders the | |
| 4531 knowledge becomes a key which it was not before. This seems to have been the opinion of the Master (Sent. iv, D, 19). | |
| 4532 </p> | |
| 4533 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p11"> But this does not seem to agree with the words of the Gospel, whereby the keys are promised to Peter ( | |
| 4534 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q17_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>), so that not only one but two are given in orders. For which reason the other opinion holds that the key is not knowledge | |
| 4535 considered as a habit, but the authority to exercise the act of knowledge, which authority is sometimes without knowledge, | |
| 4536 while the knowledge is sometimes present without the authority. This may be seen even in secular courts, | |
| 4537 for a secular judge may have the authority to judge, without having the knowledge of the law, while another man, on the contrary, | |
| 4538 has knowledge of the law without having the authority to judge. And since the act of judging to which a man is bound through | |
| 4539 the authority which is vested in him, and not through his habit of knowledge, cannot be well performed without both of the | |
| 4540 above, the authority to judge, which is the key of knowledge, cannot be accepted without sin by one who lacks knowledge; | |
| 4541 whereas knowledge void of authority can be possessed without sin. | |
| 4542 </p> | |
| 4543 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p12"> | |
| 4544 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The power of consecrating is directed to only one act of another kind, wherefore it is not numbered among the keys, nor is | |
| 4545 it multiplied as the power of the keys, which is directed to different acts, although as to the essence of power and authority | |
| 4546 it is but one, as stated above. | |
| 4547 </p> | |
| 4548 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p13"> | |
| 4549 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Everyone is free to will, so that no one needs authority to will; wherefore will is not reckoned as a key. | |
| 4550 </p> | |
| 4551 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p14"> | |
| 4552 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> All three Persons remit sins in the same way as one Person, wherefore there is no need for the priest, who is the minister | |
| 4553 of the Trinity, to have three keys: and all the more, since the will, which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, requires no | |
| 4554 key, as stated above (ad 4). | |
| 4555 </p> | |
| 4556 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p15"></p> | |
| 4557 <p id="XP_Q17_A3-p16"></p> | |
| 4558 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4559 <a href="summa.XP_Q18.html"></a> | |
| 4560 </div> | |
| 4561 <a href="summa.XP_Q16_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4562 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4563 </div> | |
| 4564 <div id="XP_Q18" class="div3"> | |
| 4565 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4566 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4567 <h3 id="XP_Q18-p0.1">OF THE EFFECT OF THE KEYS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 4568 <p id="XP_Q18-p1"></p> | |
| 4569 <p id="XP_Q18-p2"> We must now consider the effect of the keys under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 4570 <p id="XP_Q18-p3"> (1) Whether the power of the keys extends to the remission of guilt?</p> | |
| 4571 <p id="XP_Q18-p4"> (2) Whether a priest can remit sin as to the punishment?</p> | |
| 4572 <p id="XP_Q18-p5"> (3) Whether a priest can bind in virtue of the power of the keys?</p> | |
| 4573 <p id="XP_Q18-p6"> (4) Whether he can loose and bind according to his own judgment?</p> | |
| 4574 <div id="XP_Q18_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 4575 <a href="summa.XP_Q18.html"></a> | |
| 4576 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4577 <h4 id="XP_Q18_A1-p0.1">Whether the power of the keys extends to the remission of guilt? [*St. Thomas here follows the opinion of Peter Lombard, and | |
| 4578 replies in the negative. Later in life he altered his opinion. Cf. TP, Q[62], A[1]; TP, Q[64], A[1]; TP, Q[86], A[6]] | |
| 4579 </h4> | |
| 4580 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 4581 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p2"> | |
| 4582 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the power of the keys extends to the remission of guilt. For it was said to the disciples ( | |
| 4583 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q18_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.23" target="asv">Jn. 20:23</a>): "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Now this was not said in reference to the declaration only, as | |
| 4584 the Master states (Sent. iv, D, 18), for in that case the priest of the New Testament would have no more power than the priest | |
| 4585 of the Old Testament. Therefore he exercises a power over the remission of | |
| 4586 the guilt. | |
| 4587 </p> | |
| 4588 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p3"> | |
| 4589 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in Penance grace is given for the remission of sin. Now the priest is the dispenser of this sacrament by virtue | |
| 4590 of the keys. Therefore, since grace is opposed to sin, not on the part of the punishment, but on the part of the guilt, it | |
| 4591 seems that the priest operates unto the remission of sin by virtue of the keys. | |
| 4592 </p> | |
| 4593 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p4"> | |
| 4594 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priest receives more power by his consecration than the baptismal water by its sanctification. Now the baptismal | |
| 4595 water receives the power "to touch the body and cleanse the heart," as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.). Much more, therefore, | |
| 4596 does the priest, in his consecration, receive the power to cleanse the heart from the stain of sin. | |
| 4597 </p> | |
| 4598 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p5"> | |
| 4599 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Master stated above (Sent. iv, D, 18) that God has not bestowed on the minister the power to co-operate with Him in the | |
| 4600 inward cleansing. Now if he remitted sins as to the guilt, he would co-operate with God in the inward cleansing. Therefore | |
| 4601 the power of the keys does not extend to the remission of guilt. | |
| 4602 </p> | |
| 4603 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p6"> Further, sin is not remitted save by the Holy Ghost. But no man has the power to give the Holy Ghost, as the Master said | |
| 4604 above (Sent. i, D, 14). Neither therefore can he remit sins as to their guilt. | |
| 4605 </p> | |
| 4606 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p7"> | |
| 4607 <b>I answer that,</b> According to Hugh (De Sacram. ii), "the sacraments, by virtue of their sanctification, contain an invisible grace." Now this | |
| 4608 sanctification is sometimes essential to the sacrament both as regards the matter and as regards the minister, as may be seen | |
| 4609 in Confirmation, and then the sacramental virtue is in both together. Sometimes, however, the essence of the sacrament requires | |
| 4610 only sanctification of the matter, as in Baptism, which has no fixed minister on | |
| 4611 whom it depends necessarily, and then the whole virtue of the sacrament is in the matter. Again, sometimes the essence of | |
| 4612 the sacrament requires the consecration or sanctification of the minister without any sanctification of the matter, and then | |
| 4613 the entire sacramental virtue is in the minister, as in Penance. Hence the power of the keys which is in the priest, stands | |
| 4614 in the same relation to the effect of Penance, as the virtue in the baptismal water does to the effect of Baptism. Now Baptism | |
| 4615 and the sacrament of Penance agree somewhat in their effect, since each is directly ordained against guilt, which is not the | |
| 4616 case in the other sacraments: yet they differ in this, that the sacrament of Penance, since the acts of the recipient are | |
| 4617 as its matter, cannot be given save to adults, who need to be disposed for the reception of the sacramental effect; whereas | |
| 4618 Baptism is given, sometimes to adults, sometimes to children and others who lack the use of reason, so that by Baptism children | |
| 4619 receive grace and remission of sin without any previous disposition, while adults do not, for they require to be disposed | |
| 4620 by the removal of insincerity. This disposition sometimes precedes their Baptism by priority of time, being sufficient for | |
| 4621 the reception of grace, before they are actually baptized, but not before they have come to the knowledge of the truth and | |
| 4622 have conceived the desire for Baptism. At other times this disposition does not precede the reception of Baptism by a priority | |
| 4623 of | |
| 4624 time, but is simultaneous with it, and then the grace of the remission of guilt is bestowed through the reception of Baptism. | |
| 4625 On the other hand, grace is never given through the sacrament of Penance unless the recipient be disposed either simultaneously | |
| 4626 or before. Hence the power of the keys operates unto the remission of guilt, either through being desired or through being | |
| 4627 actually exercised, even as the waters of Baptism. But just as Baptism acts, not as a principal agent but as an | |
| 4628 instrument, and does not go so far as to cause the reception itself of grace, even instrumentally [*See note at beginning | |
| 4629 of this article], but merely disposes the recipient to the grace whereby his guilt is remitted, so is it with the power of | |
| 4630 the keys. Wherefore God alone directly remits guilt, and Baptism acts through His power instrumentally, as an inanimate instrument, | |
| 4631 and the priest as an animate instrument, such as a servant is, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 11): and | |
| 4632 consequently the priest acts as a minister. Hence it is clear that the power of the keys is ordained, in a manner, to the | |
| 4633 remission of guilt, not as causing that remission, but as disposing thereto. Consequently if a man, before receiving absolution, | |
| 4634 were not perfectly disposed for the reception of grace, he would receive grace at the very time of sacramental confession | |
| 4635 and absolution, provided he offered no obstacle. For if the key were in no way ordained to the remission of guilt, but only | |
| 4636 to | |
| 4637 the remission of punishment, as some hold, it would not be necessary to have a desire of receiving the effect of the keys | |
| 4638 in order to have one's sins forgiven, just as it is not necessary to have a desire of receiving the other sacraments which | |
| 4639 are ordained, not to the remission of guilt, but against punishment. But this enables us to see that it is not ordained unto | |
| 4640 the remission of guilt, because the use of the keys, in order to be effective, always requires a disposition on the part of | |
| 4641 the | |
| 4642 recipient of the sacrament. And the same would apply to Baptism, were it never given save to adults. | |
| 4643 </p> | |
| 4644 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p8"> | |
| 4645 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Master says in the text (Sent. iv, D, 18), the power of forgiving sins was entrusted to priests, not that they may | |
| 4646 forgive them, by their own power, for this belongs to God, but that, as ministers, they may declare [*See note at the beginning | |
| 4647 of this article] the operation of God Who forgives. Now this happens in three ways. First, by a declaration, not of present, | |
| 4648 but of future forgiveness, without co-operating therein in any way: and thus the | |
| 4649 sacraments of the Old Law signified the Divine operation, so that the priest of the Old Law did but declare and did not operate | |
| 4650 the forgiveness of sins. Secondly, by a declaration of present forgiveness without co-operating in it at all: and thus some | |
| 4651 say that the sacraments of the New Law signify the bestowal of grace, which God gives when the sacraments are conferred, without | |
| 4652 the sacraments containing any power productive of grace, according to which opinion, even the power of the keys would | |
| 4653 merely declare the Divine operation that has its effect in the remission of guilt when the sacrament is conferred. Thirdly, | |
| 4654 by signifying the Divine operation causing then and there the remission of guilt, and by co-operating towards this effect | |
| 4655 dispositively and instrumentally: and then, according to another and more common opinion, the sacraments of the New Law declare | |
| 4656 the cleansing effected by God. In this way also the priest of the New Testament declares the recipient to be absolved from | |
| 4657 guilt, because in speaking of the sacraments, what is ascribed to the power of the ministers must be consistent with the sacrament. | |
| 4658 Nor is it unreasonable that the keys of the Church should dispose the penitent to the remission of his guilt, from the fact | |
| 4659 that the guilt is already remitted, even as neither is it unreasonable that Baptism, considered in itself, causes a disposition | |
| 4660 in one who is already sanctified. | |
| 4661 </p> | |
| 4662 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p9"> | |
| 4663 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Neither the sacrament of Penance, nor the sacrament of Baptism, by its operation, causes grace, or the remission of guilt, | |
| 4664 directly, but only dispositively [*St. Thomas here follows the opinion of Peter Lombard, and replies in the negative. Later | |
| 4665 in life he altered his opinion. Cf. | |
| 4666 <a id="XP_Q18_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">TP, Q[62], A[1]</a>; | |
| 4667 <a id="XP_Q18_A1-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html">TP, Q[64], A[1]</a>; | |
| 4668 <a id="XP_Q18_A1-p9.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html">TP, Q[86], A[6]</a>]. Hence the Reply to the Third Objection is | |
| 4669 evident. | |
| 4670 </p> | |
| 4671 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p10"> The other arguments show that the power of the keys does not effect the remission of guilt directly, and this is to be granted.</p> | |
| 4672 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 4673 <p id="XP_Q18_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 4674 <a href="summa.XP_Q18.html"></a> | |
| 4675 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4676 </div> | |
| 4677 <div id="XP_Q18_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 4678 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4679 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4680 <h4 id="XP_Q18_A2-p0.1">Whether a priest can remit sin as to the punishment?</h4> | |
| 4681 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 4682 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p2"> | |
| 4683 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a priest cannot remit sin as to the punishment. For sin deserves eternal and temporal punishment. But | |
| 4684 after the priest's absolution the penitent is still obliged to undergo temporal punishment either in Purgatory or in this | |
| 4685 world. Therefore the priest does not remit the punishment in any way. | |
| 4686 </p> | |
| 4687 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p3"> | |
| 4688 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the priest cannot anticipate the judgment of God. But Divine justice appoints the punishment which penitents have | |
| 4689 to undergo. Therefore the priest cannot remit any part of it. | |
| 4690 </p> | |
| 4691 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p4"> | |
| 4692 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man who has committed a slight sin, is not less susceptible to the power of the keys, than one who has committed | |
| 4693 a graver sin. Now if the punishment for the graver sin be lessened in any way through the priestly administrations, it would | |
| 4694 be possible for a sin to be so slight that the punishment which it deserves is no greater than that which has been remitted | |
| 4695 for the graver sin. Therefore the priest would be able to remit the entire punishment due | |
| 4696 for the slight sin: which is false. | |
| 4697 </p> | |
| 4698 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p5"> | |
| 4699 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the whole of the temporal punishment due for a sin is of one kind. If, therefore, by a first absolution something | |
| 4700 is taken away from the punishment, it will be possible for something more to be taken away by a second absolution, so that | |
| 4701 the absolution can be so often repeated, that by virtue of the keys the whole punishment will be taken away, since the second | |
| 4702 absolution is not less efficacious than the first: and consequently that sin will be | |
| 4703 altogether unpunished, which is absurd. | |
| 4704 </p> | |
| 4705 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p6"> | |
| 4706 <b>On the contrary,</b> The key is the power of binding and loosing. But the priest can enjoin a temporal punishment. Therefore he can absolve from | |
| 4707 punishment. | |
| 4708 </p> | |
| 4709 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p7"> Further, the priest cannot remit sin either as to the guilt [*St. Thomas here follows the opinion of Peter Lombard, and replies | |
| 4710 in the negative. Later in life he altered his opinion. Cf. | |
| 4711 <a id="XP_Q18_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">TP, Q[62], A[1]</a>; | |
| 4712 <a id="XP_Q18_A2-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html">TP, Q[64], A[1]</a>; | |
| 4713 <a id="XP_Q18_A2-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html">TP, Q[86], A[6]</a>], as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 18), or as to the eternal punishment, for a like reason. If therefore he cannot remit | |
| 4714 sin as to the temporal punishment, he would be | |
| 4715 unable to remit sin in any way, which is altogether contrary to the words of the Gospel. | |
| 4716 </p> | |
| 4717 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p8"> | |
| 4718 <b>I answer that,</b> Whatever may be said of the effect of Baptism conferred on one who has already received grace, applies equally to the effect | |
| 4719 of the actual exercise of the power of the keys on one who has already been contrite. For a man may obtain the grace of the | |
| 4720 remission of his sins as to their guilt, through faith and contrition, previous to Baptism; but when, afterwards, he actually | |
| 4721 receives Baptism, his grace is increased, and he is entirely absolved from the debt of | |
| 4722 punishment, since he is then made a partaker of the Passion of Christ. In like manner when a man, through contrition, has | |
| 4723 received the pardon of his sins as to their guilt, and consequently as to the debt of eternal punishment, (which is remitted | |
| 4724 together with the guilt) by virtue of the keys which derive their efficacy from the Passion of Christ, his grace is increased | |
| 4725 and the temporal punishment is remitted, the debt of which remained after the guilt had been forgiven. However, this temporal | |
| 4726 punishment is not entirely remitted, as in Baptism, but only partly, because the man who is regenerated in Baptism is conformed | |
| 4727 to the Passion of Christ, by receiving into himself entirely the efficacy of Christ's Passion, which suffices for the blotting | |
| 4728 out of all punishment, so that nothing remains of the punishment due to his preceding actual sins. For nothing should be imputed | |
| 4729 to a man unto punishment, save what he has done himself, and in Baptism man begins a new life, and by the baptismal | |
| 4730 water becomes a new man, as that no debt for previous sin remains in him. on the other hand, in Penance, a man does not take | |
| 4731 on a new life, since therein he is not born again, but healed. Consequently by virtue of the keys which produce their effect | |
| 4732 in the sacrament of Penance, the punishment is not entirely remitted, but something is taken off the temporal punishment, | |
| 4733 the debt of which could remain after the eternal punishment had been remitted. Nor does this apply only to the temporal | |
| 4734 punishment which the penitent owes at the time of confession, as some hold, (for then confession and sacramental absolution | |
| 4735 would be mere burdens, which cannot be said of the sacraments of the New Law), but also to the punishment due in Purgatory, | |
| 4736 so that one who has been absolved and dies before making satisfaction, is less punished in Purgatory, than if he had died | |
| 4737 before receiving absolution. | |
| 4738 </p> | |
| 4739 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p9"> | |
| 4740 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The priest does not remit the entire temporal punishment, but part of it; wherefore the penitent still remains obliged to | |
| 4741 undergo satisfactory punishment. | |
| 4742 </p> | |
| 4743 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p10"> | |
| 4744 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's Passion was sufficiently satisfactory for the sins of the whole world, so that without prejudice to Divine justice | |
| 4745 something can be remitted from the punishment which a sinner deserves, in so far as the effect of Christ's Passion reaches | |
| 4746 him through the sacraments of the Church. | |
| 4747 </p> | |
| 4748 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p11"> | |
| 4749 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some satisfactory punishment must remain for each sin, so as to provide a remedy against it. Wherefore though, by virtue | |
| 4750 of the absolution some measure of the punishment due to a grave sin is remitted, it does not follow that the same measure | |
| 4751 of punishment is remitted for each sin, because in that case some sin would remain without any punishment at all: but, by | |
| 4752 virtue of the keys, the punishments due to various sins are remitted in due | |
| 4753 proportion. | |
| 4754 </p> | |
| 4755 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p12"> | |
| 4756 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Some say that at the first absolution, as much as possible is remitted by virtue of the keys, and that, nevertheless, the | |
| 4757 second confession is valid, on account of the instruction received, on account of the additional surety, on account of the | |
| 4758 prayers of the priest or confessor, and lastly on account of the merit of the shame. | |
| 4759 </p> | |
| 4760 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p13"> But this does not seem to be true, for though there might be a reason for repeating the confession, there would be no reason | |
| 4761 for repeating the absolution, especially if the penitent has no cause to doubt about his previous absolution; for he might | |
| 4762 just as well doubt after the second as after the first absolution: even as we see that the sacrament of Extreme Unction is | |
| 4763 not repeated during the same sickness, for the reason that all that could be done through the sacrament, has | |
| 4764 been done once. Moreover, in the second confession, there would be no need for the confessor to have the keys, if the power | |
| 4765 of the keys had no effect therein. | |
| 4766 </p> | |
| 4767 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p14"> For these reasons others say that even in the second absolution something of the punishment is remitted by virtue of the | |
| 4768 keys, because when absolution is given a second time, grace is increased, and the greater the grace received, the less there | |
| 4769 remains of the blemish of the previous sin, and the less punishment is required to remove that blemish. Wherefore even when | |
| 4770 a man is first absolved, his punishment is more or less remitted by virtue of the keys, according as he disposes | |
| 4771 himself more or less to receive grace; and this disposition may be so great, that even by virtue of his contrition the whole | |
| 4772 punishment is remitted, as we have already stated ( | |
| 4773 <a id="XP_Q18_A2-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q5_A2.html">Q[5], A[2]</a>). Consequently it is not unreasonable, if by frequent confession even the whole punishment be remitted, that a sin remain | |
| 4774 altogether unpunished, since Christ made satisfaction for its punishment. | |
| 4775 </p> | |
| 4776 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p15"></p> | |
| 4777 <p id="XP_Q18_A2-p16"></p> | |
| 4778 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4779 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4780 </div> | |
| 4781 <div id="XP_Q18_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 4782 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4783 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A4.html"></a> | |
| 4784 <h4 id="XP_Q18_A3-p0.1">Whether the priest can bind through the power of the keys?</h4> | |
| 4785 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 4786 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p2"> | |
| 4787 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the priest cannot bind by virtue of the power of the keys. For the sacramental power is ordained as a | |
| 4788 remedy against sin. Now binding is not a remedy for sin, but seemingly is rather conducive to an aggravation of the disease. | |
| 4789 Therefore, by the power of the keys, which is a sacramental power, the priest cannot bind. | |
| 4790 </p> | |
| 4791 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p3"> | |
| 4792 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as to loose or to open is to remove an obstacle, so to bind is to place an obstacle. Now an obstacle to heaven | |
| 4793 is sin, which cannot be placed on us by an extrinsic cause, since no sin is committed except by the will. Therefore the priest | |
| 4794 cannot bind. | |
| 4795 </p> | |
| 4796 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p4"> | |
| 4797 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the keys derive their efficacy from Christ's Passion. But binding is not an effect of the Passion. Therefore the | |
| 4798 priest cannot bind by the power of the keys. | |
| 4799 </p> | |
| 4800 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p5"> | |
| 4801 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 4802 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q18_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>): "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven." | |
| 4803 </p> | |
| 4804 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p6"> Further, rational powers are directed to opposites. But the power of the keys is a rational power, since it has discretion | |
| 4805 connected with it. Therefore it is directed to opposites. Therefore if it can loose, it can bind. | |
| 4806 </p> | |
| 4807 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p7"> | |
| 4808 <b>I answer that,</b> The operation of the priest in using the keys, is conformed to God's operation, Whose minister he is. Now God's operation | |
| 4809 extends both to guilt and to punishment; to the guilt indeed, so as to loose it directly. but to bind it indirectly, in so | |
| 4810 far as He is said to harden, when He withholds His grace; whereas His operation extends to punishment directly, in both respects, | |
| 4811 because He both spares and inflicts it. In like manner, therefore, although the priest, | |
| 4812 in absolving, exercises an operation ordained to the remission of guilt, in the way mentioned above | |
| 4813 <a id="XP_Q18_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q18_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, nevertheless, in binding, he exercises no operation on the guilt; (unless he be said to bind by not absolving the penitent | |
| 4814 and by declaring him to be bound), but he has the power both of binding and of loosing with regard to the punishment. For | |
| 4815 he looses from the punishment which he remits, while he binds as to the punishment which remains. This he does in two | |
| 4816 ways---first as regards the quantity of the punishment considered in general, and thus he does not bind save by not loosing, | |
| 4817 and declaring the penitent to be bound, secondly, as regards this or that particular punishment, and thus he binds to punishment | |
| 4818 by imposing it. | |
| 4819 </p> | |
| 4820 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p8"> | |
| 4821 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The remainder of the punishment to which the priest binds the penitent, is the medicine which cleanses the latter from the | |
| 4822 blemish of sin. | |
| 4823 </p> | |
| 4824 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p9"> | |
| 4825 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Not only sin, but also punishment is an obstacle to heaven: and how the latter is enjoined by the priest, has been said in | |
| 4826 the article. | |
| 4827 </p> | |
| 4828 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p10"> | |
| 4829 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even the Passion of Christ binds us to some punishment whereby we are conformed to Him. | |
| 4830 </p> | |
| 4831 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 4832 <p id="XP_Q18_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 4833 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4834 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A4.html"></a> | |
| 4835 </div> | |
| 4836 <div id="XP_Q18_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 4837 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4838 <a href="summa.XP_Q19.html"></a> | |
| 4839 <h4 id="XP_Q18_A4-p0.1">Whether the priest can bind and loose according to his own judgment?</h4> | |
| 4840 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 4841 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p2"> | |
| 4842 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the priest can bind and loose according to his own judgment. For Jerome [*Cf. Can. 86, Mensuram, De Poenit. | |
| 4843 Dist. i] says: "The canons do not fix the length of time for doing penance so precisely as to say how each sin is to be amended, | |
| 4844 but leave the decision of this matter to the judgment of a discreet priest." Therefore it seems that he can bind and loose | |
| 4845 according to his own judgment. | |
| 4846 </p> | |
| 4847 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p3"> | |
| 4848 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "The Lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely" ( | |
| 4849 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q18_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.16.5" target="asv">Lk. 16:5</a>), because he had allowed a liberal discount to his master's debtors. But God is more inclined to mercy than any temporal | |
| 4850 lord. Therefore it seems that the more punishment the priest remits, the more he is to be commended. | |
| 4851 </p> | |
| 4852 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p4"> | |
| 4853 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's every action is our instruction. Now on some sinners He imposed no punishment, but only amendment of life, | |
| 4854 as in the case of the adulterous woman ( | |
| 4855 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q18_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.8" target="asv">Jn. 8</a>). Therefore it seems that the priest also, who is the vicar of Christ, can, according to his own judgment, remit the punishment, | |
| 4856 either wholly or in part. | |
| 4857 </p> | |
| 4858 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p5"> | |
| 4859 <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory VII [*Cf. Act. Concil. Rom. v, Can. 5] says: "We declare it a mock penance if it is not imposed according to the | |
| 4860 authority of the holy fathers in proportion to the sin." Therefore it seems that it does not altogether depend on the priest's | |
| 4861 judgment. | |
| 4862 </p> | |
| 4863 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p6"> Further, the act of the keys requires discretion. Now if the priest could remit and impose as much as he liked of a penance, | |
| 4864 he would have no need of discretion, because there would be no room for indiscretion. Therefore it does not altogether depend | |
| 4865 on the priest's judgment. | |
| 4866 </p> | |
| 4867 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p7"> | |
| 4868 <b>I answer that,</b> In using the keys, the priest acts as the instrument and minister of God. Now no instrument can have an efficacious act, | |
| 4869 except in so far as it is moved by the principal agent. Wherefore, Dionysius says (Hier. Eccl. cap. ult.) that "priests should | |
| 4870 use their hierarchical powers, according as they are moved by God." A sign of this is that before the power of the keys was | |
| 4871 conferred on Peter ( | |
| 4872 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q18_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>) mention is made of the revelation | |
| 4873 vouchsafed to him of the Godhead; and the gift of the Holy Ghost, whereby "the sons of God are led" ( | |
| 4874 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q18_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.14" target="asv">Rom. 8:14</a>), is mentioned before power was given to the apostles to forgive sins. Consequently if anyone were to presume to use his | |
| 4875 power against that Divine motion, he would not realize the effect, as Dionysius states (Hier. Eccl., cap. ult.), and, besides, | |
| 4876 he would be turned away from the Divine order, and consequently would be guilty of a sin. Moreover, since satisfactory | |
| 4877 punishments are medicinal, just as the medicines prescribed by the medical art are not suitable to all, but have to be changed | |
| 4878 according to the judgment of a medical man, who follows not his own will, but his medical science, so the satisfactory punishments | |
| 4879 appointed by the canons are not suitable to all, but have to be varied according to the judgment of the priest guided by the | |
| 4880 Divine instinct. Therefore just as sometimes the physician prudently refrains from giving a medicine sufficiently | |
| 4881 efficacious to heal the disease, lest a greater danger should arise on account of the weakness of nature so the priest, moved | |
| 4882 by Divine instinct, some times refrains from enjoining the entire punishment due to one sin, lest by the severity of the punishment, | |
| 4883 the sick man come to despair and turn away altogether from repentance. | |
| 4884 </p> | |
| 4885 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p8"> | |
| 4886 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This judgment should be guided entirely by the Divine instinct. | |
| 4887 </p> | |
| 4888 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p9"> | |
| 4889 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The steward is commended also for having done wisely. Therefore in the remission of the due punishment, there is need for | |
| 4890 discretion. | |
| 4891 </p> | |
| 4892 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p10"> | |
| 4893 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ had the power of "excellence" in the sacraments, so that, by His own authority, He could remit the punishment wholly | |
| 4894 or in part, just as He chose. Therefore there is no comparison between Him and those who act merely as ministers. | |
| 4895 </p> | |
| 4896 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 4897 <p id="XP_Q18_A4-p12"></p> | |
| 4898 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4899 <a href="summa.XP_Q19.html"></a> | |
| 4900 </div> | |
| 4901 <a href="summa.XP_Q17_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4902 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4903 </div> | |
| 4904 <div id="XP_Q19" class="div3"> | |
| 4905 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A4.html"></a> | |
| 4906 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4907 <h3 id="XP_Q19-p0.1">OF THE MINISTERS OF THE KEYS (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 4908 <p id="XP_Q19-p1"></p> | |
| 4909 <p id="XP_Q19-p2"> We must now consider the ministers and the use of the keys: under which head there are six points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 4910 <p id="XP_Q19-p3"> (1) Whether the priest of the Law had the keys?</p> | |
| 4911 <p id="XP_Q19-p4"> (2) Whether Christ had the keys?</p> | |
| 4912 <p id="XP_Q19-p5"> (3) Whether priests alone have the keys?</p> | |
| 4913 <p id="XP_Q19-p6"> (4) Whether holy men who are not priests have the keys or their use?</p> | |
| 4914 <p id="XP_Q19-p7"> (5) Whether wicked priests have the effective use of the keys?</p> | |
| 4915 <p id="XP_Q19-p8"> (6) Whether those who are schismatics, heretics, excommunicate, suspended or degraded, have the use of the keys?</p> | |
| 4916 <div id="XP_Q19_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 4917 <a href="summa.XP_Q19.html"></a> | |
| 4918 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4919 <h4 id="XP_Q19_A1-p0.1">Whether the priest of the Law had the keys?</h4> | |
| 4920 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 4921 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p2"> | |
| 4922 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the priests of the Law had the keys. For the possession of the keys results from having orders. But they | |
| 4923 had orders since they were called priests. Therefore the priests of the Law had the keys. | |
| 4924 </p> | |
| 4925 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p3"> | |
| 4926 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as the Master states (Sent. iv, D, 18), there are two keys, knowledge of discretion, and power of judgment. But | |
| 4927 the priests of the Law had authority for both of these: therefore they had the keys. | |
| 4928 </p> | |
| 4929 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p4"> | |
| 4930 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priests of the Law had some power over the rest of the people, which power was not temporal, else the kingly | |
| 4931 power would not have differed from the priestly power. Therefore it was a spiritual power; and this is the key. Therefore | |
| 4932 they had the key. | |
| 4933 </p> | |
| 4934 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p5"> | |
| 4935 <b>On the contrary,</b> The keys are ordained to the opening of the heavenly kingdom, which could not be opened before Christ's Passion. Therefore | |
| 4936 the priest of the Law had not the keys. Further, the sacraments of the old Law did not confer grace. Now the gate of the heavenly | |
| 4937 kingdom could not be opened except by means of grace. Therefore it could not be opened by means of those sacraments, so that | |
| 4938 the priests who administered them, had not the keys of the heavenly kingdom. | |
| 4939 </p> | |
| 4940 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p6"> | |
| 4941 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have held that, under the Old Law, the keys of the kingdom were in the hands of the priests, because the right of imposing | |
| 4942 punishment for sin was conferred on them, as related in | |
| 4943 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.5" target="asv">Lev. 5</a>, which right seems to belong to the keys; but that these keys were incomplete then, whereas now they are complete as bestowed | |
| 4944 by Christ on the priests of the New Law. | |
| 4945 </p> | |
| 4946 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p7"> But this seems to be contrary to the intent of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews ( | |
| 4947 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.11" target="asv">Heb. 9:11-12</a>). For there the priesthood of Christ is given the preference over the priesthood of the Law, inasmuch as Christ came, "a | |
| 4948 high priest of the good things to come," and brought us "by His own blood" into a tabernacle not made with hand, whither the | |
| 4949 priesthood of the Old Law brought men "by the blood of goats and of oxen." Hence it is clear that the power of | |
| 4950 that priesthood did not reach to heavenly things but to the shadow of heavenly things: and so, we must say with others that | |
| 4951 they had not the keys, but that the keys were foreshadowed in them. | |
| 4952 </p> | |
| 4953 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p8"> | |
| 4954 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The keys of the kingdom go with the priesthood whereby man is brought into the heavenly kingdom, but such was not the priesthood | |
| 4955 of Levi; hence it had the keys, not of heaven, but of an earthly tabernacle. | |
| 4956 </p> | |
| 4957 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p9"> | |
| 4958 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The priests of the Old Law had authority to discern and judge, but not to admit those they judged into heaven, but only into | |
| 4959 the shadow of heavenly things. | |
| 4960 </p> | |
| 4961 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p10"> | |
| 4962 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> They had no spiritual power, since, by the sacraments of the Law, they cleansed men not from their sins but from irregularities, | |
| 4963 so that those who were cleansed by them could enter into a tabernacle which was "made with hand." | |
| 4964 </p> | |
| 4965 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 4966 <p id="XP_Q19_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 4967 <a href="summa.XP_Q19.html"></a> | |
| 4968 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A2.html"></a> | |
| 4969 </div> | |
| 4970 <div id="XP_Q19_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 4971 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A1.html"></a> | |
| 4972 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A3.html"></a> | |
| 4973 <h4 id="XP_Q19_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ had the key?</h4> | |
| 4974 <p id="XP_Q19_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 4975 <p id="XP_Q19_A2-p2"> | |
| 4976 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not have the key. For the key goes with the character of order. But Christ did not have a character. | |
| 4977 Therefore He had not the key. | |
| 4978 </p> | |
| 4979 <p id="XP_Q19_A2-p3"> | |
| 4980 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ had power of "excellence" in the sacraments, so that He could produce the sacramental effect without the | |
| 4981 sacramental rite. Now the key is something sacramental. Therefore He needed no key, and it would have been useless to Him | |
| 4982 to have it. | |
| 4983 </p> | |
| 4984 <p id="XP_Q19_A2-p4"> | |
| 4985 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 4986 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.3.7" target="asv">Apoc. 3:7</a>): "These things saith . . . He that hath the key of David," etc. | |
| 4987 </p> | |
| 4988 <p id="XP_Q19_A2-p5"> | |
| 4989 <b>I answer that,</b> The power to do a thing is both in the instrument and in the principal agent, but not in the same way since it is more perfectly | |
| 4990 in the latter. Now the power of the keys which we have, like other sacramental powers, is instrumental: whereas it is in Christ | |
| 4991 as principal agent in the matter of our salvation, by authority, if we consider Him as God, by merit, if we consider Him as | |
| 4992 man [*For St. Thomas' later teaching on this point, Cf. | |
| 4993 <a id="XP_Q19_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A6.html">TP, | |
| 4994 Q[48], A[6] | |
| 4995 </a>; | |
| 4996 <a id="XP_Q19_A2-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q112_A1.html">FS, Q[112], A[1]</a>, AD 1]. But the very notion of a key expresses a power to open and shut, whether this be done by the principal agent or by | |
| 4997 an instrument. Consequently we must admit that Christ had the key, but in a higher way than His ministers, wherefore He is | |
| 4998 said to have the key of "excellence." | |
| 4999 </p> | |
| 5000 <p id="XP_Q19_A2-p6"> | |
| 5001 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A character implies the notion of something derived from another, hence the power of the keys which we receive from Christ | |
| 5002 results from the character whereby we are conformed to Christ, whereas in Christ it results not from a character, but from | |
| 5003 the principal form. | |
| 5004 </p> | |
| 5005 <p id="XP_Q19_A2-p7"> | |
| 5006 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The key, which Christ had was not sacramental, but the origin of the sacramental key. | |
| 5007 </p> | |
| 5008 <p id="XP_Q19_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 5009 <p id="XP_Q19_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 5010 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5011 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5012 </div> | |
| 5013 <div id="XP_Q19_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 5014 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5015 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5016 <h4 id="XP_Q19_A3-p0.1">Whether priests alone have the keys?</h4> | |
| 5017 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 5018 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p2"> | |
| 5019 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not only priests have the keys. For Isidore says (Etym. vii, 12) that the "doorkeepers have to tell the | |
| 5020 good from the bad, so as to admit the good and keep out the bad." Now this is the definition of the keys, as appears from | |
| 5021 what has been said ( | |
| 5022 <a id="XP_Q19_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q17_A2.html">Q[17], A[2]</a>). Therefore not only priests but even doorkeepers have the keys. | |
| 5023 </p> | |
| 5024 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p3"> | |
| 5025 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the keys are conferred on priests when by being anointed they receive power from God. But kings of Christian peoples | |
| 5026 also receive power from God and are consecrated by being anointed. Therefore not only priests have the keys. | |
| 5027 </p> | |
| 5028 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p4"> | |
| 5029 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priesthood is an order belonging to an individual person. But sometimes a number of people together seem to | |
| 5030 have the key, because certain Chapters can pass a sentence of excommunication, which pertains to the power of the keys. Therefore | |
| 5031 not only priests have the key. | |
| 5032 </p> | |
| 5033 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p5"> | |
| 5034 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a woman is not capable of receiving the priesthood, since she is not competent to teach, according to the Apostle | |
| 5035 ( | |
| 5036 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.14.34" target="asv">1 Cor. 14:34</a>). But some women (abbesses, for instance, who exercise a spiritual power over their subjects), seem to have the keys. Therefore | |
| 5037 not only priests have the keys. | |
| 5038 </p> | |
| 5039 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p6"> | |
| 5040 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Poenit. i): "This right," viz. of binding and loosing, "is granted to priests alone." | |
| 5041 </p> | |
| 5042 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p7"> Further, by receiving the power of the keys, a man is set up between the people and God. But this belongs to the priest alone, | |
| 5043 who is "ordained . . . in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins" ( | |
| 5044 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.1" target="asv">Heb. 5:1</a>). Therefore only priests have the keys. | |
| 5045 </p> | |
| 5046 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p8"> | |
| 5047 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two kinds of key. one reaches to heaven itself directly, by remitting sin and thus removing the obstacles to the | |
| 5048 entrance into heaven; and this is called the key of "order." Priests alone have this key, because they alone are ordained | |
| 5049 for the people in the things which appertain to God directly. The other key reaches to heaven, not directly but through the | |
| 5050 medium of the Church Militant. By this key a man goes to heaven, since, by its means, a man | |
| 5051 is shut out from or admitted to the fellowship of the Church Militant, by excommunication or absolution. This is called the | |
| 5052 key of "jurisdiction" in the external court, wherefore even those who are not priests can have this key, e.g. archdeacons, | |
| 5053 bishops elect, and others who can excommunicate. But it is not properly called a key of heaven, but a disposition thereto. | |
| 5054 </p> | |
| 5055 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p9"> | |
| 5056 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The doorkeepers have the key for taking care of those things which are contained in a material temple, and they have to judge | |
| 5057 whether a person should be excluded from or admitted to that temple; which judgment they pronounce, not by their own authority, | |
| 5058 but in pursuance to the priest's judgment, so that they appear to be the administrators of the priestly power. | |
| 5059 </p> | |
| 5060 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p10"> | |
| 5061 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Kings have no power in spiritual matters, so that they do not receive the key of the heavenly kingdom. Their power is confined | |
| 5062 to temporal matters, and this too can only come to them from God, as appears from | |
| 5063 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv"> Rom. 13:1.</a> Nor are they consecrated by the unction of a sacred order: their anointing is merely a sign that the excellence of their | |
| 5064 power comes down to them from Christ, and that, under Christ, they reign over the Christian | |
| 5065 people. | |
| 5066 </p> | |
| 5067 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p11"> | |
| 5068 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as in civil matters the whole power is sometimes vested in a judge, as in a kingdom, whereas sometimes it is vested | |
| 5069 in many exercising various offices but acting together with equal rights (Ethic. viii, 10,11), so too, spiritual jurisdiction | |
| 5070 may be exercised both by one alone, e.g. a bishop, and by many together, e.g. by a Chapter, and thus they have the key of | |
| 5071 jurisdiction, but they have not all together the key of order. | |
| 5072 </p> | |
| 5073 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p12"> | |
| 5074 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> According to the Apostle ( | |
| 5075 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.11" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:11</a>; | |
| 5076 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A3-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Titus.2.5" target="asv"> Titus 2:5</a>), woman is in a state of subjection: wherefore she can have no spiritual jurisdiction, since the Philosopher also says (Ethic. | |
| 5077 viii) that it is a corruption of public life when the government comes into the hands of a woman. Consequently a woman has | |
| 5078 neither the key of order nor the key of jurisdiction. Nevertheless a certain use of the keys is allowed to women, | |
| 5079 such as the right to correct other women who are under them, on account of the danger that might threaten if men were to dwell | |
| 5080 under the same roof. | |
| 5081 </p> | |
| 5082 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 5083 <p id="XP_Q19_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 5084 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5085 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5086 </div> | |
| 5087 <div id="XP_Q19_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 5088 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5089 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A5.html"></a> | |
| 5090 <h4 id="XP_Q19_A4-p0.1">Whether holy men who are not priests have the keys?</h4> | |
| 5091 <p id="XP_Q19_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 5092 <p id="XP_Q19_A4-p2"> | |
| 5093 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that holy men, even those who are not priests, have the use of the keys. For loosing and binding, which are | |
| 5094 the effects of the keys, derive their efficacy from the merit of Christ's Passion. Now those are most conformed to Christ's | |
| 5095 Passion, who follow Christ, suffering by patience and other virtues. Therefore it seems that even if they have not the priestly | |
| 5096 order, they can bind and loose. | |
| 5097 </p> | |
| 5098 <p id="XP_Q19_A4-p3"> | |
| 5099 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( | |
| 5100 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.7" target="asv">Heb. 7:7</a>): "Without all contradiction, that which is less is blessed by the greater [Vulg.: 'better']." Now "in spiritual matters," | |
| 5101 according to Augustine (De Trin. vi, 8), "to be better is to be greater." Therefore those who are better, i.e. who have more | |
| 5102 charity, can bless others by absolving them. Hence the same conclusion follows. | |
| 5103 </p> | |
| 5104 <p id="XP_Q19_A4-p4"> | |
| 5105 <b>On the contrary,</b> "Action belongs to that which has the power," as the Philosopher says (De Somno et Vigil. i). But the key which is a spiritual | |
| 5106 power belongs to priests alone. Therefore priests alone are competent to have the use of the keys. | |
| 5107 </p> | |
| 5108 <p id="XP_Q19_A4-p5"> | |
| 5109 <b>I answer that,</b> There is this difference between a principal and an instrumental agent, that the latter does not produce, in the effect, | |
| 5110 its own likeness, but the likeness of the principal agent, whereas the principal agent produces its own likeness. Consequently | |
| 5111 a thing becomes a principal agent through having a form, which it can reproduce in another, whereas an instrumental agent | |
| 5112 is not constituted thus, but through being applied by the principal agent in order to | |
| 5113 produce a certain effect. Since therefore in the act of the keys the principal agent by authority is Christ as God, and by | |
| 5114 merit is Christ as man,* it follows that on account of the very fulness of Divine goodness in Him, and of the perfection of | |
| 5115 His grace, He is competent to exercise the act of the keys. [*For St. Thomas' later teaching on this point, cf. | |
| 5116 <a id="XP_Q19_A4-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A6.html">TP, Q[48], A[6]</a>; | |
| 5117 <a id="XP_Q19_A4-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q112_A1.html">FS, Q[112], A[1]</a>, ad 1]. But another man is not competent to exercise | |
| 5118 this act as principal agent, since neither can he give another man grace whereby sins are remitted, nor can he merit sufficiently, | |
| 5119 so that he is nothing more than an instrumental agent. Consequently the recipient of the effect of the keys, is likened, not | |
| 5120 to the one who uses the keys, but to Christ. Therefore, no matter how much grace a man may have, he cannot produce the effect | |
| 5121 of the keys, unless he be appointed to that purpose by receiving orders. | |
| 5122 </p> | |
| 5123 <p id="XP_Q19_A4-p6"> | |
| 5124 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as between instrument and effect there is need or likeness, not of a similar form, but of aptitude in the instrument | |
| 5125 for the effect, so is it as regards the instrument and the principal agent. The former is the likeness between holy men and | |
| 5126 the suffering Christ, nor does it bestow on them the use of the keys. | |
| 5127 </p> | |
| 5128 <p id="XP_Q19_A4-p7"> | |
| 5129 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although a mere man cannot merit grace for another man condignly, yet the merit of one man can co-operate in the salvation | |
| 5130 of another. Hence there is a twofold blessing. One proceeds from a mere man, as meriting by his own act: this blessing can | |
| 5131 be conferred by any holy person in whom Christ dwells by His grace, in so far as he excels in goodness the person whom he | |
| 5132 blesses. The other blessing is when a man blesses, as applying a blessing | |
| 5133 instrumentally through the merit of Christ, and this requires excellence of order and not of virtue. | |
| 5134 </p> | |
| 5135 <p id="XP_Q19_A4-p8"></p> | |
| 5136 <p id="XP_Q19_A4-p9"></p> | |
| 5137 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5138 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A5.html"></a> | |
| 5139 </div> | |
| 5140 <div id="XP_Q19_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 5141 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5142 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A6.html"></a> | |
| 5143 <h4 id="XP_Q19_A5-p0.1">Whether wicked priests have the use of the keys?</h4> | |
| 5144 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 5145 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p2"> | |
| 5146 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that wicked priests have not the use of the keys. For in the passage where the use of the keys is bestowed | |
| 5147 on the apostles ( | |
| 5148 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q19_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.22" target="asv">Jn. 20:22,23</a>), the gift of the Holy Ghost is promised. But wicked men have not the Holy Ghost. Therefore they have not the use of the | |
| 5149 keys. | |
| 5150 </p> | |
| 5151 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p3"> | |
| 5152 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no wise king entrusts his enemy with the dispensation of his treasure. Now the use of the keys consists in dispensing | |
| 5153 the treasure of the King of heaven, Who is Wisdom itself. Therefore the wicked, who are His enemies on account of sin, have | |
| 5154 not the use of the keys. | |
| 5155 </p> | |
| 5156 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p4"> | |
| 5157 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Bapt. v, 21) that God "gives the sacrament of grace even through wicked men, but grace itself | |
| 5158 only by Himself or through His saints." Hence He forgives sin by Himself, or by those who are members of the Dove. But the | |
| 5159 remission of sins is the use of the keys. Therefore sinners, who are not "members of the Dove," have not the use of the keys. | |
| 5160 </p> | |
| 5161 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p5"> | |
| 5162 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the prayer of a wicked priest cannot effect reconciliation, for, as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 11), "if an unacceptable | |
| 5163 person is sent to intercede, anger is provoked to yet greater severity." But the use of the keys implies a kind of intercession, | |
| 5164 as appears in the form of absolution. Therefore wicked priests cannot use the keys effectively. | |
| 5165 </p> | |
| 5166 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p6"> | |
| 5167 <b>On the contrary,</b> No man can know whether another man is in the state of grace. If, therefore, no one could use the keys in giving absolution | |
| 5168 unless he were in a state of grace, no one would know that he had been absolved, which would be very unfitting. | |
| 5169 </p> | |
| 5170 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p7"> Further, the wickedness of the minister cannot void the liberality of his lord. But the priest is no more than a minister. | |
| 5171 Therefore he cannot by his wickedness take away from us the gift which God has given through him. | |
| 5172 </p> | |
| 5173 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p8"> | |
| 5174 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as participation of a form to be induced into an effect does not make a thing to be an instrument, so neither does the | |
| 5175 loss of that form prevent that thing being used as an instrument. Consequently, since man is merely an instrument in the use | |
| 5176 of the keys, however much he may through sin be deprived of grace, whereby sins are forgiven, yet he is by no means deprived | |
| 5177 of the use of the keys. | |
| 5178 </p> | |
| 5179 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p9"> | |
| 5180 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The gift of the Holy Ghost is requisite for the use of the keys, not as being indispensable for the purpose, but because | |
| 5181 it is unbecoming for the user to use them without it, though he that submits to them receives their effect. | |
| 5182 </p> | |
| 5183 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p10"> | |
| 5184 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> An earthly king can be cheated and deceived in the matter of his treasure, and so he does not entrust his enemy with the | |
| 5185 dispensation thereof. But the King of heaven cannot be cheated, because all tends to His own glory, even the abuse of the | |
| 5186 keys by some, for He can make good come out of evil, and produce many good effects through evil men. Hence the comparison | |
| 5187 fails. | |
| 5188 </p> | |
| 5189 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p11"> | |
| 5190 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Augustine speaks of the remission of sins in so far as holy men co-operate therein, not by virtue of the keys, but by merit | |
| 5191 of congruity. Hence He says that God confers the sacraments even through evil men, and among the other sacraments, absolution | |
| 5192 which is the use of the keys should be reckoned: but that through "members of the Dove," i.e. holy men, He grants forgiveness | |
| 5193 of sins, in so far as He remits sins on account of their intercession. | |
| 5194 </p> | |
| 5195 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p12"> We might also reply that by "members of the Dove" he means all who are not cut off from the Church, for those who receive | |
| 5196 the sacraments from them, receive grace, whereas those who receive the sacraments from those who are cut off from the Church, | |
| 5197 do not receive grace, because they sin in so doing, except in the case of Baptism, which, in cases of necessity, may be received | |
| 5198 even from one who is excommunicate. | |
| 5199 </p> | |
| 5200 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p13"> | |
| 5201 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The prayer which the wicked priest proffers on his own account, is not efficacious: but that which he makes as a minister | |
| 5202 of the Church, is efficacious through the merit of Christ. Yet in both ways the priest's prayer should profit those who are | |
| 5203 subject to him. | |
| 5204 </p> | |
| 5205 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 5206 <p id="XP_Q19_A5-p15"></p> | |
| 5207 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5208 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A6.html"></a> | |
| 5209 </div> | |
| 5210 <div id="XP_Q19_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 5211 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A5.html"></a> | |
| 5212 <a href="summa.XP_Q20.html"></a> | |
| 5213 <h4 id="XP_Q19_A6-p0.1">Whether those who are schismatics, heretics, excommunicate, suspended or degraded have the use of the keys?</h4> | |
| 5214 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 5215 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p2"> | |
| 5216 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that those who are schismatics, heretics, excommunicate, suspended or degraded have the use of the keys. For | |
| 5217 just as the power of the keys results from orders, so does the power of consecration. But the above cannot lose the use of | |
| 5218 the power of consecration, since if they do consecrate it is valid, though they sin in doing so. Therefore neither can they | |
| 5219 lose the use of the keys. | |
| 5220 </p> | |
| 5221 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p3"> | |
| 5222 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, any active spiritual power in one who has the use of his free-will can be exercised by him when he wills. Now the | |
| 5223 power of the keys remains in the aforesaid, for, since it is only conferred with orders, they would have to be reordained | |
| 5224 when they return to the Church. Therefore, since it is an active power, they can exercise it when they will. | |
| 5225 </p> | |
| 5226 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p4"> | |
| 5227 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, spiritual grace is hindered by guilt more than by punishment. Now excommunication, suspension and degradation are | |
| 5228 punishments. Therefore, since a man does not lose the use of the keys on account of guilt, it seems that he does not lose | |
| 5229 it on account of the aforesaid. | |
| 5230 </p> | |
| 5231 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p5"> | |
| 5232 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Tract. cxxi in Joan.) that the "charity of the Church forgives sins." Now it is the charity of the Church | |
| 5233 which unites its members. Since therefore the above are disunited from the Church, it seems that they have not the use of | |
| 5234 the keys in remitting sins. | |
| 5235 </p> | |
| 5236 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p6"> Further, no man is absolved from sin by sinning. Now it is a sin for anyone to seek absolution of his sins from the above, | |
| 5237 for he disobeys the Church in so doing. Therefore he cannot be absolved by them: and so the same conclusion follows. | |
| 5238 </p> | |
| 5239 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p7"> | |
| 5240 <b>I answer that,</b> In all the above the power of the keys remains as to its essence, but its use is hindered on account of the lack of matter. | |
| 5241 For since the use of the keys requires in the user authority over the person on whom they are used, as stated above ( | |
| 5242 <a id="XP_Q19_A6-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q17_A2.html">Q[17], A[2]</a>, ad 2), the proper matter on whom one can exercise the use of the keys is a man under one's authority. And since it is by | |
| 5243 appointment of the Church that one man has authority over | |
| 5244 another, so a man may be deprived of his authority over another by his ecclesiastical superiors. Consequently, since the Church | |
| 5245 deprives heretics, schismatics and the like, by withdrawing their subjects from them either altogether or in some respect, | |
| 5246 in so far as they are thus deprived, they cannot have the use of the keys. | |
| 5247 </p> | |
| 5248 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p8"> | |
| 5249 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist, on which the priest exercises his power, is not a man but wheaten bread, and | |
| 5250 in Baptism, the matter is simply a man. Wherefore, just as, were a heretic to be without wheaten bread, he could not consecrate, | |
| 5251 so neither can a prelate absolve if he be deprived of his authority, yet he can baptize and consecrate, albeit to his own | |
| 5252 damnation. | |
| 5253 </p> | |
| 5254 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p9"> | |
| 5255 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The assertion is true, provided matter be not lacking as it is in the case in point. | |
| 5256 </p> | |
| 5257 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p10"> | |
| 5258 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Sin, of itself, does not remove matter, as certain punishments do: so that punishment is a hindrance not because it is contrary | |
| 5259 to the effect, but for the reason stated. | |
| 5260 </p> | |
| 5261 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p11"></p> | |
| 5262 <p id="XP_Q19_A6-p12"></p> | |
| 5263 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A5.html"></a> | |
| 5264 <a href="summa.XP_Q20.html"></a> | |
| 5265 </div> | |
| 5266 <a href="summa.XP_Q18_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5267 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5268 </div> | |
| 5269 <div id="XP_Q20" class="div3"> | |
| 5270 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A6.html"></a> | |
| 5271 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5272 <h3 id="XP_Q20-p0.1">OF THOSE ON WHOM THE POWER OF THE KEYS CAN BE EXERCISED (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 5273 <p id="XP_Q20-p1"></p> | |
| 5274 <p id="XP_Q20-p2"> We must now consider those on whom the power of the keys can be exercised. Under this head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 5275 <p id="XP_Q20-p3"> (1) Whether a priest can use the key, which he has, on any man?</p> | |
| 5276 <p id="XP_Q20-p4"> (2) Whether a priest can always absolve his subject?</p> | |
| 5277 <p id="XP_Q20-p5"> (3) Whether anyone can use the keys on his superior?</p> | |
| 5278 <div id="XP_Q20_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 5279 <a href="summa.XP_Q20.html"></a> | |
| 5280 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5281 <h4 id="XP_Q20_A1-p0.1">Whether a priest can use the key which he has, on any man?</h4> | |
| 5282 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 5283 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p2"> | |
| 5284 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a priest can use the key which he has, on any man. For the power of the keys was bestowed on priests by | |
| 5285 Divine authority in the words: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them" ( | |
| 5286 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q20_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.22" target="asv">Jn. 20:22,23</a>). But this was said without any restriction. Therefore he that has the key, can use it on any without restriction. | |
| 5287 </p> | |
| 5288 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p3"> | |
| 5289 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a material key that opens one lock, opens all locks of the same pattern. Now every sin of every man is the same | |
| 5290 kind of obstacle against entering into heaven. Therefore if a priest can, by means of the key which he has, absolve one man, | |
| 5291 he can do the same for all others. | |
| 5292 </p> | |
| 5293 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p4"> | |
| 5294 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priesthood of the New Testament is more perfect than that of the Old Testament. But the priest of the Old Testament | |
| 5295 could use the power which he had of discerning between different kinds of leprosy, with regard to all indiscriminately. Much | |
| 5296 more therefore can the priest of the Gospel use his power with regard to all. | |
| 5297 </p> | |
| 5298 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p5"> | |
| 5299 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written in the Appendix of Gratian: "It is not lawful for every priest to loose or bind another priest's parishioner." | |
| 5300 Therefore a priest cannot absolve everybody. | |
| 5301 </p> | |
| 5302 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p6"> Further, judgment in spiritual matters should be better regulated than in temporal matters. But in temporal matters a judge | |
| 5303 cannot judge everybody. Therefore, since the use of the keys is a kind of judgment, it is not within the competency of a priest | |
| 5304 to use his key with regard to everyone. | |
| 5305 </p> | |
| 5306 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p7"> | |
| 5307 <b>I answer that,</b> That which has to do with singular matters is not equally in the power of all. Thus, even as besides the general principles | |
| 5308 of medicine, it is necessary to have physicians, who adapt those general principles to individual patients or diseases, according | |
| 5309 to their various requirements, so in every kingdom, besides that one who proclaims the universal precepts of law, there is | |
| 5310 need for others to adapt those precepts to individual cases, according as each case | |
| 5311 demands. For this reason, in the heavenly hierarchy also, under the Powers who rule indiscriminately, a place is given to | |
| 5312 the Principalities, who are appointed to individual kingdoms, and to the Angels who are given charge over individual men, | |
| 5313 as we have explained above ( | |
| 5314 <a id="XP_Q20_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q113_A1.html">FP, Q[113], AA[1]</a>,2). Consequently there should be a like order of authority in the Church Militant, so that an indiscriminate authority over | |
| 5315 all should be vested in one individual, and that there | |
| 5316 should be others under him, having distinct authority over various people. Now the use of the keys implies a certain power | |
| 5317 to exercise authority, whereby the one on whom the keys are used, becomes the proper matter of that act. Therefore he that | |
| 5318 has power over all indiscriminately, can use the keys on all, whereas those who have received authority over distinct persons, | |
| 5319 cannot use the keys on everyone, but only on those over whom they are appointed, except in cases of necessity, when the | |
| 5320 sacraments should be refused to no one. | |
| 5321 </p> | |
| 5322 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p8"> | |
| 5323 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A twofold power is required in order to absolve from sins, namely, power of order and power of jurisdiction. The former power | |
| 5324 is equally in all priests, but not the latter. And therefore, when our Lord ( | |
| 5325 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q20_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.23" target="asv">Jn. 20:23</a>) gave all the apostles in general, the power of forgiving sins, this is to be understood of the power which results from | |
| 5326 receiving orders, wherefore these words are addressed to priests when they are ordained. But to | |
| 5327 Peter in particular He gave the power of forgiving sins ( | |
| 5328 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q20_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>), that we may understand that he has the power of jurisdiction before the others. But the power of orders, considered in | |
| 5329 itself, extends to all who can be absolved: wherefore our Lord said indeterminately, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are | |
| 5330 forgiven them," on the understanding that this power should be used in dependence on the power given to Peter, according to | |
| 5331 His appointment. | |
| 5332 </p> | |
| 5333 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p9"> | |
| 5334 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A material key can open only its own lock. nor can any active force act save on its own matter. Now a man becomes the matter | |
| 5335 of the power of order by jurisdiction: and consequently no one can use the key in respect of another over whom he has not | |
| 5336 jurisdiction. | |
| 5337 </p> | |
| 5338 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p10"> | |
| 5339 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The people of Israel were one people, and had but one temple, so that there was no need for a distinction in priestly jurisdiction, | |
| 5340 as there is now in the Church which comprises various peoples and nations. | |
| 5341 </p> | |
| 5342 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 5343 <p id="XP_Q20_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 5344 <a href="summa.XP_Q20.html"></a> | |
| 5345 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5346 </div> | |
| 5347 <div id="XP_Q20_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 5348 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5349 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5350 <h4 id="XP_Q20_A2-p0.1">Whether a priest can always absolve his subject?</h4> | |
| 5351 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 5352 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p2"> | |
| 5353 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a priest cannot always absolve his subject. For, as Augustine says (De vera et false Poenitentia [*Work | |
| 5354 of an unknown author]), "no man should exercise the priestly office, unless he be free from those things which he condemns | |
| 5355 in others." But a priest might happen to share in a sin committed by his subject, e.g. by knowledge of a woman who is his | |
| 5356 subject. Therefore it seems that he cannot always use the power of the keys on his subjects. | |
| 5357 </p> | |
| 5358 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p3"> | |
| 5359 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by the power of the keys a man is healed of all his shortcomings. Now it happens sometimes that a sin has attached | |
| 5360 to it a defect of irregularity or a sentence of excommunication, from which a simple priest cannot absolve. Therefore it seems | |
| 5361 that he cannot use the power of the keys on such as are shackled by these things in the above manner. | |
| 5362 </p> | |
| 5363 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p4"> | |
| 5364 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the judgment and power of our priesthood was foreshadowed by the judgment of the ancient priesthood. Now according | |
| 5365 to the Law, the lesser judges were not competent to decide all cases, and had recourse to the higher judges, according to | |
| 5366 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q20_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.24.14" target="asv"> Ex. 24:14</a>: "If any question shall arise" among you, "you shall refer it to them." It seems, therefore, that a priest cannot absolve | |
| 5367 his subject from graver sins, but should refer him to his | |
| 5368 superior. | |
| 5369 </p> | |
| 5370 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p5"> | |
| 5371 <b>On the contrary,</b> Whoever has charge of the principal has charge of the accessory. Now priests are charged with the dispensation of the Eucharist | |
| 5372 to their subjects, to which sacrament the absolution of sins is subordinate [*Cf. | |
| 5373 <a id="XP_Q20_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q17_A2.html"> Q[17], A[2]</a>, ad 1]. Therefore, as far as the power of the keys is concerned, a priest can absolve his subject from any sins whatever. | |
| 5374 </p> | |
| 5375 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p6"> Further, grace, however small, removes all sin. But a priest dispenses sacraments whereby grace is given. Therefore, as far | |
| 5376 as the power of the keys is concerned, he can absolve from all sins. | |
| 5377 </p> | |
| 5378 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p7"> | |
| 5379 <b>I answer that,</b> The power of order, considered in itself, extends to the remission of all sins. But since, as stated above, the use of this | |
| 5380 power requires jurisdiction which inferiors derive from their superiors, it follows that the superior can reserve certain | |
| 5381 matters to himself, the judgment of which he does not commit to his inferior; otherwise any simple priest who has jurisdiction | |
| 5382 can absolve from any sin. Now there are five cases in which a simple priest must refer | |
| 5383 his penitent to his superior. The first is when a public penance has to be imposed, because in that case the bishop is the | |
| 5384 proper minister of the sacrament. The second is the case of those who are excommunicated when the inferior priest cannot absolve | |
| 5385 a penitent through the latter being excommunicated by his superior. The third case is when he finds that an irregularity has | |
| 5386 been contracted, for the dispensation of which he has to have recourse to his superior. The fourth is the case of arson. | |
| 5387 The fifth is when it is the custom in a diocese for the more heinous crimes to be reserved to the bishop, in order to inspire | |
| 5388 fear, because custom in these cases either gives the power or takes it away. | |
| 5389 </p> | |
| 5390 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p8"> | |
| 5391 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In this case the priest should not hear the confession of his accomplice, with regard to that particular sin, but must refer | |
| 5392 her to another: nor should she confess to him but should ask permission to go to another, or should have recourse to his superior | |
| 5393 if he refused, both on account of the danger, and for the sake of less shame. If, however, he were to absolve her it would | |
| 5394 be valid*: because when Augustine says that they should not be guilty of the | |
| 5395 same sin, he is speaking of what is congruous, not of what is essential to the sacrament. [*Benedict XIV declared the absolution | |
| 5396 of an accomplice "in materia turpi" to be invalid.] | |
| 5397 </p> | |
| 5398 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p9"> | |
| 5399 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Penance delivers man from all defects of guilt, but not from all defects of punishment, since even after doing penance for | |
| 5400 murder, a man remains irregular. Hence a priest can absolve from a crime, but for the remission of the punishment he must | |
| 5401 refer the penitent to the superior, except in the case of excommunication, absolution from which should precede absolution | |
| 5402 from sin, for as long as a man is excommunicated, he cannot receive any sacrament of | |
| 5403 the Church. | |
| 5404 </p> | |
| 5405 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p10"> | |
| 5406 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This objection considers those cases in which superiors reserve the power of jurisdiction to themselves. | |
| 5407 </p> | |
| 5408 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 5409 <p id="XP_Q20_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 5410 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5411 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5412 </div> | |
| 5413 <div id="XP_Q20_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 5414 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5415 <a href="summa.XP_Q21.html"></a> | |
| 5416 <h4 id="XP_Q20_A3-p0.1">Whether a man can use the keys with regard to his superior?</h4> | |
| 5417 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 5418 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p2"> | |
| 5419 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man cannot use the keys in respect of a superior. For every sacramental act requires its proper matter. | |
| 5420 Now the proper matter for the use of the keys, is a person who is subject, as stated above ( | |
| 5421 <a id="XP_Q20_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q19_A6.html">Q[19], A[6]</a>). Therefore a priest cannot use the keys in respect of one who is not his subject. | |
| 5422 </p> | |
| 5423 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p3"> | |
| 5424 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Church Militant is an image of the Church Triumphant. Now in the heavenly Church an inferior angel never cleanses, | |
| 5425 enlightens or perfects a higher angel. Therefore neither can an inferior priest exercise on a superior a hierarchical action | |
| 5426 such as absolution. | |
| 5427 </p> | |
| 5428 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p4"> | |
| 5429 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the judgment of Penance should be better regulated than the judgment of an external court. Now in the external court | |
| 5430 an inferior cannot excommunicate or absolve his superior. Therefore, seemingly, neither can he do so in the penitential court. | |
| 5431 </p> | |
| 5432 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p5"> | |
| 5433 <b>On the contrary,</b> The higher prelate is also "compassed with infirmity," and may happen to sin. Now the power of the keys is the remedy for | |
| 5434 sin. Therefore, since he cannot use the key on himself, for he cannot be both judge and accused at the same time, it seems | |
| 5435 that an inferior can use the power of the keys on him. | |
| 5436 </p> | |
| 5437 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p6"> Further, absolution which is given through the power of the keys, is ordained to the reception of the Eucharist. But an inferior | |
| 5438 can give Communion to his superior, if the latter asks him to. Therefore he can use the power of the keys on him if he submit | |
| 5439 to him. | |
| 5440 </p> | |
| 5441 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p7"> | |
| 5442 <b>I answer that,</b> The power of the keys, considered in itself, is applicable to all, as stated above | |
| 5443 <a id="XP_Q20_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q20_A2.html">(A[2])</a>: and that a priest is unable to use the keys on some particular person is due to his power being limited to certain individuals. | |
| 5444 Therefore he who limited his power can extend it to whom he wills, so that he can give him power over himself, although he | |
| 5445 cannot use the power of the keys on himself, because this power requires to be exercised on a | |
| 5446 subject, and therefore on someone else, for no man can be subject to himself. | |
| 5447 </p> | |
| 5448 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p8"> | |
| 5449 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the bishop whom a simple priest absolves is his superior absolutely speaking, yet he is beneath him in so far as | |
| 5450 he submits himself as a sinner to him. | |
| 5451 </p> | |
| 5452 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p9"> | |
| 5453 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the angels there can be no defect by reason of which the higher angel can submit to the lower, such as there can happen | |
| 5454 to be among men; and so there is no comparison. | |
| 5455 </p> | |
| 5456 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p10"> | |
| 5457 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> External judgment is according to men, whereas the judgment of confession is according to God, in Whose sight a man is lessened | |
| 5458 by sinning, which is not the case in human prelacy. Therefore just as in external judgment no man can pass sentence of excommunication | |
| 5459 on himself, so neither can he empower another to excommunicate him. On the other hand, in the tribunal of conscience he can | |
| 5460 give another the power to absolve him, though he cannot use that | |
| 5461 power himself. | |
| 5462 </p> | |
| 5463 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p11"> It may also be replied that absolution in the tribunal of the confessional belongs principally to the power of the keys and | |
| 5464 consequently to the power of jurisdiction, whereas excommunication regards jurisdiction exclusively. And, as to the power | |
| 5465 of orders, all are equal, but not as to jurisdiction. Wherefore there is no comparison. | |
| 5466 </p> | |
| 5467 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 5468 <p id="XP_Q20_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 5469 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5470 <a href="summa.XP_Q21.html"></a> | |
| 5471 </div> | |
| 5472 <a href="summa.XP_Q19_A6.html"></a> | |
| 5473 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5474 </div> | |
| 5475 <div id="XP_Q21" class="div3"> | |
| 5476 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5477 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5478 <h3 id="XP_Q21-p0.1">OF THE DEFINITION, CONGRUITY AND CAUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 5479 <p id="XP_Q21-p1"></p> | |
| 5480 <p id="XP_Q21-p2"> We must now treat of excommunication: we shall consider: (1) the definition, congruity and cause of excommunication; (2) | |
| 5481 who has the power to excommunicate; (3) communication with excommunicated persons; (4) absolution from excommunication. | |
| 5482 </p> | |
| 5483 <p id="XP_Q21-p3"> Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 5484 <p id="XP_Q21-p4"> (1) Whether excommunication is suitably defined?</p> | |
| 5485 <p id="XP_Q21-p5"> (2) Whether the Church should excommunicate anyone?</p> | |
| 5486 <p id="XP_Q21-p6"> (3) Whether anyone should be excommunicated for inflicting temporal harm?</p> | |
| 5487 <p id="XP_Q21-p7"> (4) Whether an excommunication unjustly pronounced has any effect?</p> | |
| 5488 <div id="XP_Q21_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 5489 <a href="summa.XP_Q21.html"></a> | |
| 5490 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5491 <h4 id="XP_Q21_A1-p0.1">Whether excommunication is suitably defined as separation from the communion of the Church, etc?</h4> | |
| 5492 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 5493 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p2"> | |
| 5494 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that excommunication is unsuitably defined by some thus: "Excommunication is separation from the communion | |
| 5495 of the Church, as to fruit and general suffrages." For the suffrages of the Church avail for those for whom they are offered. | |
| 5496 But the Church prays for those who are outside the Church, as, for instance, for heretics and pagans. Therefore she prays | |
| 5497 also for the excommunicated, since they are outside the Church, and so the suffrages of the | |
| 5498 Church avail for them. | |
| 5499 </p> | |
| 5500 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p3"> | |
| 5501 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one loses the suffrages of the Church except by his own fault. Now excommunication is not a fault, but a punishment. | |
| 5502 Therefore excommunication does not deprive a man of the general suffrages of the Church. | |
| 5503 </p> | |
| 5504 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p4"> | |
| 5505 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the fruit of the Church seems to be the same as the Church's suffrages, for it cannot mean the fruit of temporal | |
| 5506 goods, since excommunication does not deprive a man of these. Therefore there is no reason for mentioning both. | |
| 5507 </p> | |
| 5508 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p5"> | |
| 5509 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, there is a kind of excommunication called minor*, by which man is not deprived of the suffrages of the Church. [*Minor | |
| 5510 excommunication is no longer recognized by Canon Law.] Therefore this definition is unsuitable. | |
| 5511 </p> | |
| 5512 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p6"> | |
| 5513 <b>I answer that,</b> When a man enters the Church by Baptism, he is admitted to two things, viz. the body of the faithful and the participation | |
| 5514 of the sacraments: and this latter presupposes the former, since the faithful are united together in the participation of | |
| 5515 the sacraments. Consequently a person may be expelled from the Church in two ways. First, by being deprived merely of the | |
| 5516 participation of the sacraments, and this is the minor excommunication. Secondly, by being | |
| 5517 deprived of both, and this is the major excommunication, of which the above is the definition. Nor can there be a third, consisting | |
| 5518 in the privation of communion with the faithful, but not of the participation of the sacraments, for the reason already given, | |
| 5519 because, to wit, the faithful communicate together in the sacraments. Now communion with the faithful is twofold. One consists | |
| 5520 in spiritual things, such as their praying for one another, and meeting together for the reception of sacred | |
| 5521 things; while another consists in certain legitimate bodily actions. These different manners of communion are signified in | |
| 5522 the verse which declares that those who are excommunicate are deprived of--- | |
| 5523 </p> | |
| 5524 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p7"> "os, orare, vale, communio, mensa."</p> | |
| 5525 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p8">"Os," i.e. we must not give them tokens of goodwill; "orare," i.e. we must not pray with them; "vale," we must not give them | |
| 5526 marks of respect; "communio," i.e. we must not communicate with them in the sacraments; "mensa," i.e. we must not take meals | |
| 5527 with them. Accordingly the above definition includes privation of the sacraments in the words "as to the fruit," and from | |
| 5528 partaking together with the faithful in spiritual things, in the words, "and the general prayers of the | |
| 5529 Church." | |
| 5530 </p> | |
| 5531 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p9"> Another definition is given which expresses the privation of both kinds of acts, and is as follows: "Excommunication is the | |
| 5532 privation of all lawful communion with the faithful." | |
| 5533 </p> | |
| 5534 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p10"> | |
| 5535 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Prayers are said for unbelievers, but they do not receive the fruit of those prayers unless they be converted to the faith. | |
| 5536 In like manner prayers may be offered up for those who are excommunicated, but not among the prayers that are said for the | |
| 5537 members of the Church. Yet they do not receive the fruit so long as they remain under the excommunication, but prayers are | |
| 5538 said for them that they may receive the spirit of repentance, so that they may be | |
| 5539 loosed from excommunication. | |
| 5540 </p> | |
| 5541 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p11"> | |
| 5542 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> One man's prayers profit another in so far as they can reach to him. Now the action of one man may reach to another in two | |
| 5543 ways. First, by virtue of charity which unites all the faithful, making them one in God, according to | |
| 5544 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q21_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.63" target="asv"> Ps. 118:63</a>: "I am a partaker with all them that fear Thee." Now excommunication does not interrupt this union, since no man can be justly | |
| 5545 excommunicated except for a mortal sin, whereby a man is already | |
| 5546 separated from charity, even without being excommunicated. An unjust excommunication cannot deprive a man of charity, since | |
| 5547 this is one of the greatest of all goods, of which a man cannot be deprived against his will. Secondly, through the intention | |
| 5548 of the one who prays, which intention is directed to the person he prays for, and this union is interrupted by excommunication, | |
| 5549 because by passing sentence of excommunication, the Church severs a man from the whole body of the faithful, for whom she | |
| 5550 prays. Hence those prayers of the Church which are offered up for the whole Church, do not profit those who are excommunicated. | |
| 5551 Nor can prayers be said for them among the members of the Church as speaking in the Church's name, although a private individual | |
| 5552 may say a prayer with the intention of offering it for their conversion. | |
| 5553 </p> | |
| 5554 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p12"> | |
| 5555 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The spiritual fruit of the Church is derived not only from her prayers, but also from the sacraments received and from the | |
| 5556 faithful dwelling together. | |
| 5557 </p> | |
| 5558 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p13"> | |
| 5559 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The minor excommunication does not fulfill all the conditions of excommunication but only a part of them, hence the definition | |
| 5560 of excommunication need not apply to it in every respect, but only in some. | |
| 5561 </p> | |
| 5562 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 5563 <p id="XP_Q21_A1-p15"></p> | |
| 5564 <a href="summa.XP_Q21.html"></a> | |
| 5565 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5566 </div> | |
| 5567 <div id="XP_Q21_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 5568 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5569 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5570 <h4 id="XP_Q21_A2-p0.1">Whether the Church should excommunicate anyone?</h4> | |
| 5571 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 5572 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p2"> | |
| 5573 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Church ought not to excommunicate anyone, because excommunication is a kind of curse, and we are forbidden | |
| 5574 to curse ( | |
| 5575 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q21_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.12.14" target="asv">Rom. 12:14</a>). Therefore the Church should not excommunicate. | |
| 5576 </p> | |
| 5577 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p3"> | |
| 5578 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Church Militant should imitate the Church Triumphant. Now we read in the epistle of Jude (verse 9) that "when | |
| 5579 Michael the Archangel disputing with the devil contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment | |
| 5580 of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee." Therefore the Church Militant ought not to judge any man by cursing or | |
| 5581 excommunicating him. | |
| 5582 </p> | |
| 5583 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p4"> | |
| 5584 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no man should be given into the hands of his enemies, unless there be no hope for him. Now by excommunication a | |
| 5585 man is given into the hands of Satan, as is clear from | |
| 5586 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q21_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.5" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:5.</a> Since then we should never give up hope about anyone in this life, the Church should not excommunicate anyone. | |
| 5587 </p> | |
| 5588 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p5"> | |
| 5589 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle ( | |
| 5590 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q21_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.5" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:5</a>) ordered a man to be excommunicated. | |
| 5591 </p> | |
| 5592 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p6"> Further, it is written ( | |
| 5593 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q21_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.18.17" target="asv">Mat. 18:17</a>) about the man who refuses to hear the Church: "Let him be to thee as the heathen or publican." But heathens are outside | |
| 5594 the Church. Therefore they also who refuse to hear the Church, should be banished from the Church by excommunication. | |
| 5595 </p> | |
| 5596 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p7"> | |
| 5597 <b>I answer that,</b> The judgment of the Church should be conformed to the judgment of God. Now God punishes the sinner in many ways, in order | |
| 5598 to draw him to good, either by chastising him with stripes, or by leaving him to himself so that being deprived of those helps | |
| 5599 whereby he was kept out of evil, he may acknowledge his weakness, and humbly return to God Whom he had abandoned in his pride. | |
| 5600 In both these respects the Church by passing sentence of excommunication imitates the | |
| 5601 judgment of God. For by severing a man from the communion of the faithful that he may blush with shame, she imitates the judgment | |
| 5602 whereby God chastises man with stripes; and by depriving him of prayers and other spiritual things, she imitates the judgment | |
| 5603 of God in leaving man to himself, in order that by humility he may learn to know himself and return to God. | |
| 5604 </p> | |
| 5605 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p8"> | |
| 5606 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A curse may be pronounced in two ways: first, so that the intention of the one who curses is fixed on the evil which he invokes | |
| 5607 or pronounces, and cursing in this sense is altogether forbidden. Secondly, so that the evil which a man invokes in cursing | |
| 5608 is intended for the good of the one who is cursed, and thus cursing is sometimes lawful and salutary: thus a physician makes | |
| 5609 a sick man undergo pain, by cutting him, for instance, in order to deliver him | |
| 5610 from his sickness. | |
| 5611 </p> | |
| 5612 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p9"> | |
| 5613 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The devil cannot be brought to repentance, wherefore the pain of excommunication cannot do him any good. | |
| 5614 </p> | |
| 5615 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p10"> | |
| 5616 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> From the very fact that a man is deprived of the prayers of the Church, he incurs a triple loss, corresponding to the three | |
| 5617 things which a man acquires through the Church's prayers. For they bring an increase of grace to those who have it, or merit | |
| 5618 grace for those who have it not; and in this respect the Master of the Sentences says (Sent. iv, D, 18): "The grace of God | |
| 5619 is taken away by excommunication." They also prove a safeguard of virtue; and in | |
| 5620 this respect he says that "protection is taken away," not that the excommunicated person is withdrawn altogether from God's | |
| 5621 providence, but that he is excluded from that protection with which He watches over the children of the Church in a more special | |
| 5622 way. Moreover, they are useful as a defense against the enemy, and in this respect he says that "the devil receives greater | |
| 5623 power of assaulting the excommunicated person, both spiritually and corporally." Hence in the early Church, when men had | |
| 5624 to be enticed to the faith by means of outward signs (thus the gift of the Holy Ghost was shown openly by a visible sign), | |
| 5625 so too excommunication was evidenced by a person being troubled in his body by the devil. Nor is it unreasonable that one, | |
| 5626 for whom there is still hope, be given over to the enemy, for he is surrendered, not unto damnation, but unto correction, | |
| 5627 since the Church has the power to rescue him from the hands of the enemy, whenever he is willing. | |
| 5628 </p> | |
| 5629 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 5630 <p id="XP_Q21_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 5631 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5632 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5633 </div> | |
| 5634 <div id="XP_Q21_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 5635 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5636 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5637 <h4 id="XP_Q21_A3-p0.1">Whether anyone should be excommunicated for inflicting temporal harm?</h4> | |
| 5638 <p id="XP_Q21_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 5639 <p id="XP_Q21_A3-p2"> | |
| 5640 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no man should be excommunicated for inflicting a temporal harm. For the punishment should not exceed the | |
| 5641 fault. But the punishment of excommunication is the privation of a spiritual good, which surpasses all temporal goods. Therefore | |
| 5642 no man should be excommunicated for temporal injuries. | |
| 5643 </p> | |
| 5644 <p id="XP_Q21_A3-p3"> | |
| 5645 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we should render to no man evil for evil, according to the precept of the Apostle ( | |
| 5646 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q21_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.12.17" target="asv">Rom. 12:17</a>). But this would be rendering evil for evil, if a man were to be excommunicated for doing such an injury. Therefore this | |
| 5647 ought by no means to be done. | |
| 5648 </p> | |
| 5649 <p id="XP_Q21_A3-p4"> | |
| 5650 <b>On the contrary,</b> Peter sentenced Ananias and Saphira to death for keeping back the price of their piece of land ( | |
| 5651 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q21_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.5.1" target="asv">Acts 5:1-10</a>). Therefore it is lawful for the Church to excommunicate for temporal injuries. | |
| 5652 </p> | |
| 5653 <p id="XP_Q21_A3-p5"> | |
| 5654 <b>I answer that,</b> By excommunication the ecclesiastical judge excludes a man, in a sense, from the kingdom. Wherefore, since he ought not to | |
| 5655 exclude from the kingdom others than the unworthy, as was made clear from the definition of the keys ( | |
| 5656 <a id="XP_Q21_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q17_A2.html">Q[17], A[2]</a>), and since no one becomes unworthy, unless, through committing a mortal sin, he lose charity which is the way leading to | |
| 5657 the kingdom, it follows that no man should be excommunicated except for a | |
| 5658 mortal sin. And since by injuring a man in his body or in his temporalities, one may sin mortally and act against charity, | |
| 5659 the Church can excommunicate a man for having inflicted temporal injury on anyone. Yet, as excommunication is the most severe | |
| 5660 punishment, and since punishments are intended as remedies, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii), and again since a prudent | |
| 5661 physician begins with lighter and less risky remedies, therefore excommunication should not be inflicted, even for a | |
| 5662 mortal sin, unless the sinner be obstinate, either by not coming up for judgment, or by going away before judgment is pronounced, | |
| 5663 or by failing to obey the decision of the court. For then, if, after due warning, he refuse to obey, he is reckoned to be | |
| 5664 obstinate, and the judge, not being able to proceed otherwise against him, must excommunicate him. | |
| 5665 </p> | |
| 5666 <p id="XP_Q21_A3-p6"> | |
| 5667 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A fault is not measured by the extent of the damage a man does, but by the will with which he does it, acting against charity. | |
| 5668 Wherefore, though the punishment of excommunication exceeds the harm done, it does not exceed the measure of the sin. | |
| 5669 </p> | |
| 5670 <p id="XP_Q21_A3-p7"> | |
| 5671 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When a man is corrected by being punished, evil is not rendered to him, but good: since punishments are remedies, as stated | |
| 5672 above. | |
| 5673 </p> | |
| 5674 <p id="XP_Q21_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 5675 <p id="XP_Q21_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 5676 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5677 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5678 </div> | |
| 5679 <div id="XP_Q21_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 5680 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5681 <a href="summa.XP_Q22.html"></a> | |
| 5682 <h4 id="XP_Q21_A4-p0.1">Whether an excommunication unjustly pronounced has any effect?</h4> | |
| 5683 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 5684 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p2"> | |
| 5685 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an excommunication which is pronounced unjustly has no effect at all. Because excommunication deprives | |
| 5686 a man of the protection and grace of God, which cannot be forfeited unjustly. Therefore excommunication has no effect if it | |
| 5687 be unjustly pronounced. | |
| 5688 </p> | |
| 5689 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p3"> | |
| 5690 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Jerome says (on | |
| 5691 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q21_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv"> Mat. 16:19</a>: "I will give to thee the keys"): "It is a pharisaical severity to reckon as really bound or loosed, that which is bound | |
| 5692 or loosed unjustly." But that severity was proud and erroneous. Therefore an unjust excommunication has no effect. | |
| 5693 </p> | |
| 5694 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p4"> | |
| 5695 <b>On the contrary,</b> According to Gregory (Hom. xxvi in Evang.), "the sentence of the pastor is to be feared whether it be just or unjust." Now | |
| 5696 there would be no reason to fear an unjust excommunication if it did not hurt. Therefore, etc. | |
| 5697 </p> | |
| 5698 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p5"> | |
| 5699 <b>I answer that,</b> An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons. First, on the part of its author, as when anyone excommunicates through | |
| 5700 hatred or anger, and then, nevertheless, the excommunication takes effect, though its author sins, because the one who is | |
| 5701 excommunicated suffers justly, even if the author act wrongly in excommunicating him. Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, | |
| 5702 through there being no proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the | |
| 5703 forms of law being observed. In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, | |
| 5704 this has no effect, for there is no excommunication; but if the error does not annul the sentence, this takes effect, and | |
| 5705 the person excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either seek absolution from | |
| 5706 the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would | |
| 5707 "ipso | |
| 5708 facto" sin mortally. | |
| 5709 </p> | |
| 5710 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p6"> But sometimes it happens that there is sufficient cause on the part of the excommunicator, but not on the part of the excommunicated, | |
| 5711 as when a man is excommunicated for a crime which he has not committed, but which has been proved against him: in this case, | |
| 5712 if he submit humbly, the merit of his humility will compensate him for the harm of excommunication. | |
| 5713 </p> | |
| 5714 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p7"> | |
| 5715 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although a man cannot lose God's grace unjustly, yet he can unjustly lose those things which on our part dispose us to receive | |
| 5716 grace. for instance, a man may be deprived of the instruction which he ought to have. It is in this sense that excommunication | |
| 5717 is said to deprive a man of God's grace, as was explained above (A[2], ad 3). | |
| 5718 </p> | |
| 5719 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p8"> | |
| 5720 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Jerome is speaking of sin not of its punishments, which can be inflicted unjustly by ecclesiastical superiors. | |
| 5721 </p> | |
| 5722 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p9"></p> | |
| 5723 <p id="XP_Q21_A4-p10"></p> | |
| 5724 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5725 <a href="summa.XP_Q22.html"></a> | |
| 5726 </div> | |
| 5727 <a href="summa.XP_Q20_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5728 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5729 </div> | |
| 5730 <div id="XP_Q22" class="div3"> | |
| 5731 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5732 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5733 <h3 id="XP_Q22-p0.1">OF THOSE WHO CAN EXCOMMUNICATE OR BE EXCOMMUNICATED (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 5734 <p id="XP_Q22-p1"></p> | |
| 5735 <p id="XP_Q22-p2"> We must now consider those who can excommunicate or be excommunicated. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 5736 <p id="XP_Q22-p3"> (1) Whether every priest can excommunicate?</p> | |
| 5737 <p id="XP_Q22-p4"> (2) Whether one who is not a priest can excommunicate?</p> | |
| 5738 <p id="XP_Q22-p5"> (3) Whether one who is excommunicated or suspended, can excommunicate?</p> | |
| 5739 <p id="XP_Q22-p6"> (4) Whether anyone can excommunicate himself, or an equal, or a superior?</p> | |
| 5740 <p id="XP_Q22-p7"> (5) Whether a multitude can be excommunicated?</p> | |
| 5741 <p id="XP_Q22-p8"> (6) Whether one who is already excommunicated can be excommunicated again?</p> | |
| 5742 <div id="XP_Q22_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 5743 <a href="summa.XP_Q22.html"></a> | |
| 5744 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5745 <h4 id="XP_Q22_A1-p0.1">Whether every priest can excommunicate?</h4> | |
| 5746 <p id="XP_Q22_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 5747 <p id="XP_Q22_A1-p2"> | |
| 5748 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that every priest can excommunicate. For excommunication is an act of the keys. But every priest has the keys. | |
| 5749 Therefore every priest can excommunicate. | |
| 5750 </p> | |
| 5751 <p id="XP_Q22_A1-p3"> | |
| 5752 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is a greater thing to loose and bind in the tribunal of penance than in the tribunal of judgment. But every priest | |
| 5753 can loose and bind his subjects in the tribunal of Penance. Therefore every priest can excommunicate his subjects. | |
| 5754 </p> | |
| 5755 <p id="XP_Q22_A1-p4"> | |
| 5756 <b>On the contrary,</b> Matters fraught with danger should be left to the decision of superiors. Now the punishment of excommunication is fraught | |
| 5757 with many dangers, unless it be inflicted with moderation. Therefore it should not be entrusted to every priest. | |
| 5758 </p> | |
| 5759 <p id="XP_Q22_A1-p5"> | |
| 5760 <b>I answer that,</b> In the tribunal of conscience the plea is between man and God, whereas in the outward tribunal it is between man and man. | |
| 5761 Wherefore the loosing or binding of one man in relation to God alone, belongs to the tribunal of Penance, whereas the binding | |
| 5762 or loosing of a man in relation to other men, belongs to the public tribunal of external judgment. And since excommunication | |
| 5763 severs a man from the communion of the faithful, it belongs to the external tribunal. | |
| 5764 Consequently those alone can excommunicate who have jurisdiction in the judicial tribunal. Hence, of their own authority, | |
| 5765 only bishops and higher prelates, according to the more common opinion can excommunicate, whereas parish priests can do so | |
| 5766 only by commission or in certain cases, as those of theft, rapine and the like, in which the law allows them to excommunicate. | |
| 5767 Others, however, have maintained that even parish priests can excommunicate: but the former opinion is more reasonable. | |
| 5768 </p> | |
| 5769 <p id="XP_Q22_A1-p6"> | |
| 5770 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Excommunication is an act of the keys not directly, but with respect to the external judgment. The sentence of excommunication, | |
| 5771 however, though it is promulgated by an external verdict, still, as it belongs somewhat to the entrance to the kingdom, in | |
| 5772 so far as the Church Militant is the way to the Church Triumphant, this jurisdiction whereby a man is competent to excommunicate, | |
| 5773 can be called a key. It is in this sense that some distinguish between the | |
| 5774 key of orders, which all priests have, and the key of jurisdiction in the tribunal of judgment, which none have but the judges | |
| 5775 of the external tribunal. Nevertheless God bestowed both on Peter ( | |
| 5776 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q22_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>), from whom they are derived by others, whichever of them they have. | |
| 5777 </p> | |
| 5778 <p id="XP_Q22_A1-p7"> | |
| 5779 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Parish priests have jurisdiction indeed over their subjects, in the tribunal of conscience, but not in the judicial tribunal, | |
| 5780 for they cannot summons them in contentious cases. Hence they cannot excommunicate, but they can absolve them in the tribunal | |
| 5781 of Penance. And though the tribunal of Penance is higher, yet more solemnity is requisite in the judicial tribunal, because | |
| 5782 therein it is necessary to make satisfaction not only to God but also to | |
| 5783 man. | |
| 5784 </p> | |
| 5785 <p id="XP_Q22_A1-p8"></p> | |
| 5786 <p id="XP_Q22_A1-p9"></p> | |
| 5787 <a href="summa.XP_Q22.html"></a> | |
| 5788 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5789 </div> | |
| 5790 <div id="XP_Q22_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 5791 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5792 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5793 <h4 id="XP_Q22_A2-p0.1">Whether those who are not priests can excommunicate? </h4> | |
| 5794 <p id="XP_Q22_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 5795 <p id="XP_Q22_A2-p2"> | |
| 5796 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that those who are not priests cannot excommunicate. Because excommunication is an act of the keys, as stated | |
| 5797 in Sent. iv, D, 18. But those who are not priests have not the keys. Therefore they cannot excommunicate. | |
| 5798 </p> | |
| 5799 <p id="XP_Q22_A2-p3"> | |
| 5800 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, more is required for excommunication than for absolution in the tribunal of Penance. But one who is not a priest | |
| 5801 cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance. Neither therefore can he excommunicate. | |
| 5802 </p> | |
| 5803 <p id="XP_Q22_A2-p4"> | |
| 5804 <b>On the contrary,</b> Archdeacons, legates and bishops-elect excommunicate, and yet sometimes they are not priests. Therefore not only priests | |
| 5805 can excommunicate. | |
| 5806 </p> | |
| 5807 <p id="XP_Q22_A2-p5"> | |
| 5808 <b>I answer that,</b> Priests alone are competent to dispense the sacraments wherein grace is given: wherefore they alone can loose and bind in | |
| 5809 the tribunal of Penance. On the other hand excommunication regards grace, not directly but consequently, in so far as it deprives | |
| 5810 a man of the Church's prayers, by which he is disposed for grace or preserved therein. Consequently even those who are not | |
| 5811 priests, provided they have jurisdiction in a contentious court, can excommunicate. | |
| 5812 </p> | |
| 5813 <p id="XP_Q22_A2-p6"> | |
| 5814 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Though they have not the key of orders, they have the key of jurisdiction. | |
| 5815 </p> | |
| 5816 <p id="XP_Q22_A2-p7"> | |
| 5817 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> These two are related to one another as something exceeding and something exceeded [*Cf. A[1], a[2]; | |
| 5818 <a id="XP_Q22_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q24_A1.html"> Q[24], A[1]</a>, ad 1], and consequently one of them may be within the competency of someone while the other is not. | |
| 5819 </p> | |
| 5820 <p id="XP_Q22_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 5821 <p id="XP_Q22_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 5822 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5823 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5824 </div> | |
| 5825 <div id="XP_Q22_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 5826 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5827 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5828 <h4 id="XP_Q22_A3-p0.1">Whether a man who is excommunicated or suspended can excommunicate another?</h4> | |
| 5829 <p id="XP_Q22_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 5830 <p id="XP_Q22_A3-p2"> | |
| 5831 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one who is excommunicated or suspended can excommunicate another. For such a one has lost neither orders | |
| 5832 nor jurisdiction, since neither is he ordained anew when he is absolved, nor is his jurisdiction renewed. But excommunication | |
| 5833 requires nothing more than orders or jurisdiction. Therefore even one who is excommunicated or suspended can excommunicate. | |
| 5834 </p> | |
| 5835 <p id="XP_Q22_A3-p3"> | |
| 5836 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further. it is a greater thing to consecrate the body of Christ than to excommunicate. But such persons can consecrate. Therefore | |
| 5837 they can excommunicate. | |
| 5838 </p> | |
| 5839 <p id="XP_Q22_A3-p4"> | |
| 5840 <b>On the contrary,</b> one whose body is bound cannot bind another. But spiritual gyves are stronger than bodily fetters. Therefore one who is excommunicated | |
| 5841 cannot excommunicate another, since excommunication is a spiritual chain. | |
| 5842 </p> | |
| 5843 <p id="XP_Q22_A3-p5"> | |
| 5844 <b>I answer that,</b> Jurisdiction can only be used in relation to another man. Consequently, since every excommunicated person is severed from | |
| 5845 the communion of the faithful, he is deprived of the use of jurisdiction. And as excommunication requires jurisdiction, an | |
| 5846 excommunicated person cannot excommunicate, and the same reason applies to one who is suspended from jurisdiction. For if | |
| 5847 he be suspended from orders only, then he cannot exercise his order, but he can use his | |
| 5848 jurisdiction, while, on the other hand, if he be suspended from jurisdiction and not from orders. he cannot use his jurisdiction, | |
| 5849 though he can exercise his order: and if he be suspended from both, he can exercise neither. | |
| 5850 </p> | |
| 5851 <p id="XP_Q22_A3-p6"> | |
| 5852 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although an excommunicated or suspended person does not lose his jurisdiction, yet he does lose its use. | |
| 5853 </p> | |
| 5854 <p id="XP_Q22_A3-p7"> | |
| 5855 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The power of consecration results from the power of the character which is indelible, wherefore, from the very fact that | |
| 5856 a man has the character of order, he can always consecrate, though not always lawfully. It is different with the power of | |
| 5857 excommunication which results from jurisdiction, for this can be taken away and bound. | |
| 5858 </p> | |
| 5859 <p id="XP_Q22_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 5860 <p id="XP_Q22_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 5861 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A2.html"></a> | |
| 5862 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5863 </div> | |
| 5864 <div id="XP_Q22_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 5865 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5866 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A5.html"></a> | |
| 5867 <h4 id="XP_Q22_A4-p0.1">Whether a man can excommunicate himself, his equal, or his superior?</h4> | |
| 5868 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 5869 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p2"> | |
| 5870 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man can excommunicate himself, his equal, or his superior. For an angel of God was greater than Paul, | |
| 5871 according to | |
| 5872 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q22_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.11" target="asv">Mat. 11:11</a>: "He that is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater then he, a greater" than whom "hath not risen among men that are | |
| 5873 born of women." Now Paul excommunicated an angel from heaven ( | |
| 5874 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q22_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.1.8" target="asv">Gal. 1:8</a>). Therefore a man can excommunicate his superior. | |
| 5875 </p> | |
| 5876 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p3"> | |
| 5877 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sometimes a priest pronounces a general excommunication for theft or the like. But it might happen that he, or his | |
| 5878 equal, or a superior has done such things. Therefore a man can excommunicate himself, his equal, or a superior. | |
| 5879 </p> | |
| 5880 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p4"> | |
| 5881 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man can absolve his superior or his equal in the tribunal of Penance, as when a bishop confesses to his subject, | |
| 5882 or one priest confesses venial sins to another. Therefore it seems that a man may also excommunicate his superior, or his | |
| 5883 equal. | |
| 5884 </p> | |
| 5885 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p5"> | |
| 5886 <b>On the contrary,</b> Excommunication is an act of jurisdiction. But no man has jurisdiction over himself (since one cannot be both judge and defendant | |
| 5887 in the same trial), or over his superior, or over an equal. Therefore a man cannot excommunicate his superior, or his equal, | |
| 5888 or himself. | |
| 5889 </p> | |
| 5890 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p6"> | |
| 5891 <b>I answer that,</b> Since, by jurisdiction, a man is placed above those over whom he has jurisdiction, through being their judge, it follows | |
| 5892 that no man has jurisdiction over himself, his superior, or his equal, and that, consequently, no one can excommunicate either | |
| 5893 himself, or his superior, or his equal. | |
| 5894 </p> | |
| 5895 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p7"> | |
| 5896 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Apostle is speaking hypothetically, i.e. supposing an angel were to sin, for in that case he would not be higher than | |
| 5897 the Apostle, but lower. Nor is it absurd that, if the antecedent of a conditional sentence be impossible, the consequence | |
| 5898 be impossible also. | |
| 5899 </p> | |
| 5900 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p8"> | |
| 5901 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In that case no one would be excommunicated, since no man has power over his peer. | |
| 5902 </p> | |
| 5903 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p9"> | |
| 5904 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Loosing and binding in the tribunal of confession affects our relation to God only, in Whose sight a man from being above | |
| 5905 another sinks below him through sin; while on the other hand excommunication is the affair of an external tribunal in which | |
| 5906 a man does not forfeit his superiority on account of sin. Hence there is no comparison between the two tribunals. Nevertheless, | |
| 5907 even in the tribunal of confession, a man cannot absolve himself, or his | |
| 5908 superior, or his equal, unless the power to do so be committed to him. This does not apply to venial sins, because they can | |
| 5909 be remitted through any sacraments which confer grace, hence remission of venial sins follows the power of orders. | |
| 5910 </p> | |
| 5911 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p10"></p> | |
| 5912 <p id="XP_Q22_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 5913 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A3.html"></a> | |
| 5914 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A5.html"></a> | |
| 5915 </div> | |
| 5916 <div id="XP_Q22_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 5917 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5918 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A6.html"></a> | |
| 5919 <h4 id="XP_Q22_A5-p0.1">Whether a sentence of excommunication can be passed on a body of men?</h4> | |
| 5920 <p id="XP_Q22_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 5921 <p id="XP_Q22_A5-p2"> | |
| 5922 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that sentence of excommunication can be passed on a body of men. Because it is possible for a number of people | |
| 5923 to be united together in wickedness. Now when a man is obstinate in his wickedness he should be excommunicated. Therefore | |
| 5924 a body of men can be excommunicated. | |
| 5925 </p> | |
| 5926 <p id="XP_Q22_A5-p3"> | |
| 5927 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the most grievous effect of an excommunication is privation of the sacraments of the Church. But sometimes a whole | |
| 5928 country is laid under an interdict. Therefore a body of people can be excommunicated. | |
| 5929 </p> | |
| 5930 <p id="XP_Q22_A5-p4"> | |
| 5931 <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss of Augustine [*Cf. Ep. ccl] on | |
| 5932 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q22_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12" target="asv">Mat. 12</a> asserts that the sovereign and a body of people cannot be excommunicated. | |
| 5933 </p> | |
| 5934 <p id="XP_Q22_A5-p5"> | |
| 5935 <b>I answer that,</b> No man should be excommunicated except for a mortal sin. Now sin consists in an act: and acts do not belong to communities, | |
| 5936 but, generally speaking, to individuals. Wherefore individual members of a community can be excommunicated, but not the community | |
| 5937 itself. And although sometimes an act belongs to a whole multitude, as when many draw a boat, which none of them could draw | |
| 5938 by himself, yet it is not probable that a community would so wholly consent to evil | |
| 5939 that there would be no dissentients. Now God, Who judges all the earth, does not condemn the just with the wicked ( | |
| 5940 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q22_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.18.25" target="asv">Gn. 18:25</a>). Therefore the Church, who should imitate the judgments of God, prudently decided that a community should not be excommunicated, | |
| 5941 lest the wheat be uprooted together with the tares and cockle. | |
| 5942 </p> | |
| 5943 <p id="XP_Q22_A5-p6"> The Reply to the First Objection is evident from what has been said.</p> | |
| 5944 <p id="XP_Q22_A5-p7"> | |
| 5945 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Suspension is not so great a punishment as excommunication, since those who are suspended are not deprived of the prayers | |
| 5946 of the Church, as the excommunicated are. Wherefore a man can be suspended without having committed a sin himself, just as | |
| 5947 a whole kingdom is laid under an interdict on account of the king's crime. Hence there is no comparison between excommunication | |
| 5948 and suspension. | |
| 5949 </p> | |
| 5950 <p id="XP_Q22_A5-p8"></p> | |
| 5951 <p id="XP_Q22_A5-p9"></p> | |
| 5952 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5953 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A6.html"></a> | |
| 5954 </div> | |
| 5955 <div id="XP_Q22_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 5956 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A5.html"></a> | |
| 5957 <a href="summa.XP_Q23.html"></a> | |
| 5958 <h4 id="XP_Q22_A6-p0.1">Whether a man can be excommunicated who is already under sentence of excommunication?</h4> | |
| 5959 <p id="XP_Q22_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 5960 <p id="XP_Q22_A6-p2"> | |
| 5961 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man who is already under sentence of excommunication cannot be excommunicated any further. For the Apostle | |
| 5962 says ( | |
| 5963 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q22_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:12</a>): "What have I to do to judge them that are without?" Now those who are excommunicated are already outside the Church. Therefore | |
| 5964 the Church cannot exercise any further judgment on them, so as to excommunicate them again. | |
| 5965 </p> | |
| 5966 <p id="XP_Q22_A6-p3"> | |
| 5967 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, excommunication is privation of divine things and of the communion of the faithful. But when a man has been deprived | |
| 5968 of a thing, he cannot be deprived of it again. Therefore one who is excommunicated cannot be excommunicated again | |
| 5969 </p> | |
| 5970 <p id="XP_Q22_A6-p4"> | |
| 5971 <b>On the contrary,</b> Excommunication is a punishment and a healing medicine. Now punishments and medicines are repeated when necessary. Therefore | |
| 5972 excommunication can be repeated. | |
| 5973 </p> | |
| 5974 <p id="XP_Q22_A6-p5"> | |
| 5975 <b>I answer that,</b> A man who is under sentence of one excommunication, can be excommunicated again, either by a repetition of the same excommunication, | |
| 5976 for his greater confusion, so that he may renounce sin, or for some other cause. And then there are as many principal excommunications, | |
| 5977 as there are causes for his being excommunicated. | |
| 5978 </p> | |
| 5979 <p id="XP_Q22_A6-p6"> | |
| 5980 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Apostle is speaking of heathens and of other unbelievers who have no (sacramental) character, whereby they are numbered | |
| 5981 among the people of God. But since the baptismal character whereby a man is numbered among God's people, is indelible, one | |
| 5982 who is baptized always belongs to the Church in some way, so that the Church is always competent to sit in judgment on him. | |
| 5983 </p> | |
| 5984 <p id="XP_Q22_A6-p7"> | |
| 5985 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although privation does not receive more or less in itself, yet it can, as regards its cause. In this way an excommunication | |
| 5986 can be repeated, and a man who has been excommunicated several times is further from the Church's prayers than one who has | |
| 5987 been excommunicated only once. | |
| 5988 </p> | |
| 5989 <p id="XP_Q22_A6-p8"></p> | |
| 5990 <p id="XP_Q22_A6-p9"></p> | |
| 5991 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A5.html"></a> | |
| 5992 <a href="summa.XP_Q23.html"></a> | |
| 5993 </div> | |
| 5994 <a href="summa.XP_Q21_A4.html"></a> | |
| 5995 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A1.html"></a> | |
| 5996 </div> | |
| 5997 <div id="XP_Q23" class="div3"> | |
| 5998 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A6.html"></a> | |
| 5999 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6000 <h3 id="XP_Q23-p0.1">OF COMMUNICATION WITH EXCOMMUNICATED PERSONS (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 6001 <p id="XP_Q23-p1"></p> | |
| 6002 <p id="XP_Q23-p2"> We must now consider communication with those who are excommunicated. Under this head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 6003 <p id="XP_Q23-p3"> (1) Whether it is lawful to communicate in matters purely corporal with one who is excommunicated?</p> | |
| 6004 <p id="XP_Q23-p4"> (2) Whether one who communicates with an excommunicated person is excommunicated?</p> | |
| 6005 <p id="XP_Q23-p5"> (3) Whether it is always a mortal sin to communicate with an excommunicated person in matters not permitted by law?</p> | |
| 6006 <div id="XP_Q23_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 6007 <a href="summa.XP_Q23.html"></a> | |
| 6008 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6009 <h4 id="XP_Q23_A1-p0.1">Whether it is lawful, in matters purely corporal, to communicate with an excommunicated person?</h4> | |
| 6010 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 6011 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p2"> | |
| 6012 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is lawful, in matters purely corporal, to communicate with an excommunicated person. For excommunication | |
| 6013 is an act of the keys. But the power of the keys extends only to spiritual matters. Therefore excommunication does not prevent | |
| 6014 one from communicating with another in matters corporal. | |
| 6015 </p> | |
| 6016 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p3"> | |
| 6017 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "What is instituted for the sake of charity, does not militate against charity" (Cf. | |
| 6018 <a id="XP_Q23_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q11_A1.html"> Q[11], A[1]</a>, OBJ[1]). But we are bound by the precept of charity to succor our enemies, which is impossible without some sort of communication. | |
| 6019 Therefore it is lawful to communicate with an excommunicated person in corporal matters. | |
| 6020 </p> | |
| 6021 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p4"> | |
| 6022 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 6023 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q23_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:11</a>): "With such an one not so much as to eat." | |
| 6024 </p> | |
| 6025 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p5"> | |
| 6026 <b>I answer that,</b> Excommunication is twofold: there is minor excommunication, which deprives a man merely of a share in the sacraments, but | |
| 6027 not of the communion of the faithful. Wherefore it is lawful to communicate with a person lying under an excommunication of | |
| 6028 this kind, but not to give him the sacraments. The other is major excommunication which deprives a man of the sacraments of | |
| 6029 the Church and of the communion of the faithful. Wherefore it is not lawful to communicate | |
| 6030 with one who lies under such an excommunication. But, since the Church resorts to excommunication to repair and not to destroy, | |
| 6031 exception is made from this general law, in certain matters wherein communication is lawful, viz. in those which concern salvation, | |
| 6032 for one is allowed to speak of such matters with an excommunicated person; and one may even speak of other matters so as to | |
| 6033 put him at his ease and to make the words of salvation more acceptable. Moreover exception is made in favor of | |
| 6034 certain people whose business it is to be in attendance on the excommunicated person, viz. his wife, child, slave, vassal | |
| 6035 or subordinate. This, however, is to be understood of children who have not attained their majority, else they are forbidden | |
| 6036 to communicate with their father: and as to the others, the exception applies to them if they have entered his service before | |
| 6037 his excommunication, but not if they did so afterwards. | |
| 6038 </p> | |
| 6039 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p6"> Some understand this exception to apply in the opposite way, viz. that the master can communicate with his subjects: while | |
| 6040 others hold the contrary. At any rate it is lawful for them to communicate with others in matters wherein they are under an | |
| 6041 obligation to them, for just as subjects are bound to serve their master, so is the master bound to look after his subjects. | |
| 6042 Again certain cases are excepted; as when the fact of the excommunication is unknown, or in the case of | |
| 6043 strangers or travelers in the country of those who are excommunicated, for they are allowed to buy from them, or to receive | |
| 6044 alms from them. Likewise if anyone were to see an excommunicated person in distress: for then he would be bound by the precept | |
| 6045 of charity to assist him. These are all contained in the following line: "Utility, law, lowliness, ignorance of fact, necessity," | |
| 6046 where "utility" refers to salutary words, "law" to marriage, "lowliness" to subjection. The others need no | |
| 6047 explanation. | |
| 6048 </p> | |
| 6049 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p7"> | |
| 6050 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Corporal matters are subordinate to spiritual matters. Wherefore the power which extends to spiritual things, can also extend | |
| 6051 to matters touching the body: even as the art which considers the end commands in matters ordained to the end. | |
| 6052 </p> | |
| 6053 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p8"> | |
| 6054 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In a case where one is bound by the precept of charity to hold communication, the prohibition ceases, as is clear from what | |
| 6055 has been said. | |
| 6056 </p> | |
| 6057 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p9"></p> | |
| 6058 <p id="XP_Q23_A1-p10"></p> | |
| 6059 <a href="summa.XP_Q23.html"></a> | |
| 6060 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6061 </div> | |
| 6062 <div id="XP_Q23_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 6063 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6064 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6065 <h4 id="XP_Q23_A2-p0.1">Whether a person incurs excommunication for communicating with one who is excommunicated?</h4> | |
| 6066 <p id="XP_Q23_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 6067 <p id="XP_Q23_A2-p2"> | |
| 6068 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a person does not incur excommunication for communicating with one who is excommunicated. For a heathen | |
| 6069 or a Jew is more separated from the Church than a person who is excommunicated. But one does not incur excommunication for | |
| 6070 communicating with a heathen or a Jew. Neither, therefore, does one for communicating with an excommunicated Christian. | |
| 6071 </p> | |
| 6072 <p id="XP_Q23_A2-p3"> | |
| 6073 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if a man incurs excommunication for communicating with an excommunicated person, for the same reason a third would | |
| 6074 incur excommunication for communicating with him, and thus one might go on indefinitely, which would seem absurd. Therefore | |
| 6075 one does not incur excommunication for communicating with one who is excommunicated. | |
| 6076 </p> | |
| 6077 <p id="XP_Q23_A2-p4"> | |
| 6078 <b>On the contrary,</b> An excommunicated person is banished from communion. Therefore whoever communicates with him leaves the communion of the | |
| 6079 Church: and hence he seems to be excommunicated. | |
| 6080 </p> | |
| 6081 <p id="XP_Q23_A2-p5"> | |
| 6082 <b>I answer that,</b> A person may incur excommunication in two ways. First, so that the excommunication includes both himself and whosoever communicates | |
| 6083 with him: and then, without any doubt, whoever communicates with him, incurs a major excommunication. Secondly, so that the | |
| 6084 excommunication is simply pronounced on him; and then a man may communicate with him either in his crime, by counsel, help | |
| 6085 or favor, in which case again he incurs the major excommunication, or he may | |
| 6086 communicate with him in other things by speaking to him, greeting him, or eating with him, in which case he incurs the minor | |
| 6087 excommunication. | |
| 6088 </p> | |
| 6089 <p id="XP_Q23_A2-p6"> | |
| 6090 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Church has no intention of correcting unbelievers as well as the faithful who are under her care: hence she does not | |
| 6091 sever those, whom she excommunicates, from the fellowship of unbelievers, as she does from the communion of the faithful over | |
| 6092 whom she exercises a certain power. | |
| 6093 </p> | |
| 6094 <p id="XP_Q23_A2-p7"> | |
| 6095 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is lawful to hold communion with one who has incurred a minor excommunication, so that excommunication does not pass on | |
| 6096 to a third person. | |
| 6097 </p> | |
| 6098 <p id="XP_Q23_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 6099 <p id="XP_Q23_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 6100 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6101 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6102 </div> | |
| 6103 <div id="XP_Q23_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 6104 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6105 <a href="summa.XP_Q24.html"></a> | |
| 6106 <h4 id="XP_Q23_A3-p0.1">Whether it is always a mortal sin to communicate with an excommunicated person in other cases than those in which it is allowed?</h4> | |
| 6107 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 6108 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p2"> | |
| 6109 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is always a mortal sin to hold communion with an excommunicated person in other cases than those in | |
| 6110 which it is allowed. Because a certain decretal (Cap. Sacris: De his quae vi, metuve, etc.) declares that "not even through | |
| 6111 fear of death should anyone hold communion with an excommunicated person, since one ought to die rather than commit a mortal | |
| 6112 sin." But this would be no reason unless it were always a mortal sin to hold communion with | |
| 6113 an excommunicated person. Therefore, etc. | |
| 6114 </p> | |
| 6115 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p3"> | |
| 6116 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is a mortal sin to act against a commandment of the Church. But the Church forbids anyone to hold communion with | |
| 6117 an excommunicated person. Therefore it is a mortal sin to hold communion with one who is excommunicated. | |
| 6118 </p> | |
| 6119 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p4"> | |
| 6120 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no man is debarred from receiving the Eucharist on account of a venial sin. But a man who holds communion with an | |
| 6121 excommunicated person, outside those cases in which it is allowed, is debarred from receiving the Eucharist, since he incurs | |
| 6122 a minor excommunication. Therefore it is a mortal sin to hold communion with an excommunicated person, save in those cases | |
| 6123 in which it is allowed. | |
| 6124 </p> | |
| 6125 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p5"> | |
| 6126 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, no one should incur a major excommunication save for a mortal sin. Now according to the law (Can. Praecipue, seqq., | |
| 6127 caus. xi) a man may incur a major excommunication for holding communion with an excommunicated person. Therefore it is a mortal | |
| 6128 sin to hold communion with one who is excommunicated. | |
| 6129 </p> | |
| 6130 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p6"> | |
| 6131 <b>On the contrary,</b> None can absolve a man from mortal sin unless he have jurisdiction over him. But any priest can absolve a man for holding | |
| 6132 communion with those who are excommunicated. Therefore it is not a mortal sin. | |
| 6133 </p> | |
| 6134 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p7"> Further, the measure of the penalty should be according to the measure of the sin, as stated in | |
| 6135 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q23_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.3" target="asv"> Dt. 25:3.</a> Now the punishment appointed by common custom for holding communion with an excommunicated person is not that which is inflicted | |
| 6136 for mortal sin, but rather that which is due for venial sin. Therefore it is not a mortal sin. | |
| 6137 </p> | |
| 6138 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p8"> | |
| 6139 <b>I answer that,</b> Some hold that it is always a mortal sin to hold communion with an excommunicated person, by word or in any of the forbidden | |
| 6140 ways mentioned above | |
| 6141 <a id="XP_Q23_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q23_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, except in those cases allowed by law (Cap. Quoniam). But since it seems very hard that a man should be guilty of a mortal | |
| 6142 sin by uttering just a slight word to an excommunicated person, and that by excommunicating a person one would endanger the | |
| 6143 salvation of many, and lay a snare | |
| 6144 which might turn to one's own hurt, it seems to others more probable that he is not always guilty of a mortal sin, but only | |
| 6145 when he holds communion with him in a criminal deed, or in an act of Divine worship, or through contempt of the Church. | |
| 6146 </p> | |
| 6147 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p9"> | |
| 6148 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This decretal is speaking of holding communion in Divine worship. It may also be replied that the same reason applies both | |
| 6149 to mortal and venial sin, since just as one cannot do well by committing a mortal sin, so neither can one by committing a | |
| 6150 venial sin: so that just as it is a man's duty to suffer death rather than commit a mortal sin, so is it his duty to do so | |
| 6151 sooner than commit a venial sin, inasmuch as it is his duty to avoid venial sin. | |
| 6152 </p> | |
| 6153 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p10"> | |
| 6154 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding | |
| 6155 communion in Divine worship one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin; but by holding communion in other | |
| 6156 matters, one acts beside the commandment, and sins venially. | |
| 6157 </p> | |
| 6158 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p11"> | |
| 6159 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Sometimes a man is debarred from the Eucharist even without his own fault, as in the case of those who are suspended or under | |
| 6160 an interdict, because these penalties are sometimes inflicted on one person for the sin of another who is thus punished. | |
| 6161 </p> | |
| 6162 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p12"> | |
| 6163 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although it is a venial sin to hold communion with one who is excommunicated, yet to do so obstinately is a mortal sin: and | |
| 6164 for this reason one may be excommunicated according to the law. | |
| 6165 </p> | |
| 6166 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 6167 <p id="XP_Q23_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 6168 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6169 <a href="summa.XP_Q24.html"></a> | |
| 6170 </div> | |
| 6171 <a href="summa.XP_Q22_A6.html"></a> | |
| 6172 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6173 </div> | |
| 6174 <div id="XP_Q24" class="div3"> | |
| 6175 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6176 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6177 <h3 id="XP_Q24-p0.1">OF ABSOLUTION FROM EXCOMMUNICATION (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 6178 <p id="XP_Q24-p1"></p> | |
| 6179 <p id="XP_Q24-p2"> We must now consider absolution from excommunication: under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 6180 <p id="XP_Q24-p3"> (1) Whether any priest can absolve his subject from excommunication?</p> | |
| 6181 <p id="XP_Q24-p4"> (2) Whether a man can be absolved from excommunication against his will?</p> | |
| 6182 <p id="XP_Q24-p5"> (3) Whether a man can be absolved from one excommunication without being absolved from another?</p> | |
| 6183 <div id="XP_Q24_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 6184 <a href="summa.XP_Q24.html"></a> | |
| 6185 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6186 <h4 id="XP_Q24_A1-p0.1">Whether any priest can absolve his subject from excommunication? </h4> | |
| 6187 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 6188 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p2"> | |
| 6189 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that any priest can absolve his subject from excommunication. For the chains of sin are stronger than those | |
| 6190 of excommunication. But any priest can absolve his subject from sin. Therefore much more can he absolve him from excommunication. | |
| 6191 </p> | |
| 6192 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p3"> | |
| 6193 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if the cause is removed the effect is removed. But the cause of excommunication is a mortal sin. Therefore since | |
| 6194 any priest can absolve (his subject) from that mortal sin, he is able likewise to absolve him from the excommunication. | |
| 6195 </p> | |
| 6196 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p4"> | |
| 6197 <b>On the contrary,</b> It belongs to the same power to excommunicate as to absolve from excommunication. But priests of inferior degree cannot excommunicate | |
| 6198 their subjects. Neither, therefore, can they absolve them. | |
| 6199 </p> | |
| 6200 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p5"> | |
| 6201 <b>I answer that,</b> Anyone can absolve from minor excommunication who can absolve from the sin of participation in the sin of another. But in | |
| 6202 the case of a major excommunication, this is pronounced either by a judge, and then he who pronounced sentence or his superior | |
| 6203 can absolve---or it is pronounced by law, and then the bishop or even a priest can absolve except in the six cases which the | |
| 6204 Pope, who is the maker of laws, reserves to himself: the first is the case of a man who | |
| 6205 lays hands on a cleric or a religious; the second is of one who breaks into a church and is denounced for so doing; the third | |
| 6206 is of the man who sets fire to a church and is denounced for the deed; the fourth is of one who knowingly communicates in | |
| 6207 the Divine worship with those whom the Pope has excommunicated by name; the fifth is the case of one who tampers with the | |
| 6208 letters of the Holy See; the sixth is the case of one who communicates in a crime of one who is excommunicated. For he should | |
| 6209 not | |
| 6210 be absolved except by the person who excommunicated him, even though he be not subject to him, unless, by reason of the difficulty | |
| 6211 of appearing before him, he be absolved by the bishop or by his own priest, after binding himself by oath to submit to the | |
| 6212 command of the judge who pronounced the excommunication on him. | |
| 6213 </p> | |
| 6214 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p6"> There are however eight exceptions to the first case: (1) In the hour of death, when a person can be absolved by any priest | |
| 6215 from any excommunication; (2) if the striker be the doorkeeper of a man in authority, and the blow be given neither through | |
| 6216 hatred nor of set purpose; (3) if the striker be a woman; (4) if the striker be a servant, whose master is not at fault and | |
| 6217 would suffer from his absence; (5) if a religious strike a religious, unless he strike him very grievously; (6) | |
| 6218 if the striker be a poor man; (7) if he be a minor, an old man, or an invalid; (8) if there be a deadly feud between them. | |
| 6219 </p> | |
| 6220 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p7"> There are, besides, seven cases in which the person who strikes a cleric does not incur excommunication: (1) if he do it | |
| 6221 for the sake of discipline, as a teacher or a superior; (2) if it be done for fun; (3) if the striker find the cleric behaving | |
| 6222 with impropriety towards his wife his mother, his sister or his daughter; (4) if he return blow for blow at once; (5) if the | |
| 6223 striker be not aware that he is striking a cleric; (6) if the latter be guilty of apostasy after the triple | |
| 6224 admonition; (7) if the cleric exercise an act which is altogether contrary to the clerical life, e.g. if he become a soldier, | |
| 6225 or if he be guilty of bigamy [*Namely, that which is known by canonists as "similar bigamy"]. | |
| 6226 </p> | |
| 6227 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p8"> | |
| 6228 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the chains of sin are in themselves greater than those of excommunication, yet in a certain respect the chains of | |
| 6229 excommunication are greater, inasmuch as they bind a man not only in the sight of God, but also in the eye of the Church. | |
| 6230 Hence absolution from excommunication requires jurisdiction in the external forum, whereas absolution from sin does not. Nor | |
| 6231 is there need of giving one's word by oath, as in the case of absolution from | |
| 6232 excommunication, because, as the Apostle declares ( | |
| 6233 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q24_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.16" target="asv">Heb. 6:16</a>), controversies between men are decided by oath. | |
| 6234 </p> | |
| 6235 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p9"> | |
| 6236 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As an excommunicated person has no share in the sacraments of the Church, a priest cannot absolve him from his guilt, unless | |
| 6237 he be first absolved from excommunication. | |
| 6238 </p> | |
| 6239 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p10"></p> | |
| 6240 <p id="XP_Q24_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 6241 <a href="summa.XP_Q24.html"></a> | |
| 6242 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6243 </div> | |
| 6244 <div id="XP_Q24_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 6245 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6246 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6247 <h4 id="XP_Q24_A2-p0.1">Whether anyone can be absolved against his will?</h4> | |
| 6248 <p id="XP_Q24_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 6249 <p id="XP_Q24_A2-p2"> | |
| 6250 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no man can be absolved against his will. For spiritual things are not conferred on anyone against his | |
| 6251 will. Now absolution from excommunication is a spiritual favor. Therefore it cannot be granted to a man against his will. | |
| 6252 </p> | |
| 6253 <p id="XP_Q24_A2-p3"> | |
| 6254 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the cause of excommunication is contumacy. But when, through contempt of the excommunication, a man is unwilling | |
| 6255 to be absolved, he shows a high degree of contumacy. Therefore he cannot be absolved. | |
| 6256 </p> | |
| 6257 <p id="XP_Q24_A2-p4"> | |
| 6258 <b>On the contrary,</b> Excommunication can be pronounced on a man against his will. Now things that happen to a man against his will, can be removed | |
| 6259 from him against his will, as in the case of the goods of fortune. Therefore excommunication can be removed from a man against | |
| 6260 his will. | |
| 6261 </p> | |
| 6262 <p id="XP_Q24_A2-p5"> | |
| 6263 <b>I answer that,</b> Evil of fault and evil of punishment differ in this, that the origin of fault is within us, since all sin is voluntary, whereas | |
| 6264 the origin of punishment is sometimes without, since punishment does not need to be voluntary, in fact the nature of punishment | |
| 6265 is rather to be against the will. Wherefore, just as a man commits no sin except willingly, so no sin is forgiven him against | |
| 6266 his will. On the other hand just as a person can be excommunicated against his | |
| 6267 will, so can he be absolved therefrom. | |
| 6268 </p> | |
| 6269 <p id="XP_Q24_A2-p6"> | |
| 6270 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The assertion is true of those spiritual goods which depend on our will, such as the virtues, which we cannot lose unwillingly; | |
| 6271 for knowledge, although a spiritual good, can be lost by a man against his will through sickness. Hence the argument is not | |
| 6272 to the point. | |
| 6273 </p> | |
| 6274 <p id="XP_Q24_A2-p7"> | |
| 6275 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is possible for excommunication to be removed from a man even though he be contumacious, if it seem to be for the good | |
| 6276 of the man for whom the excommunication was intended as a medicine. | |
| 6277 </p> | |
| 6278 <p id="XP_Q24_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 6279 <p id="XP_Q24_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 6280 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6281 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6282 </div> | |
| 6283 <div id="XP_Q24_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 6284 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6285 <a href="summa.XP_Q25.html"></a> | |
| 6286 <h4 id="XP_Q24_A3-p0.1">Whether a man can be absolved from one excommunication without being absolved from all?</h4> | |
| 6287 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 6288 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p2"> | |
| 6289 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man cannot be absolved from one excommunication without being absolved from all. For an effect should | |
| 6290 be proportionate to its cause. Now the cause of excommunication is a sin. Since then a man cannot be absolved from one sin | |
| 6291 without being absolved from all, neither can this happen as regards excommunication. | |
| 6292 </p> | |
| 6293 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p3"> | |
| 6294 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, absolution from excommunication is pronounced in the Church. But a man who is under the ban of one excommunication | |
| 6295 is outside the Church. Therefore so long as one remains, a man cannot be loosed from another. | |
| 6296 </p> | |
| 6297 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p4"> | |
| 6298 <b>On the contrary,</b> Excommunication is a punishment. Now a man can be loosed from one punishment, while another remains. Therefore a man can | |
| 6299 be loosed from one excommunication and yet remain under another. | |
| 6300 </p> | |
| 6301 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p5"> | |
| 6302 <b>I answer that,</b> Excommunications are not connected together in any way, and so it is possible for a man to be absolved from one, and yet | |
| 6303 remain under another. | |
| 6304 </p> | |
| 6305 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p6"> It must be observed however that sometimes a man lies under several excommunications pronounced by one judge; and then, when | |
| 6306 he is absolved from one, he is understood to be absolved from all, unless the contrary be expressed, or unless he ask to be | |
| 6307 absolved from excommunication on one count only, whereas he was excommunicated under several. On the other hand sometimes | |
| 6308 a man lies under several sentences of excommunication pronounced by several judges; and then, when absolved from | |
| 6309 one excommunication, he is not therefore absolved from the others, unless at his prayer they all confirm his absolution, or | |
| 6310 unless they all depute one to absolve him. | |
| 6311 </p> | |
| 6312 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p7"> | |
| 6313 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> All sins are connected together in aversion from God, which is incompatible with the forgiveness of sin: wherefore one sin | |
| 6314 cannot be forgiven without another. But excommunications have no such connection. Nor again is absolution from excommunication | |
| 6315 hindered by contrariety of the will, as stated above | |
| 6316 <a id="XP_Q24_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q24_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Hence the argument does not prove. | |
| 6317 </p> | |
| 6318 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p8"> | |
| 6319 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as such a man was for several reasons outside the Church so is it possible for his separation to be removed on one count | |
| 6320 and to remain on another. | |
| 6321 </p> | |
| 6322 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 6323 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p10"></p> | |
| 6324 <p id="XP_Q24_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 6325 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6326 <a href="summa.XP_Q25.html"></a> | |
| 6327 </div> | |
| 6328 <a href="summa.XP_Q23_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6329 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6330 </div> | |
| 6331 <div id="XP_Q25" class="div3"> | |
| 6332 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6333 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6334 <h3 id="XP_Q25-p0.1">OF INDULGENCES (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 6335 <p id="XP_Q25-p1"></p> | |
| 6336 <p id="XP_Q25-p2"> We must now consider indulgence: (1) in itself; (2) those who grant indulgence; (3) those who receive it.</p> | |
| 6337 <p id="XP_Q25-p3"> Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 6338 <p id="XP_Q25-p4"> (1) Whether an indulgence remits any part of the punishment due for the satisfaction of sins?</p> | |
| 6339 <p id="XP_Q25-p5"> (2) Whether indulgences are as effective as they claim to be?</p> | |
| 6340 <p id="XP_Q25-p6"> (3) Whether an indulgence should be granted for temporal assistance?</p> | |
| 6341 <div id="XP_Q25_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 6342 <a href="summa.XP_Q25.html"></a> | |
| 6343 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6344 <h4 id="XP_Q25_A1-p0.1">Whether an indulgence can remit any part of the punishment due for the satisfaction of sins?</h4> | |
| 6345 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 6346 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p2"> | |
| 6347 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an indulgence cannot remit any part of the punishment due for the satisfaction of sins. Because a gloss | |
| 6348 on | |
| 6349 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.13" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:13</a>, "He cannot deny Himself," says: "He would do this if He did not keep His word." Now He said ( | |
| 6350 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.2" target="asv">Dt. 25:2</a>): "According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be." Therefore nothing can be remitted from | |
| 6351 the satisfactory punishment which is appointed according to the measure of | |
| 6352 sin. | |
| 6353 </p> | |
| 6354 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p3"> | |
| 6355 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, an inferior cannot absolve from an obligation imposed by his superior. But when God absolves us from sin He binds | |
| 6356 us to temporal punishment, as Hugh of St. Victor declares (Tract. vi Sum. Sent. [*Of doubtful authenticity]). Therefore no | |
| 6357 man can absolve from that punishment, by remitting any part of it. | |
| 6358 </p> | |
| 6359 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p4"> | |
| 6360 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the granting of the sacramental effect without the sacraments belongs to the power of excellence. Now none but Christ | |
| 6361 has the power of excellence in the sacraments. Since then satisfaction is a part of the sacrament of Penance, conducing to | |
| 6362 the remission of the punishment due, it seems that no mere man can remit the debt of punishment without satisfaction. | |
| 6363 </p> | |
| 6364 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p5"> | |
| 6365 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the power of the ministers of the Church was given them, not "unto destruction," but "unto edification" ( | |
| 6366 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.10.8" target="asv">2 Cor. 10:8</a>). But it would be conducive to destruction, if satisfaction, which was intended for our good, inasmuch as it serves for a | |
| 6367 remedy, were done away with. Therefore the power of the ministers of the Church does not extend to this. | |
| 6368 </p> | |
| 6369 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p6"> | |
| 6370 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 6371 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.2.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 2:10</a>): "For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ," and a | |
| 6372 gloss adds: i.e. "as though Christ Himself had pardoned." But Christ could remit the punishment of a sin without any satisfaction, | |
| 6373 as evidenced in the case of the adulterous woman ( | |
| 6374 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.8" target="asv">Jn. 8</a>). Therefore Paul could do so likewise. Therefore the Pope can too, since his power in the Church is not | |
| 6375 less than Paul's. | |
| 6376 </p> | |
| 6377 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p7"> Further, the universal Church cannot err; since He Who "was heard for His reverence" ( | |
| 6378 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.7" target="asv">Heb. 5:7</a>) said to Peter, on whose profession of faith the Church was founded ( | |
| 6379 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.32" target="asv">Lk. 22:32</a>): "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." Now the universal Church approves and grants indulgences. Therefore indulgences | |
| 6380 have some value. | |
| 6381 </p> | |
| 6382 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p8"> | |
| 6383 <b>I answer that,</b> All admit that indulgences have some value, for it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain. But some | |
| 6384 say that they do not avail to free a man from the debt of punishment which he has deserved in Purgatory according to God's | |
| 6385 judgment, and that they merely serve to free him from the obligation imposed on him by the priest as a punishment for his | |
| 6386 sins, or from the canonical penalties he has incurred. But this opinion does not seem to be | |
| 6387 true. First, because it is expressly opposed to the privilege granted to Peter, to whom it was said ( | |
| 6388 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>) that whatsoever he should loose on earth should be loosed also in heaven. Wherefore whatever remission is granted in the | |
| 6389 court of the Church holds good in the court of God. Moreover the Church by granting such indulgences would do more harm than | |
| 6390 good, since, by remitting the punishment she had enjoined on a man, she would deliver him to be punished more severely | |
| 6391 in Purgatory. | |
| 6392 </p> | |
| 6393 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p9"> Hence we must say on the contrary that indulgences hold good both in the Church's court and in the judgment of God, for the | |
| 6394 remission of the punishment which remains after contrition, absolution, and confession, whether this punishment be enjoined | |
| 6395 or not. The reason why they so avail is the oneness of the mystical body in which many have performed works of satisfaction | |
| 6396 exceeding the requirements of their debts; in which, too, many have patiently borne unjust tribulations whereby | |
| 6397 a multitude of punishments would have been paid, had they been incurred. So great is the quantity of such merits that it exceeds | |
| 6398 the entire debt of punishment due to those who are living at this moment: and this is especially due to the merits of Christ: | |
| 6399 for though He acts through the sacraments, yet His efficacy is nowise restricted to them, but infinitely surpasses their efficacy. | |
| 6400 </p> | |
| 6401 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p10"> Now one man can satisfy for another, as we have explained above ( | |
| 6402 <a id="XP_Q25_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q13_A2.html">Q[13], A[2]</a>). And the saints in whom this super-abundance of satisfactions is found, did not perform their good works for this or that | |
| 6403 particular person, who needs the remission of his punishment (else he would have received this remission without any indulgence | |
| 6404 at all), but they performed them for the whole Church in general, even as the Apostle declares that he fills up "those things | |
| 6405 that | |
| 6406 are wanting of the sufferings of Christ . . . for His body, which is the Church" to whom he wrote ( | |
| 6407 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Col.1.24" target="asv">Col. 1:24</a>). These merits, then, are the common property of the whole Church. Now those things which are the common property of a number | |
| 6408 are distributed to the various individuals according to the judgment of him who rules them all. Hence, just as one man would | |
| 6409 obtain the remission of his punishment if another were to satisfy for him, so would he too if another's satisfactions | |
| 6410 be applied to him by one who has the power to do so. | |
| 6411 </p> | |
| 6412 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p11"> | |
| 6413 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The remission which is granted by means of indulgences does not destroy the proportion between punishment and sin, since | |
| 6414 someone has spontaneously taken upon himself the punishment due for another's guilt, as explained above. | |
| 6415 </p> | |
| 6416 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p12"> | |
| 6417 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> He who gains an indulgence is not, strictly speaking, absolved from the debt of punishment, but is given the means whereby | |
| 6418 he may pay it. | |
| 6419 </p> | |
| 6420 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p13"> | |
| 6421 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The effect of sacramental absolution is the removal of a man's guilt, an effect which is not produced by indulgences. But | |
| 6422 he who grants indulgences pays the debt of punishment which a man owes, out of the common stock of the Church's goods, as | |
| 6423 explained above. | |
| 6424 </p> | |
| 6425 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p14"> | |
| 6426 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Grace affords a better remedy for the avoidance of sin than does habituation to (good) works. And since he who gains an indulgence | |
| 6427 is disposed to grace through the love which he conceives for the cause for which the indulgence is granted, it follows that | |
| 6428 indulgences provide a remedy against sin. Consequently it is not harmful to grant indulgences unless this be done without | |
| 6429 discretion. Nevertheless those who gain indulgences should be advised, not, on | |
| 6430 this account, to omit the penitential works imposed on them, so that they may derive a remedy from these also, even though | |
| 6431 they may be quit of the debt of punishment; and all the more, seeing that they are often more in debt than they think. | |
| 6432 </p> | |
| 6433 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p15"></p> | |
| 6434 <p id="XP_Q25_A1-p16"></p> | |
| 6435 <a href="summa.XP_Q25.html"></a> | |
| 6436 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6437 </div> | |
| 6438 <div id="XP_Q25_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 6439 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6440 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6441 <h4 id="XP_Q25_A2-p0.1">Whether indulgences are as effective as they claim to be?</h4> | |
| 6442 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 6443 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p2"> | |
| 6444 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that indulgences are not as effective as they claim to be. For indulgences have no effect save from the power | |
| 6445 of the keys. Now by the power of the keys, he who has that power can only remit some fixed part of the punishment due for | |
| 6446 sin, after taking into account the measure of the sin and of the penitent's sorrow. Since then indulgences depend on the mere | |
| 6447 will of the grantor, it seems that they are not as effective as they claim to be. | |
| 6448 </p> | |
| 6449 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p3"> | |
| 6450 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the debt of punishment keeps man back from the attainment of glory, which he ought to desire above all things. Now, | |
| 6451 if indulgences are as effective as they claim to be, a man by setting himself to gain indulgences might become immune from | |
| 6452 all debt of temporal punishment. Therefore it would seem that a man ought to put aside all other kinds of works, and devote | |
| 6453 himself to gain indulgences. | |
| 6454 </p> | |
| 6455 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p4"> | |
| 6456 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sometimes an indulgence whereby a man is remitted a third part of the punishment due for his sins is granted if | |
| 6457 he contribute towards the erection of a certain building. If, therefore, indulgences produce the effect which is claimed for | |
| 6458 them, he who gives a penny, and then another, and then again another, would obtain a plenary absolution from all punishment | |
| 6459 due for his sins, which seems absurd. | |
| 6460 </p> | |
| 6461 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p5"> | |
| 6462 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, sometimes an indulgence is granted, so that for visiting a church a man obtains a seven years' remission. If, then, | |
| 6463 an indulgence avails as much as is claimed for it a man who lives near that church, or the clergy attached thereto who go | |
| 6464 there every day, obtain as much indulgence as one who comes from a distance (which would appear unjust); moreover, seemingly, | |
| 6465 they would gain the indulgence several times a day, since they go there repeatedly. | |
| 6466 </p> | |
| 6467 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p6"> | |
| 6468 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, to remit a man's punishment beyond a just estimate seems to amount to the same as to remit it without reason; because | |
| 6469 in so far as he exceeds that estimate, he limits the compensation. Now he who grants an indulgence cannot without cause remit | |
| 6470 a man's punishment either wholly or partly, even though the Pope were to say to anyone: "I remit to all the punishment you | |
| 6471 owe for your sins." Therefore it seems that he cannot remit anything beyond the just | |
| 6472 estimate. Now indulgences are often published which exceed that just estimate. Therefore they do not avail as much as is claimed | |
| 6473 for them. | |
| 6474 </p> | |
| 6475 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p7"> | |
| 6476 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 6477 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Job.13.7" target="asv">Job 13:7</a>): "Hath God any need of your lie, that you should speak deceitfully for Him?" Therefore the Church, in publishing indulgences, | |
| 6478 does not lie; and so they avail as much as is claimed for them. | |
| 6479 </p> | |
| 6480 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p8"> Further, the Apostle says ( | |
| 6481 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q25_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.14" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:14</a>): "If . . . our preaching is vain, your faith is also vain." Therefore whoever utters a falsehood in preaching, so far as | |
| 6482 he is concerned, makes faith void. and so sins mortally. If therefore indulgences are not as effective as they claim to be, | |
| 6483 all who publish indulgences would commit a mortal sin: which is absurd. | |
| 6484 </p> | |
| 6485 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p9"> | |
| 6486 <b>I answer that,</b> on this point there are many opinions. For some maintain that indulgences have not the efficacy claimed for them, but that | |
| 6487 they simply avail each individual in proportion to his faith and devotion. And consequently those who maintain this, say that | |
| 6488 the Church publishes her indulgences in such a way as, by a kind of pious fraud, to induce men to do well, just as a mother | |
| 6489 entices her child to walk by holding out an apple. But this seems a very dangerous | |
| 6490 assertion to make. For as Augustine states (Ep. ad Hieron. lxxviii), "if any error were discovered in Holy Writ, the authority | |
| 6491 of Holy Writ would perish." In like manner, if any error were to be found in the Church's preaching, her doctrine would have | |
| 6492 no authority in settling questions of faith. | |
| 6493 </p> | |
| 6494 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p10"> Hence others have maintained that indulgences avail as much as is claimed for them, according to a just estimate, not of | |
| 6495 him who grants it---who perhaps puts too high a value on it---nor of the recipient---for he may prize too highly the gift | |
| 6496 he receives, but a just estimate according to the estimate of good men who consider the condition of the person affected, | |
| 6497 and the utility and needs of the Church, for the Church's needs are greater at one time than at another. Yet, neither, | |
| 6498 seemingly, can this opinion stand. First, because in that case indulgences would no longer be a remission, but rather a mere | |
| 6499 commutation. Moreover the preaching of the Church would not be excused from untruth, since, at times, indulgences are granted | |
| 6500 far in excess of the requirements of this just estimate, taking into consideration all the aforesaid conditions, as, for example, | |
| 6501 when the Pope granted to anyone who visited a certain church, an indulgence of seven years, which indulgence was | |
| 6502 granted by Blessed Gregory for the Roman Stations. | |
| 6503 </p> | |
| 6504 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p11"> Hence others say that the quantity of remission accorded in an indulgence is not to be measured by the devotion of the recipient, | |
| 6505 as the first opinion suggested, nor according to the quantity of what is given, as the second opinion held; but according | |
| 6506 to the cause for which the indulgence is granted, and according to which a person is held deserving of obtaining such an indulgence. | |
| 6507 Thus according as a man approached near to that cause, so would he obtain remission in whole or in | |
| 6508 part. But neither will this explain the custom of the Church, who assigns, now a greater, now a lesser indulgence, for the | |
| 6509 same cause: thus, under the same circumstances, now a year's indulgence, now one of only forty days, according to the graciousness | |
| 6510 of the Pope, who grants the indulgence, is granted to those who visit a church. Wherefore the amount of the remission granted | |
| 6511 by the indulgence is not to be measured by the cause for which a person is worthy of an indulgence. | |
| 6512 </p> | |
| 6513 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p12"> We must therefore say otherwise that the quantity of an effect is proportionate to the quantity of the cause. Now the cause | |
| 6514 of the remission of punishment effected by indulgences is no other than the abundance of the Church's merits, and this abundance | |
| 6515 suffices for the remission of all punishment. The effective cause of the remission is not the devotion, or toil, or gift of | |
| 6516 the recipient; nor, again, is it the cause for which the indulgence was granted. We cannot, then, estimate | |
| 6517 the quantity of the remission by any of the foregoing, but solely by the merits of the Church---and these are always superabundant. | |
| 6518 Consequently, according as these merits are applied to a person so does he obtain remission. That they should be so applied | |
| 6519 demands, firstly, authority to dispense this treasure. secondly, union between the recipient and Him Who merited it---and | |
| 6520 this is brought about by charity; thirdly, there is required a reason for so dispensing this treasury, so that the | |
| 6521 intention, namely, of those who wrought these meritorious works is safeguarded, since they did them for the honor of God and | |
| 6522 for the good of the Church in general. Hence whenever the cause assigned tends to the good of the Church and the honor of | |
| 6523 God, there is sufficient reason for granting an indulgence. | |
| 6524 </p> | |
| 6525 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p13"> Hence, according to others, indulgences have precisely the efficacy claimed for them, provided that he who grants them have | |
| 6526 the authority, that the recipient have charity, and that, as regards the cause, there be piety which includes the honor of | |
| 6527 God and the profit of our neighbor. Nor in this view have we "too great a market of the Divine mercy" [*St. Bonaventure, Sent. | |
| 6528 iv, D, 20], as some maintain, nor again does it derogate from Divine justice, for no punishment is remitted, | |
| 6529 but the punishment of one is imputed to another. | |
| 6530 </p> | |
| 6531 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p14"> | |
| 6532 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above ( | |
| 6533 <a id="XP_Q25_A2-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q19_A3.html">Q[19], A[3]</a>) there are two keys, the key of orders and the key of jurisdiction. The key of orders is a sacramental: and as the effects | |
| 6534 of the sacraments are fixed, not by men but by God, the priest cannot decide in the tribunal of confession how much shall | |
| 6535 be remitted by means of the key of orders from the punishment due; it is God Who appoints the amount to be remitted. On the | |
| 6536 other hand the key of | |
| 6537 jurisdiction is not something sacramental, and its effect depends on a man's decision. The remission granted through indulgences | |
| 6538 is the effect of this key, since it does not belong to the dispensation of the sacraments, but to the distribution of the | |
| 6539 common property of the Church: hence it is that legates, even though they be not priests, can grant indulgences. Consequently | |
| 6540 the decision of how much punishment is to be remitted by an indulgence depends on the will of the one who grants that | |
| 6541 indulgence. If, however, he remits punishment without sufficient reason, so that men are enticed to substitute mere nothings, | |
| 6542 as it were, for works of penance, he sins by granting such indulgences, although the indulgence is gained fully. | |
| 6543 </p> | |
| 6544 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p15"> | |
| 6545 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although indulgences avail much for the remission of punishment, yet works of satisfaction are more meritorious in respect | |
| 6546 of the essential reward, which infinitely transcends the remission of temporal punishment. | |
| 6547 </p> | |
| 6548 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p16"> | |
| 6549 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> When an indulgence is granted in a general way to anyone that helps towards the building of a church, we must understand | |
| 6550 this to mean a help proportionate to the giver: and in so far as he approaches to this, he will gain the indulgence more or | |
| 6551 less fully. Consequently a poor man by giving one penny would gain the full indulgence, not so a rich man, whom it would not | |
| 6552 become to give so little to so holy and profitable a work; Just as a king would not | |
| 6553 be said to help a man if he gave him an "obol." | |
| 6554 </p> | |
| 6555 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p17"> | |
| 6556 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A person who lives near the church, and the priest and clergy of the church, gain the indulgence as much as those who come | |
| 6557 perhaps a distance of a thousand days' journey: because the remission, as stated above, is proportionate, not to the toil, | |
| 6558 but to the merits which are applied. Yet he who toils most gains most merit. This, however, is to be understood of those cases | |
| 6559 in which an indulgence is given in an undeterminate manner. For sometimes a | |
| 6560 distinction is expressed: thus the Pope at the time of general absolution grants an indulgence of five years to those who | |
| 6561 come from across the seas, and one of three years to those who come from across the mountains, to others an indulgence of | |
| 6562 one year. Nor does a person gain the indulgence each time he visits the church during the term of indulgence, because sometimes | |
| 6563 it is granted for a fixed time; thus when it is said, "Whoever visits such and such a church until such and such a day, shall | |
| 6564 gain so much indulgence," we must understand that it can be gained only once. on the other hand if there be a continual indulgence | |
| 6565 in a certain church, as the indulgence of forty days to be gained in the church of the Blessed Peter, then a person gains | |
| 6566 the indulgence as often as he visits the church. | |
| 6567 </p> | |
| 6568 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p18"> | |
| 6569 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> An indulgence requires a cause, not as a measure of the remission of punishment, but in order that the intention of those | |
| 6570 whose merits are applied, may reach to this particular individual. Now one person's good is applied to another in two ways: | |
| 6571 first, by charity; and in this way, even without indulgences, a person shares in all the good deeds done, provided he have | |
| 6572 charity: secondly, by the intention of the person who does the good action; and in | |
| 6573 this way, provided there be a lawful cause, the intention of a person who has done something for the profit of the Church, | |
| 6574 may reach to some individual through indulgences. | |
| 6575 </p> | |
| 6576 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p19"></p> | |
| 6577 <p id="XP_Q25_A2-p20"></p> | |
| 6578 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6579 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6580 </div> | |
| 6581 <div id="XP_Q25_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 6582 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6583 <a href="summa.XP_Q26.html"></a> | |
| 6584 <h4 id="XP_Q25_A3-p0.1">Whether an indulgence ought to be granted for temporal help?</h4> | |
| 6585 <p id="XP_Q25_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 6586 <p id="XP_Q25_A3-p2"> | |
| 6587 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an indulgence ought not to be granted for temporal help. Because the remission of sins is something spiritual. | |
| 6588 Now to exchange a spiritual for a temporal thing is simony. Therefore this ought not to be done. | |
| 6589 </p> | |
| 6590 <p id="XP_Q25_A3-p3"> | |
| 6591 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, spiritual assistance is more necessary than temporal. But indulgences do not appear to be granted for spiritual | |
| 6592 assistance. Much less therefore ought they to be granted for temporal help. | |
| 6593 </p> | |
| 6594 <p id="XP_Q25_A3-p4"> | |
| 6595 <b>On the contrary,</b> stands the common custom of the Church in granting indulgences for pilgrimages and almsgiving. | |
| 6596 </p> | |
| 6597 <p id="XP_Q25_A3-p5"> | |
| 6598 <b>I answer that,</b> Temporal things are subordinate to spiritual matters, since we must make use of temporal things on account of spiritual things. | |
| 6599 Consequently an indulgence must not be granted for the sake of temporal matters as such, but in so far as they are subordinate | |
| 6600 to spiritual things: such as the quelling of the Church's enemies, who disturb her peace; or such as the building of a church, | |
| 6601 of a bridge, and other forms of almsgiving. It is therefore evident that there | |
| 6602 is no simony in these transactions, since a spiritual thing is exchanged, not for a temporal but for a spiritual commodity. | |
| 6603 </p> | |
| 6604 <p id="XP_Q25_A3-p6"> Hence the Reply to the First Objection is clear.</p> | |
| 6605 <p id="XP_Q25_A3-p7"> | |
| 6606 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Indulgences can be, and sometimes are, granted even for purely spiritual matters. Thus Pope Innocent IV granted an indulgence | |
| 6607 of ten days to all who prayed for the king of France; and in like manner sometimes the same indulgence is granted to those | |
| 6608 who preach a crusade as to those who take part in it. | |
| 6609 </p> | |
| 6610 <p id="XP_Q25_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 6611 <p id="XP_Q25_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 6612 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6613 <a href="summa.XP_Q26.html"></a> | |
| 6614 </div> | |
| 6615 <a href="summa.XP_Q24_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6616 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6617 </div> | |
| 6618 <div id="XP_Q26" class="div3"> | |
| 6619 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6620 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6621 <h3 id="XP_Q26-p0.1">OF THOSE WHO CAN GRANT INDULGENCES (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 6622 <p id="XP_Q26-p1"></p> | |
| 6623 <p id="XP_Q26-p2"> We must now consider those who can grant indulgences: under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 6624 <p id="XP_Q26-p3"> (1) Whether every parish priest can grant indulgences?</p> | |
| 6625 <p id="XP_Q26-p4"> (2) Whether a deacon or another, who is not a priest, can grant indulgences?</p> | |
| 6626 <p id="XP_Q26-p5"> (3) Whether a bishop can grant them?</p> | |
| 6627 <p id="XP_Q26-p6"> (4) Whether they can be granted by one who is in mortal sin?</p> | |
| 6628 <div id="XP_Q26_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 6629 <a href="summa.XP_Q26.html"></a> | |
| 6630 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6631 <h4 id="XP_Q26_A1-p0.1">Whether every parish priest can grant indulgences?</h4> | |
| 6632 <p id="XP_Q26_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 6633 <p id="XP_Q26_A1-p2"> | |
| 6634 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that every parish priest can grant indulgences. For an indulgence derives its efficacy from the superabundance | |
| 6635 of the Church's merits. Now there is no congregation without some superabundance of merits. Therefore every priest, who has | |
| 6636 charge of a congregation, can grant indulgences, and, in like manner, so can every prelate. | |
| 6637 </p> | |
| 6638 <p id="XP_Q26_A1-p3"> | |
| 6639 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every prelate stands for a multitude, just as an individual stands for himself. But any individual can assign his | |
| 6640 own goods to another and thus offer satisfaction for a third person. Therefore a prelate can assign the property of the multitude | |
| 6641 subject to him, and so it seems that he can grant indulgences. | |
| 6642 </p> | |
| 6643 <p id="XP_Q26_A1-p4"> | |
| 6644 <b>On the contrary,</b> To excommunicate is less than to grant indulgences. But a parish priest cannot do the former. Therefore he cannot do the | |
| 6645 latter. | |
| 6646 </p> | |
| 6647 <p id="XP_Q26_A1-p5"> | |
| 6648 <b>I answer that,</b> Indulgences are effective, in as much as the works of satisfaction done by one person are applied to another, not only by | |
| 6649 virtue of charity, but also by the intention of the person who did them being directed in some way to the person to whom they | |
| 6650 are applied. Now a person's intention may be directed to another in three ways, specifically, generically and individually. | |
| 6651 Individually, as when one person offers satisfaction for another particular person; and | |
| 6652 thus anyone can apply his works to another. Specifically, as when a person prays for the congregation to which he belongs, | |
| 6653 for the members of his household, or for his benefactors, and directs his works of satisfaction to the same intention: in | |
| 6654 this way the superior of a congregation can apply those works to some other person, by applying the intention of those who | |
| 6655 belong to his congregation to some fixed individual. Generically, as when a person directs his works for the good of the Church | |
| 6656 in | |
| 6657 general; and thus he who presides over the whole Church can communicate those works, by applying his intention to this or | |
| 6658 that individual. And since a man is a member of a congregation, and a congregation is a part of the Church, hence the intention | |
| 6659 of private good includes the intention of the good of the congregation, and of the good of the whole Church. Therefore he | |
| 6660 who presides over the Church can communicate what belongs to an individual congregation or to an individual man: and he who | |
| 6661 presides over a congregation can communicate what belongs to an individual man, but not conversely. Yet neither the first | |
| 6662 nor the second communication is called an indulgence, but only the third; and this for two reasons. First, because, although | |
| 6663 those communications loose man from the debt of punishment in the sight of God, yet he is not freed from the obligation of | |
| 6664 fulfilling the satisfaction enjoined, to which he is bound by a commandment of the Church; whereas the third communication | |
| 6665 frees | |
| 6666 man even from this obligation. Secondly, because in one person or even in one congregation there is not such an unfailing | |
| 6667 supply of merits as to be sufficient both for the one person or congregation and for all others; and consequently the individual | |
| 6668 is not freed from the entire debt of punishment unless satisfaction is offered for him individually, to the very amount that | |
| 6669 he owes. On the other hand, in the whole Church there is an unfailing supply of merits, chiefly on account of the merit of | |
| 6670 Christ. Consequently he alone who is at the head of the Church can grant indulgences. Since, however, the Church is the congregation | |
| 6671 of the faithful, and since a congregation of men is of two kinds, the domestic, composed of members of the same family, and | |
| 6672 the civil, composed of members of the same nationality, the Church is like to a civil congregation, for the people themselves | |
| 6673 are called the Church; while the various assemblies, or parishes of one diocese are likened to a congregation in the | |
| 6674 various families and services. Hence a bishop alone is properly called a prelate of the Church, wherefore he alone, like a | |
| 6675 bridegroom, receives the ring of the Church. Consequently full power in the dispensation of the sacraments, and jurisdiction | |
| 6676 in the public tribunal, belong to him alone as the public person, but to others by delegation from him. Those priests who | |
| 6677 have charge of the people are not prelates strictly speaking, but assistants, hence, in consecrating priests the bishop says: | |
| 6678 "The more fragile we are, the more we need these assistants": and for this reason they do not dispense all the sacraments. | |
| 6679 Hence parish priests, or abbots or other like prelates cannot grant indulgences. | |
| 6680 </p> | |
| 6681 <p id="XP_Q26_A1-p6"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 6682 <p id="XP_Q26_A1-p7"></p> | |
| 6683 <p id="XP_Q26_A1-p8"></p> | |
| 6684 <a href="summa.XP_Q26.html"></a> | |
| 6685 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6686 </div> | |
| 6687 <div id="XP_Q26_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 6688 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6689 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6690 <h4 id="XP_Q26_A2-p0.1">Whether a deacon or another who is not a priest can grant an indulgence?</h4> | |
| 6691 <p id="XP_Q26_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 6692 <p id="XP_Q26_A2-p2"> | |
| 6693 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a deacon, or one that is not a priest cannot grant an indulgence. Because remission of sins is an effect | |
| 6694 of the keys. Now none but a priest has the keys. Therefore a priest alone can grant indulgences. | |
| 6695 </p> | |
| 6696 <p id="XP_Q26_A2-p3"> | |
| 6697 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a fuller remission of punishment is granted by indulgences than by the tribunal of Penance. But a priest alone has | |
| 6698 power in the latter, and, therefore, he alone has power in the former. | |
| 6699 </p> | |
| 6700 <p id="XP_Q26_A2-p4"> | |
| 6701 <b>On the contrary,</b> The distribution of the Church's treasury is entrusted to the same person as the government of the Church. Now this is entrusted | |
| 6702 sometimes to one who is not a priest. Therefore he can grant indulgences, since they derive their efficacy from the distribution | |
| 6703 of the Church's treasury. | |
| 6704 </p> | |
| 6705 <p id="XP_Q26_A2-p5"> | |
| 6706 <b>I answer that,</b> The power of granting indulgences follows jurisdiction, as stated above ( | |
| 6707 <a id="XP_Q26_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q25_A2.html">Q[25], A[2]</a>). And since deacons and others, who are not priests, can have jurisdiction either delegated, as legates, or ordinary, as | |
| 6708 bishops-elect, it follows that even those who are not priests can grant indulgences, although they cannot absolve in the tribunal | |
| 6709 of Penance, since this follows the reception of orders. This suffices for the Replies to the | |
| 6710 Objections, because the granting of indulgences belongs to the key of jurisdiction and not to the key of orders. | |
| 6711 </p> | |
| 6712 <p id="XP_Q26_A2-p6"></p> | |
| 6713 <p id="XP_Q26_A2-p7"></p> | |
| 6714 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6715 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6716 </div> | |
| 6717 <div id="XP_Q26_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 6718 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6719 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A4.html"></a> | |
| 6720 <h4 id="XP_Q26_A3-p0.1">Whether a bishop can grant indulgences?</h4> | |
| 6721 <p id="XP_Q26_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 6722 <p id="XP_Q26_A3-p2"> | |
| 6723 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that even a bishop cannot grant indulgences. Because the treasury of the Church is the common property of the | |
| 6724 whole Church. Now the common property of the whole Church cannot be distributed save by him who presides over the whole Church. | |
| 6725 Therefore the Pope alone can grant indulgences. | |
| 6726 </p> | |
| 6727 <p id="XP_Q26_A3-p3"> | |
| 6728 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, none can remit punishments fixed by law, save the one who has the power to make the law. Now punishments in satisfaction | |
| 6729 for sins are fixed by law. Therefore the Pope alone can remit these punishments, since he is the maker of the law. | |
| 6730 </p> | |
| 6731 <p id="XP_Q26_A3-p4"> | |
| 6732 <b>On the contrary,</b> stands the custom of the Church in accordance with which bishops grant indulgences. | |
| 6733 </p> | |
| 6734 <p id="XP_Q26_A3-p5"> | |
| 6735 <b>I answer that,</b> The Pope has the plenitude of pontifical power, being like a king in his kingdom: whereas the bishops are appointed to a | |
| 6736 share in his solicitude, like judges over each city. Hence them alone the Pope, in his letters, addresses as "brethren," whereas | |
| 6737 he calls all others his "sons." Therefore the plenitude of the power of granting indulgences resides in the Pope, because | |
| 6738 he can grant them, as he lists, provided the cause be a lawful one: while, in bishops, | |
| 6739 this power resides subject to the Pope's ordination, so that they can grant them within fixed limits and not beyond. | |
| 6740 </p> | |
| 6741 <p id="XP_Q26_A3-p6"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 6742 <p id="XP_Q26_A3-p7"></p> | |
| 6743 <p id="XP_Q26_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 6744 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6745 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A4.html"></a> | |
| 6746 </div> | |
| 6747 <div id="XP_Q26_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 6748 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6749 <a href="summa.XP_Q27.html"></a> | |
| 6750 <h4 id="XP_Q26_A4-p0.1">Whether indulgences can be granted by one who is in mortal sin?</h4> | |
| 6751 <p id="XP_Q26_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 6752 <p id="XP_Q26_A4-p2"> | |
| 6753 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that indulgences cannot be granted by one who is in mortal sin. For a stream can no longer flow if cut off | |
| 6754 from its source. Now the source of grace which is the Holy Ghost is cut off from one who is in mortal sin. Therefore such | |
| 6755 a one can convey nothing to others by granting indulgences. | |
| 6756 </p> | |
| 6757 <p id="XP_Q26_A4-p3"> | |
| 6758 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is a greater thing to grant an indulgence than to receive one. But one who is in mortal sin cannot receive an | |
| 6759 indulgence, as we shall show presently ( | |
| 6760 <a id="XP_Q26_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q27_A1.html">Q[27], A[1]</a>). Neither, therefore, can he grant one. | |
| 6761 </p> | |
| 6762 <p id="XP_Q26_A4-p4"> | |
| 6763 <b>On the contrary,</b> Indulgences are granted in virtue of the power conferred on the prelates of the Church. Now mortal sin takes away, not power | |
| 6764 but goodness. Therefore one who is in mortal sin can grant indulgences. | |
| 6765 </p> | |
| 6766 <p id="XP_Q26_A4-p5"> | |
| 6767 <b>I answer that,</b> The granting of indulgences belongs to jurisdiction. But a man does not, through sin, lose jurisdiction. Consequently indulgences | |
| 6768 are equally valid, whether they be granted by one who is in mortal sin, or by a most holy person; since he remits punishment, | |
| 6769 not by virtue of his own merits, but by virtue of the merits laid up in the Church's treasury. | |
| 6770 </p> | |
| 6771 <p id="XP_Q26_A4-p6"> | |
| 6772 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The prelate who, while in a state of mortal sin, grants an indulgence, does not pour forth anything of his own, and so it | |
| 6773 is not necessary that he should receive an inflow from the source, in order that he may grant a valid indulgence. | |
| 6774 </p> | |
| 6775 <p id="XP_Q26_A4-p7"> | |
| 6776 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Further, to grant an indulgence is more than to receive one, if we consider the power, but it is less, if we consider the | |
| 6777 personal profit. | |
| 6778 </p> | |
| 6779 <p id="XP_Q26_A4-p8"></p> | |
| 6780 <p id="XP_Q26_A4-p9"></p> | |
| 6781 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6782 <a href="summa.XP_Q27.html"></a> | |
| 6783 </div> | |
| 6784 <a href="summa.XP_Q25_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6785 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6786 </div> | |
| 6787 <div id="XP_Q27" class="div3"> | |
| 6788 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A4.html"></a> | |
| 6789 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6790 <h3 id="XP_Q27-p0.1">OF THOSE WHOM INDULGENCES AVAIL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 6791 <p id="XP_Q27-p1"></p> | |
| 6792 <p id="XP_Q27-p2"> We must now consider those whom indulgences avail: under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 6793 <p id="XP_Q27-p3"> (1) Whether indulgences avail those who are in mortal sin?</p> | |
| 6794 <p id="XP_Q27-p4"> (2) Whether they avail religious?</p> | |
| 6795 <p id="XP_Q27-p5"> (3) Whether they avail a person who does not fulfill the conditions for which the indulgence is given?</p> | |
| 6796 <p id="XP_Q27-p6"> (4) Whether they avail him who grants them?</p> | |
| 6797 <div id="XP_Q27_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 6798 <a href="summa.XP_Q27.html"></a> | |
| 6799 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6800 <h4 id="XP_Q27_A1-p0.1">Whether an indulgence avails those who are in mortal sin?</h4> | |
| 6801 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 6802 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p2"> | |
| 6803 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an indulgence avails those who are in mortal sin. For one person can merit grace and many other good things | |
| 6804 for another, even though he be in mortal sin. Now indulgences derive their efficacy from the application of the saints' merits | |
| 6805 to an individual. Therefore they are effective in one who is in mortal sin. | |
| 6806 </p> | |
| 6807 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p3"> | |
| 6808 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the greater the need, the more room there is for pity. Now a man who is in mortal sin is in very great need. Therefore | |
| 6809 all the more should pity be extended to him by indulgence. | |
| 6810 </p> | |
| 6811 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p4"> | |
| 6812 <b>On the contrary,</b> A dead member receives no inflow from the other members that are living. But one who is in mortal sin, is like a dead member. | |
| 6813 Therefore he receives no inflow, through indulgences, from the merits of living members. | |
| 6814 </p> | |
| 6815 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p5"> | |
| 6816 <b>I answer that,</b> Some hold that indulgences avail those even who are in mortal sin, for the acquiring of grace, but not for the remission | |
| 6817 of their punishment, since none can be freed from punishment who is not yet freed from guilt. For he who has not yet been | |
| 6818 reached by God's operation unto the remission of guilt, cannot receive the remission of his punishment from the minister of | |
| 6819 the Church neither by indulgences nor in the tribunal of Penance. | |
| 6820 </p> | |
| 6821 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p6"> But this opinion seems to be untrue. Because, although those merits which are applied by means of an indulgence, might possibly | |
| 6822 avail a person so that he could merit grace (by way of congruity and impetration), yet it is not for this reason that they | |
| 6823 are applied, but for the remission of punishment. Hence they do not avail those who are in mortal sin, and consequently, true | |
| 6824 contrition and confession are demanded as conditions for gaining all indulgences. If however the merits | |
| 6825 were applied by such a form as this: "I grant you a share in the merits of the whole Church---or of one congregation, or of | |
| 6826 one specified person," then they might avail a person in mortal sin so that he could merit something, as the foregoing opinion | |
| 6827 holds. | |
| 6828 </p> | |
| 6829 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p7"> This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.</p> | |
| 6830 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p8"> | |
| 6831 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although he who is in mortal sin is in greater need of help, yet he is less capable of receiving it. | |
| 6832 </p> | |
| 6833 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p9"></p> | |
| 6834 <p id="XP_Q27_A1-p10"></p> | |
| 6835 <a href="summa.XP_Q27.html"></a> | |
| 6836 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6837 </div> | |
| 6838 <div id="XP_Q27_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 6839 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6840 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6841 <h4 id="XP_Q27_A2-p0.1">Whether indulgences avail religious?</h4> | |
| 6842 <p id="XP_Q27_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 6843 <p id="XP_Q27_A2-p2"> | |
| 6844 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that indulgences do not avail religious. For there is no reason to bring supplies to those who supply others | |
| 6845 out of their own abundance. Now indulgences are derived from the abundance of works of satisfaction to be found in religious. | |
| 6846 Therefore it is unreasonable for them to profit by indulgences. | |
| 6847 </p> | |
| 6848 <p id="XP_Q27_A2-p3"> | |
| 6849 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing detrimental to religious life should be done in the Church. But, if indulgences were to avail religious, | |
| 6850 this would be detrimental to regular discipline, because religious would become lax on account of indulgences, and would neglect | |
| 6851 the penances imposed in chapter. Therefore indulgences do not avail religious. | |
| 6852 </p> | |
| 6853 <p id="XP_Q27_A2-p4"> | |
| 6854 <b>On the contrary,</b> Good brings harm to no man. But the religious life is a good thing. Therefore it does not take away from religious the profit | |
| 6855 to be derived from indulgences. | |
| 6856 </p> | |
| 6857 <p id="XP_Q27_A2-p5"> | |
| 6858 <b>I answer that,</b> Indulgences avail both seculars and religious, provided they have charity and satisfy the conditions for gaining the indulgences: | |
| 6859 for religious can be helped by indulgences no less than persons living in the world. | |
| 6860 </p> | |
| 6861 <p id="XP_Q27_A2-p6"> | |
| 6862 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although religious are in the state of perfection, yet they cannot live without sin: and so if at times they are liable to | |
| 6863 punishment on account of some sin, they can expiate this debt by means of indulgences. For it is not unreasonable that one | |
| 6864 who is well off absolutely speaking, should be in want at times and in some respect, and thus need to be supplied with what | |
| 6865 he lacks. Hence it is written ( | |
| 6866 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q27_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.6.2" target="asv">Gal. 6:2</a>): "Bear ye one another's burdens." | |
| 6867 </p> | |
| 6868 <p id="XP_Q27_A2-p7"> | |
| 6869 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There is no reason why indulgences should be detrimental to religious observance, because, as to the reward of eternal life, | |
| 6870 religious merit more by observing their rule than by gaining indulgences; although, as to the remission of punishment, which | |
| 6871 is a lesser good, they merit less. Nor again do indulgences remit the punishment enjoined in chapter, because the chapter | |
| 6872 is a judicial rather than a penitential tribunal. hence even those who are not | |
| 6873 priests hold chapter. Absolution from punishment enjoined or due for sin is given in the tribunal of Penance. | |
| 6874 </p> | |
| 6875 <p id="XP_Q27_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 6876 <p id="XP_Q27_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 6877 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6878 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6879 </div> | |
| 6880 <div id="XP_Q27_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 6881 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6882 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A4.html"></a> | |
| 6883 <h4 id="XP_Q27_A3-p0.1">Whether an indulgence can ever be granted to one who does not fulfill the conditions required?</h4> | |
| 6884 <p id="XP_Q27_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 6885 <p id="XP_Q27_A3-p2"> | |
| 6886 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an indulgence can sometimes be granted to one who does not fulfill the required conditions. Because when | |
| 6887 a person is unable to perform a certain action his will is taken for the deed. Now sometimes an indulgence is to be gained | |
| 6888 by giving an alms, which a poor man is unable to do, though he would do so willingly. Therefore he can gain the indulgence. | |
| 6889 </p> | |
| 6890 <p id="XP_Q27_A3-p3"> | |
| 6891 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one man can make satisfaction for another. Now an indulgence is directed to the remission of punishment, just as | |
| 6892 satisfaction is. Therefore one man can gain an indulgence for another; and so a man can gain an indulgence without doing that | |
| 6893 for which the indulgence is given. | |
| 6894 </p> | |
| 6895 <p id="XP_Q27_A3-p4"> | |
| 6896 <b>On the contrary,</b> If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. If therefore a person fails to do that for which an indulgence is granted, | |
| 6897 and which is the cause of the indulgence, he does not gain the indulgence. | |
| 6898 </p> | |
| 6899 <p id="XP_Q27_A3-p5"> | |
| 6900 <b>I answer that,</b> Failing the condition of a grant, no grant ensues. Hence, as an indulgence is granted on the condition that a person does | |
| 6901 or gives a certain thing, if he fails in this, he does not gain the indulgence. | |
| 6902 </p> | |
| 6903 <p id="XP_Q27_A3-p6"> | |
| 6904 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This is true of the essential reward, but not of certain accidental rewards, such as the remission of punishment and the | |
| 6905 like. | |
| 6906 </p> | |
| 6907 <p id="XP_Q27_A3-p7"> | |
| 6908 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A person can by his intention apply his own action to whomever he lists, and so he can make satisfaction for whomever he | |
| 6909 chooses. On the other hand, an indulgence cannot be applied to someone, except in accordance with the intention of the grantor. | |
| 6910 Hence, since he applies it to the doer or giver of a particular action or thing, the doer cannot transfer this intention to | |
| 6911 another. If, however, the indulgence were expressed thus: "Whosoever does this, or | |
| 6912 for whomsoever this is done, shall gain so much indulgence," it would avail the person for whom it is done. Nor would the | |
| 6913 person who does this action, give the indulgence to another, but he who grants the indulgence in this form. | |
| 6914 </p> | |
| 6915 <p id="XP_Q27_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 6916 <p id="XP_Q27_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 6917 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6918 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A4.html"></a> | |
| 6919 </div> | |
| 6920 <div id="XP_Q27_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 6921 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6922 <a href="summa.XP_Q28.html"></a> | |
| 6923 <h4 id="XP_Q27_A4-p0.1">Whether an indulgence avails the person who grants it?</h4> | |
| 6924 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 6925 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p2"> | |
| 6926 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an indulgence does not avail him who grants it. For the granting of an indulgence belongs to jurisdiction. | |
| 6927 Now no one can exercise jurisdiction on himself. thus no one can excommunicate himself. Therefore no one can participate in | |
| 6928 an indulgence granted by himself. | |
| 6929 </p> | |
| 6930 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p3"> | |
| 6931 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if this were possible, he who grants an indulgence might gain the remission of the punishment of all his sins for | |
| 6932 some small deed, so that he would sin with impunity, which seems senseless. | |
| 6933 </p> | |
| 6934 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p4"> | |
| 6935 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to grant indulgences and to excommunicate belong to the same power. Now a man cannot excommunicate himself. Therefore | |
| 6936 he cannot share in the indulgence of which he is the grantor. | |
| 6937 </p> | |
| 6938 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p5"> | |
| 6939 <b>On the contrary,</b> He would be worse off than others if he could not make use of the Church's treasury which he dispenses to others. | |
| 6940 </p> | |
| 6941 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p6"> | |
| 6942 <b>I answer that,</b> An indulgence should be given for some reason, in order for anyone to be enticed by the indulgence to perform some action | |
| 6943 that conduces to the good of the Church and to the honor of God. Now the prelate to whom is committed the care of the Church's | |
| 6944 good and of the furthering of God's honor, does not need to entice himself thereto. Therefore he cannot grant an indulgence | |
| 6945 to himself alone; but he can avail himself of an indulgence that he grants for others, | |
| 6946 since it is based on a cause for granting it to them. | |
| 6947 </p> | |
| 6948 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p7"> | |
| 6949 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A man cannot exercise an act of jurisdiction on himself, but a prelate can avail himself of those things which are granted | |
| 6950 to others by the authority of his jurisdiction, both in temporal and in spiritual matters: thus also a priest gives himself | |
| 6951 the Eucharist which he gives to others. And so a bishop too can apply to himself the suffrages of the Church which he dispenses | |
| 6952 to others, the immediate effect of which suffrages, and not of his jurisdiction, | |
| 6953 is the remission of punishment by means of indulgences. | |
| 6954 </p> | |
| 6955 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p8"> The Reply to the Second Objection is clear from what had been said.</p> | |
| 6956 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p9"> | |
| 6957 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Excommunication is pronounced by way of sentence, which no man can pronounce on himself, for the reason that in the tribunal | |
| 6958 of justice the same man cannot be both judge and accused. On the other hand an indulgence is not given under the form of a | |
| 6959 sentence, but by way of dispensation, which a man can apply to himself. | |
| 6960 </p> | |
| 6961 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p10"></p> | |
| 6962 <p id="XP_Q27_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 6963 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A3.html"></a> | |
| 6964 <a href="summa.XP_Q28.html"></a> | |
| 6965 </div> | |
| 6966 <a href="summa.XP_Q26_A4.html"></a> | |
| 6967 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6968 </div> | |
| 6969 <div id="XP_Q28" class="div3"> | |
| 6970 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A4.html"></a> | |
| 6971 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A1.html"></a> | |
| 6972 <h3 id="XP_Q28-p0.1">OF THE SOLEMN RITE OF PENANCE (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 6973 <p id="XP_Q28-p1"></p> | |
| 6974 <p id="XP_Q28-p2"> We must now consider the solemn rite of Penance: under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 6975 <p id="XP_Q28-p3"> (1) Whether a penance can be published or solemnized?</p> | |
| 6976 <p id="XP_Q28-p4"> (2) Whether a solemn penance can be repeated?</p> | |
| 6977 <p id="XP_Q28-p5"> (3) Whether public penance should be imposed on women?</p> | |
| 6978 <div id="XP_Q28_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 6979 <a href="summa.XP_Q28.html"></a> | |
| 6980 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A2.html"></a> | |
| 6981 <h4 id="XP_Q28_A1-p0.1">Whether a penance should be published or solemnized?</h4> | |
| 6982 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 6983 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p2"> | |
| 6984 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a penance should not be published or solemnized. Because it is not lawful for a priest, even through fear, | |
| 6985 to divulge anyone's sin, however notorious it may be. Now a sin is published by a solemn penance. Therefore a penance should | |
| 6986 not be solemnized. | |
| 6987 </p> | |
| 6988 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p3"> | |
| 6989 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the judgment should follow the nature of the tribunal. Now penance is a judgment pronounced in a secret tribunal. | |
| 6990 Therefore it should not be published or solemnized. | |
| 6991 </p> | |
| 6992 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p4"> | |
| 6993 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "Every deficiency is made good by penance" as Ambrose [*Cf. Hypognost. iii, among the spurious works ascribed to | |
| 6994 St. Augustine] states. Now solemnization has a contrary effect, since it involves the penitent in many deficiencies: for a | |
| 6995 layman cannot be promoted to the ranks of the clergy nor can a cleric be promoted to higher orders, after doing solemn penance. | |
| 6996 Therefore Penance should not be solemnized. | |
| 6997 </p> | |
| 6998 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p5"> | |
| 6999 <b>On the contrary,</b> Penance is a sacrament. Now some kind of solemnity is observed in every sacrament. Therefore there should be some solemnity | |
| 7000 in Penance. | |
| 7001 </p> | |
| 7002 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p6"> Further, the medicine should suit the disease. Now a sin is sometimes public, and by its example draws many to sin. Therefore | |
| 7003 the penance which is its medicine should also be public and solemn so as to give edification to many. | |
| 7004 </p> | |
| 7005 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p7"> | |
| 7006 <b>I answer that,</b> Some penances should be public and solemn for four reasons. First, so that a public sin may have a public remedy; secondly, | |
| 7007 because he who has committed a very grave crime deserves the greatest confusion even in this life; thirdly, in order that | |
| 7008 it may deter others; fourthly, that he may be an example of repentance, lest those should despair, who have committed grievous | |
| 7009 sins. | |
| 7010 </p> | |
| 7011 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p8"> | |
| 7012 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The priest does not divulge the confession by imposing such a penance, though people may suspect the penitent of having committed | |
| 7013 some great sin. For a man is not certainly taken to be guilty, because he is punished, since sometimes one does penance for | |
| 7014 another: thus we read in the Lives of the Fathers of a certain man who, in order to incite his companion to do penance, did | |
| 7015 penance together with him. And if the sin be public, the penitent, by | |
| 7016 fulfilling his penance, shows that he has been to confession. | |
| 7017 </p> | |
| 7018 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p9"> | |
| 7019 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A solemn penance, as to its imposition, does not go beyond the limits of a secret tribunal, since, just as the confession | |
| 7020 is made secretly, so the penance is imposed secretly. It is the execution of the penance, that goes beyond the limits of the | |
| 7021 secret tribunal: and there is nothing objectionable in this. | |
| 7022 </p> | |
| 7023 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p10"> | |
| 7024 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although Penance cancels all deficiencies, by restoring man to his former state of grace, yet it does not always restore | |
| 7025 him to his former dignity. Hence women after doing penance for fornication are not given the veil, because they do not recover | |
| 7026 the honor of virginity. In like manner, after doing public penance, a sinner does not recover his former dignity so as to | |
| 7027 be eligible for the clerical state and a bishop who would ordain such a one ought to | |
| 7028 be deprived of the power of ordaining, unless perhaps the needs of the Church or custom require it. In that case such a one | |
| 7029 would be admitted to minor orders by way of exception, but not to the sacred orders. First, on account of the dignity of the | |
| 7030 latter; secondly, for fear of relapse; thirdly, in order to avoid the scandal which the people might take through recollection | |
| 7031 of his former sins; fourthly, because he would not have the face to correct others, by reason of the publicity of his own | |
| 7032 sin. | |
| 7033 </p> | |
| 7034 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 7035 <p id="XP_Q28_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 7036 <a href="summa.XP_Q28.html"></a> | |
| 7037 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7038 </div> | |
| 7039 <div id="XP_Q28_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 7040 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7041 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7042 <h4 id="XP_Q28_A2-p0.1">Whether a solemn penance can be repeated?</h4> | |
| 7043 <p id="XP_Q28_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 7044 <p id="XP_Q28_A2-p2"> | |
| 7045 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a solemn penance can be repeated. For those sacraments which do not imprint a character, can be solemnized | |
| 7046 a second time, such as the Eucharist, Extreme Unction and the like. But Penance does not imprint a character, therefore it | |
| 7047 can be solemnized over again. | |
| 7048 </p> | |
| 7049 <p id="XP_Q28_A2-p3"> | |
| 7050 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, penance is solemnized on account of the gravity and publicity of the sin. Now, after doing penance, a person may | |
| 7051 commit the same sins over again, or even more grievous sins. Therefore the solemn penance should be imposed again. | |
| 7052 </p> | |
| 7053 <p id="XP_Q28_A2-p4"> | |
| 7054 <b>On the contrary,</b> Solemn penance signifies the expulsion of the first man from paradise. Now this was done but once. Therefore solemn penance | |
| 7055 should be imposed once only. | |
| 7056 </p> | |
| 7057 <p id="XP_Q28_A2-p5"> | |
| 7058 <b>I answer that,</b> Solemn penance ought not to be repeated, for three reasons. First, lest frequency bring it into contempt. Secondly, on account | |
| 7059 of its signification; for it signifies the expulsion of the first man from paradise, which happened only once; thirdly, because | |
| 7060 the solemnization indicates, in a way, that one makes profession of continual repentance. Wherefore repetition is inconsistent | |
| 7061 with solemnization. And if the sinner fall again, he is not precluded from doing | |
| 7062 penance, but a solemn penance should not be imposed on him again. | |
| 7063 </p> | |
| 7064 <p id="XP_Q28_A2-p6"> | |
| 7065 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In those sacraments which are solemnized again and again, repetition is not inconsistent with solemnity, as it is in the | |
| 7066 present case. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 7067 </p> | |
| 7068 <p id="XP_Q28_A2-p7"> | |
| 7069 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although, if we consider his crime, he ought to do the same penance again, yet the repeated solemnization is not becoming, | |
| 7070 for the reasons stated above. | |
| 7071 </p> | |
| 7072 <p id="XP_Q28_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 7073 <p id="XP_Q28_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 7074 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7075 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7076 </div> | |
| 7077 <div id="XP_Q28_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 7078 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7079 <a href="summa.XP_Q29.html"></a> | |
| 7080 <h4 id="XP_Q28_A3-p0.1">Whether solemn penance should be imposed on women and clerics, and whether any priest can impose it?</h4> | |
| 7081 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 7082 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p2"> | |
| 7083 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that solemn penance should not be imposed on women. Because, when this penance is imposed on a man, he has | |
| 7084 to cut his hair off. But this becomes not a woman, according to | |
| 7085 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q28_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:15.</a> Therefore she should not do solemn penance. | |
| 7086 </p> | |
| 7087 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p3"> | |
| 7088 <b>Objection 2:</b> It also seems that it ought to be imposed on clerics. For it is enjoined on account of a grievous crime. Now the same sin | |
| 7089 is more grievous in a cleric than in a layman. Therefore it ought to be imposed on a cleric more than on a layman. | |
| 7090 </p> | |
| 7091 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p4"> | |
| 7092 <b>Objection 3:</b> It also seems that it can be imposed by any priest. Because to absolve in the tribunal of Penance belongs to one who has | |
| 7093 the keys. Now an ordinary priest has the keys. Therefore he can administer this penance. | |
| 7094 </p> | |
| 7095 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p5"> | |
| 7096 <b>I answer that,</b> Every solemn penance is public, but not vice versa. For solemn penance is done as follows: "On the first day of Lent, these | |
| 7097 penitents clothed in sackcloth, with bare feet, their faces to the ground, and their hair shorn away, accompanied by their | |
| 7098 priests, present themselves to the bishop of the city at the door of the church. Having brought them into the church the bishop | |
| 7099 with all his clergy recites the seven penitential psalms, and then imposes his hand on | |
| 7100 them, sprinkles them with holy water, puts ashes on their heads, covers their shoulders with a hairshirt, and sorrowfully | |
| 7101 announces to them that as Adam was expelled from paradise, so are they expelled from the church. He then orders the ministers | |
| 7102 to put them out of the church, and the clergy follow reciting the responsory: 'In the sweat of thy brow,' etc. Every year | |
| 7103 on the day of our Lord's Supper they are brought back into the church by their priests, and there shall they be until the | |
| 7104 octave | |
| 7105 day of Easter, without however being admitted to Communion or to the kiss of peace. This shall be done every year as long | |
| 7106 as entrance into the church is forbidden them. The final reconciliation is reserved to the bishop, who alone can impose solemn | |
| 7107 penance" [*Cap. lxiv, dist. 50]. | |
| 7108 </p> | |
| 7109 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p6"> This penance can be imposed on men and women; but not on clerics, for fear of scandal. Nor ought such a penance to be imposed | |
| 7110 except for a crime which has disturbed the whole of the city. | |
| 7111 </p> | |
| 7112 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p7"> On the other hand public but not solemn penance is that which is done in the presence of the Church, but without the foregoing | |
| 7113 solemnity, such as a pilgrimage throughout the world with a staff. A penance of this kind can be repeated, and can be imposed | |
| 7114 by a mere priest, even on a cleric. Sometimes however a solemn penance is taken to signify a public one: so that authorities | |
| 7115 speak of solemn penance in different senses. | |
| 7116 </p> | |
| 7117 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p8"> | |
| 7118 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The woman's hair is a sign of her subjection, a man's is not. Hence it is not proper for a woman to put aside her hair when | |
| 7119 doing penance, as it is for a man. | |
| 7120 </p> | |
| 7121 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p9"> | |
| 7122 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although in the same kind of sin, a cleric offends more grievously than a layman, yet a solemn penance is not imposed on | |
| 7123 him, lest his orders should be an object of contempt. Thus deference is given not to the person but to his orders. | |
| 7124 </p> | |
| 7125 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p10"> | |
| 7126 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Grave sins need great care in their cure. Hence the imposition of a solemn penance, which is only applied for the most grievous | |
| 7127 sins, is reserved to the bishop. | |
| 7128 </p> | |
| 7129 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 7130 <p id="XP_Q28_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 7131 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7132 <a href="summa.XP_Q29.html"></a> | |
| 7133 </div> | |
| 7134 <a href="summa.XP_Q27_A4.html"></a> | |
| 7135 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7136 </div> | |
| 7137 <div id="XP_Q29" class="div3"> | |
| 7138 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7139 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7140 <h3 id="XP_Q29-p0.1">EXTREME UNCTION (QQ[29]-33)</h3> | |
| 7141 <p id="XP_Q29-p1"></p> | |
| 7142 <p id="XP_Q29-p2">OF EXTREME UNCTION, AS REGARDS ITS ESSENCE AND INSTITUTION (NINE ARTICLES)</p> | |
| 7143 <p id="XP_Q29-p3"> We must now consider the sacrament of Extreme Unction: in respect of which five points have to be considered: (1) Its essentials | |
| 7144 and institution; (2) Its effect; (3) Its minister; (4) on whom should it be conferred and in what parts; (5) Its repetition. | |
| 7145 </p> | |
| 7146 <p id="XP_Q29-p4"> Under the first head there are nine points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 7147 <p id="XP_Q29-p5"> (1) Whether Extreme Unction is a sacrament?</p> | |
| 7148 <p id="XP_Q29-p6"> (2) Whether it is one sacrament?</p> | |
| 7149 <p id="XP_Q29-p7"> (3) Whether this sacrament was instituted by Christ?</p> | |
| 7150 <p id="XP_Q29-p8"> (4) Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament?</p> | |
| 7151 <p id="XP_Q29-p9"> (5) Whether the oil ought to be consecrated?</p> | |
| 7152 <p id="XP_Q29-p10"> (6) Whether the matter of this sacrament should be consecrated by a bishop?</p> | |
| 7153 <p id="XP_Q29-p11"> (7) Whether this sacrament has any form?</p> | |
| 7154 <p id="XP_Q29-p12"> (8) Whether the form of this sacrament should take the shape of a deprecatory phrase?</p> | |
| 7155 <p id="XP_Q29-p13"> (9) Whether this is a suitable form for this sacrament?</p> | |
| 7156 <div id="XP_Q29_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 7157 <a href="summa.XP_Q29.html"></a> | |
| 7158 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7159 <h4 id="XP_Q29_A1-p0.1">Whether Extreme Unction is a sacrament?</h4> | |
| 7160 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 7161 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p2"> | |
| 7162 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Extreme Unction is not a sacrament. For just as oil is used on sick people, so is it on catechumens. But | |
| 7163 anointing of catechumens with oil is not a sacrament. Therefore neither is the Extreme Unction of the sick with oil. | |
| 7164 </p> | |
| 7165 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p3"> | |
| 7166 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of the sacraments of the New Law. But there was no figure of Extreme | |
| 7167 Unction in the Old Law. Therefore it is not a sacrament of the New Law. | |
| 7168 </p> | |
| 7169 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p4"> | |
| 7170 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii, v) every sacrament aims at either cleansing, or enlightening, or perfecting. | |
| 7171 Now Extreme Unction does not aim at either cleansing, or enlightening, for this is ascribed to Baptism alone, or perfecting, | |
| 7172 for according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), this belongs to Confirmation and the Eucharist. Therefore Extreme Unction is | |
| 7173 not a sacrament. | |
| 7174 </p> | |
| 7175 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p5"> | |
| 7176 <b>On the contrary,</b> The sacraments of the Church supply man's defects sufficiently with respect to every state of life. Now no other than Extreme | |
| 7177 Unction does this for those who are departing from this life. Therefore it is a sacrament. | |
| 7178 </p> | |
| 7179 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p6"> Further, the sacraments are neither more nor less than spiritual remedies. Now Extreme Unction is a spiritual remedy, since | |
| 7180 it avails for the remission of sins, according to | |
| 7181 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.15" target="asv"> James 5:15.</a> Therefore it is a sacrament. | |
| 7182 </p> | |
| 7183 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p7"> | |
| 7184 <b>I answer that,</b> Among the visible operations of the Church, some are sacraments, as Baptism, some are sacramentals, as Exorcism. The difference | |
| 7185 between these is that a sacrament is an action of the Church that reaches to the principal effect intended in the administration | |
| 7186 of the sacraments, whereas a sacramental is an action which, though it does not reach to that effect, is nevertheless directed | |
| 7187 towards that principal action. Now the effect intended in the administration | |
| 7188 of the sacraments is the healing of the disease of sin: wherefore it is written ( | |
| 7189 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.27.9" target="asv">Is. 27:9</a>): "This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." Since then Extreme Unction reaches to this effect, as | |
| 7190 is clear from the words of James, and is not ordained to any other sacrament as an accessory thereto, it is evident that Extreme | |
| 7191 Unction is not a sacramental but a sacrament. | |
| 7192 </p> | |
| 7193 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p8"> | |
| 7194 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The oil with which catechumens are anointed does not convey the remission of sins to them by its unction, for that belongs | |
| 7195 to Baptism. It does, however, dispose them to receive Baptism, as stated above ( | |
| 7196 <a id="XP_Q29_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q71_A3.html">TP, Q[71], A[3]</a>). Hence that unction is not a sacrament as Extreme Unction is. | |
| 7197 </p> | |
| 7198 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p9"> | |
| 7199 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. And as, under | |
| 7200 the Old Law, it was not yet time to enter into glory, because "the Law brought nobody [Vulg.: 'nothing'] to perfection" ( | |
| 7201 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.19" target="asv">Heb. 7:19</a>), so this sacrament had not to be foreshadowed therein by some corresponding sacrament, as by a figure of the same kind. | |
| 7202 Nevertheless it was somewhat foreshadowed remotely by | |
| 7203 all the healings related in the Old Testament. | |
| 7204 </p> | |
| 7205 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p10"> | |
| 7206 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Dionysius makes no mention of Extreme Unction, as neither of Penance, nor of Matrimony, because he had no intention to decide | |
| 7207 any question about the sacraments, save in so far as they serve to illustrate the orderly disposition of the ecclesiastical | |
| 7208 hierarchy, as regards the ministers, their actions, and the recipients. Nevertheless since Extreme Unction confers grace and | |
| 7209 remission of sins, there is no doubt that it possesses an enlightening and | |
| 7210 cleansing power, even as Baptism, though not so copious. | |
| 7211 </p> | |
| 7212 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 7213 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 7214 <p id="XP_Q29_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 7215 <a href="summa.XP_Q29.html"></a> | |
| 7216 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7217 </div> | |
| 7218 <div id="XP_Q29_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 7219 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7220 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7221 <h4 id="XP_Q29_A2-p0.1">Whether Extreme Unction is one sacrament?</h4> | |
| 7222 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 7223 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p2"> | |
| 7224 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Extreme Unction is not one sacrament. Because the oneness of a thing depends on its matter and form, since | |
| 7225 being and oneness are derived from the same source. Now the form of this sacrament is said several times during the one administration, | |
| 7226 and the matter is applied to the person anointed in respect of various parts of his body. Therefore it is not one sacrament. | |
| 7227 </p> | |
| 7228 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p3"> | |
| 7229 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the unction itself is a sacrament, for it would be absurd to say that the oil is a sacrament. But there are several | |
| 7230 unctions. Therefore there are several sacraments. | |
| 7231 </p> | |
| 7232 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p4"> | |
| 7233 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, one sacrament should be performed by one minister. But the case might occur that Extreme Unction could not be conferred | |
| 7234 by one minister: thus if the priest die after the first unction, another priest would have to proceed with the others. Therefore | |
| 7235 Extreme Unction is not one sacrament. | |
| 7236 </p> | |
| 7237 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p5"> | |
| 7238 <b>On the contrary,</b> As immersion is in relation to Baptism, so is unction to this sacrament. But several immersions are but one sacrament of | |
| 7239 Baptism. Therefore the several unctions in Extreme Unction are also one sacrament. | |
| 7240 </p> | |
| 7241 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p6"> Further, if it were not one sacrament, then after the first unction, it would not be essential for the perfection of the | |
| 7242 sacrament that the second unction should be performed, since each sacrament has perfect being of itself. But that is not true. | |
| 7243 Therefore it is one sacrament. | |
| 7244 </p> | |
| 7245 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p7"> | |
| 7246 <b>I answer that,</b> Strictly speaking, a thing is one numerically in three ways. First, as something indivisible, which is neither actually nor | |
| 7247 potentially several---as a point, and unity. Secondly, as something continuous, which is actually one, but potentially several---as | |
| 7248 a line. Thirdly, as something complete, that is composed of several parts---as a house, which is, in a way, several things, | |
| 7249 even actually, although those several things go together towards making one. In | |
| 7250 this way each sacrament is said to be one thing, in as much as the many things which are contained in one sacrament, are united | |
| 7251 together for the purpose of signifying or causing one thing, because a sacrament is a sign of the effect it produces. Hence | |
| 7252 when one action suffices for a perfect signification, the unity of the sacrament consists in that action only, as may be seen | |
| 7253 in Confirmation. When, however, the signification of the sacrament can be both in one and in several actions, then the | |
| 7254 sacrament can be complete both in one and in several actions, even as Baptism in one immersion and in three, since washing | |
| 7255 which is signified in Baptism, can be completed by one immersion and by several. But when the perfect signification cannot | |
| 7256 be expressed except by means of several actions, then these several actions are essential for the perfection of the sacrament, | |
| 7257 as is exemplified in the Eucharist, for the refreshment of the body which signifies that of the soul, can only be attained | |
| 7258 by | |
| 7259 means of meat and drink. It is the same in this sacrament, because the healing of the internal wounds cannot be perfectly | |
| 7260 signified save by the application of the remedy to the various sources of the wounds. Hence several actions are essential | |
| 7261 to the perfection of this sacrament. | |
| 7262 </p> | |
| 7263 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p8"> | |
| 7264 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The unity of a complete whole is not destroyed by reason of a diversity of matter or form in the parts of that whole. Thus | |
| 7265 it is evident that there is neither the same matter nor the same form in the flesh and in the bones of which one man is composed. | |
| 7266 In like manner too, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and in this sacrament, the diversity of matter and form does not destroy | |
| 7267 the unity of the sacrament. | |
| 7268 </p> | |
| 7269 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p9"> | |
| 7270 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although those actions are several simply, yet they are united together in one complete action, viz. the anointing of all | |
| 7271 the external senses, whence arises the infernal malady. | |
| 7272 </p> | |
| 7273 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p10"> | |
| 7274 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although, in the Eucharist, if the priest die after the consecration of the bread, another priest can go on with the consecration | |
| 7275 of the wine, beginning where the other left off, or can begin over again with fresh matter, in Extreme Unction he cannot begin | |
| 7276 over again, but should always go on, because to anoint the same part a second time would produce as much effect as if one | |
| 7277 were to consecrate a host a second time, which ought by no means to be done. | |
| 7278 Nor does the plurality of ministers destroy the unity of this sacrament, because they only act as instruments, and the unity | |
| 7279 of a smith's work is not destroyed by his using several hammers. | |
| 7280 </p> | |
| 7281 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 7282 <p id="XP_Q29_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 7283 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7284 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7285 </div> | |
| 7286 <div id="XP_Q29_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 7287 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7288 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A4.html"></a> | |
| 7289 <h4 id="XP_Q29_A3-p0.1">Whether this sacrament was instituted by Christ?</h4> | |
| 7290 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 7291 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p2"> | |
| 7292 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament was not instituted by Christ. For mention is made in the Gospel of the institution of those | |
| 7293 sacraments which Christ instituted, for instance the Eucharist and Baptism. But no mention is made of Extreme Unction. Therefore | |
| 7294 it was not instituted by Christ. | |
| 7295 </p> | |
| 7296 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p3"> | |
| 7297 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Master says explicitly (Sent. iv, D, 23) that it was instituted by the apostles. Therefore Christ did not institute | |
| 7298 it Himself. | |
| 7299 </p> | |
| 7300 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p4"> | |
| 7301 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ showed forth the sacraments which He instituted, as in the case of the Eucharist and Baptism. But He did | |
| 7302 not bestow this sacrament on anyone. Therefore He did not institute it Himself. | |
| 7303 </p> | |
| 7304 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p5"> | |
| 7305 <b>On the contrary,</b> The sacraments of the New Law are more excellent than those of the Old Law. But all the sacraments of the Old Law were instituted | |
| 7306 by God. Therefore much more do all the sacraments of the New Law owe their institution to Christ Himself. | |
| 7307 </p> | |
| 7308 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p6"> Further, to make an institution and to remove it belongs to the same authority. Now the Church, who enjoys the same authority | |
| 7309 in the successors of the apostles, as the apostles themselves possessed, cannot do away with the sacrament of Extreme Unction. | |
| 7310 Therefore the apostles did not institute it, but Christ Himself. | |
| 7311 </p> | |
| 7312 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p7"> | |
| 7313 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two opinions on this point. For some hold that this sacrament and Confirmation were not instituted by Christ Himself, | |
| 7314 but were left by Him to be instituted by the apostles; for the reason that these two sacraments, on account of the plenitude | |
| 7315 of grace conferred in them, could not be instituted before the mission of the Holy Ghost in perfect plenitude. Hence they | |
| 7316 are sacraments of the New Law in such a way as not to be foreshadowed in the Old Law. | |
| 7317 But this argument is not very cogent, since, just as Christ, before His Passion, promised the mission of the Holy Ghost in | |
| 7318 His plenitude, so could He institute these sacraments. | |
| 7319 </p> | |
| 7320 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p8"> Wherefore others hold that Christ Himself instituted all the sacraments, but that He Himself published some, which present | |
| 7321 greater difficulty to our belief, while he reserved some to be published by the apostles, such as Extreme Unction and Confirmation. | |
| 7322 This opinion seems so much the more probable, as the sacraments belong to the foundation of the Law, wherefore their institution | |
| 7323 pertains to the lawgiver; besides, they derive their efficacy from their institution, which | |
| 7324 efficacy is given them by God alone. | |
| 7325 </p> | |
| 7326 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p9"> | |
| 7327 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our Lord did and said many things which are not related in the Gospel. For the evangelists were intent on handing down chiefly | |
| 7328 those things that were necessary for salvation or concerned the building of the ecclesiastical edifice. Hence they related | |
| 7329 the institution by Christ of Baptism, Penance, the Eucharist and orders, rather than of Extreme Unction and Confirmation, | |
| 7330 which are not necessary for salvation, nor do they concern the building or division | |
| 7331 of the Church. As a matter of fact however an anointing done by the apostles is mentioned in the Gospel ( | |
| 7332 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.6.13" target="asv">Mk. 6:13</a>) where it is said that they "anointed the sick with oil." | |
| 7333 </p> | |
| 7334 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p10"> | |
| 7335 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Master says it was instituted by the apostles because its institution was made known to us by the teaching of the apostles. | |
| 7336 </p> | |
| 7337 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p11"> | |
| 7338 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ did not show forth any sacrament except such as He received by way of example: but He could not be a recipient of | |
| 7339 Penance and Extreme Unction, since there was no sin in Him: hence He did not show them forth. | |
| 7340 </p> | |
| 7341 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 7342 <p id="XP_Q29_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 7343 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7344 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A4.html"></a> | |
| 7345 </div> | |
| 7346 <div id="XP_Q29_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 7347 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7348 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A5.html"></a> | |
| 7349 <h4 id="XP_Q29_A4-p0.1">Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament?</h4> | |
| 7350 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 7351 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p2"> | |
| 7352 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that olive oil is not a suitable matter for this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained immediately to the | |
| 7353 state of incorruption. Now incorruption is signified by balsam which is contained in chrism. Therefore chrism would be a more | |
| 7354 suitable matter for this sacrament. | |
| 7355 </p> | |
| 7356 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p3"> | |
| 7357 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is a spiritual healing. Now spiritual healing is signified by the use of wine, as may be gathered | |
| 7358 from the parable of the wounded man ( | |
| 7359 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.10.34" target="asv">Lk. 10:34</a>). Therefore wine also would be more suitable a matter for this sacrament. | |
| 7360 </p> | |
| 7361 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p4"> | |
| 7362 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, where there is the greater danger, the remedy should be a common one. But olive oil is not a common remedy, since | |
| 7363 the olive is not found in every country. Therefore, since this sacrament is given to the dying, who are in the greatest danger, | |
| 7364 it seems that olive oil is not a suitable matter. | |
| 7365 </p> | |
| 7366 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p5"> | |
| 7367 <b>On the contrary,</b> oil is appointed ( | |
| 7368 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.14" target="asv">James 5:14</a>) as the matter of this sacrament. Now, properly speaking, oil is none but olive oil. Therefore this is the matter of this | |
| 7369 sacrament. | |
| 7370 </p> | |
| 7371 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p6"> Further, spiritual healing is signified by anointing with oil, as is evident from | |
| 7372 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.1.6" target="asv"> Is. 1:6 </a>where we read: " . . . swelling sores: they are not . . . dressed nor fomented with oil." Therefore the suitable matter for | |
| 7373 this sacrament is oil. | |
| 7374 </p> | |
| 7375 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p7"> | |
| 7376 <b>I answer that,</b> The spiritual healing, which is given at the end of life, ought to be complete, since there is no other to follow; it ought | |
| 7377 also to be gentle, lest hope, of which the dying stand in utmost need, be shattered rather than fostered. Now oil has a softening | |
| 7378 effect, it penetrates to the very heart of a thing, and spreads over it. Hence, in both the foregoing respects, it is a suitable | |
| 7379 matter for this sacrament. And since oil is, above all, the name of the liquid | |
| 7380 extract of olives, for other liquids are only called oil from their likeness to it, it follows that olive oil is the matter | |
| 7381 which should be employed in this sacrament. | |
| 7382 </p> | |
| 7383 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p8"> | |
| 7384 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The incorruption of glory is something not contained in this sacrament: and there is no need for the matter to signify such | |
| 7385 a thing. Hence it is not necessary for balsam to be included in the matter of this sacrament, because on account of its fragrance | |
| 7386 it is indicative of a good name, which is no longer necessary, for its own sake, to those who are dying; they need only a | |
| 7387 clear conscience which is signified by oil. | |
| 7388 </p> | |
| 7389 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p9"> | |
| 7390 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Wine heals by its roughness, oil by its softness, wherefore healing with wine pertains to Penance rather than to this sacrament. | |
| 7391 </p> | |
| 7392 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p10"> | |
| 7393 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Though olive oil is not produced everywhere, yet it can easily be transported from one place to another. Moreover this sacrament | |
| 7394 is not so necessary that the dying cannot obtain salvation without it. | |
| 7395 </p> | |
| 7396 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 7397 <p id="XP_Q29_A4-p12"></p> | |
| 7398 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7399 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A5.html"></a> | |
| 7400 </div> | |
| 7401 <div id="XP_Q29_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 7402 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A4.html"></a> | |
| 7403 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A6.html"></a> | |
| 7404 <h4 id="XP_Q29_A5-p0.1">Whether the oil ought to be consecrated?</h4> | |
| 7405 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 7406 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p2"> | |
| 7407 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the oil need not be consecrated. Because there is a sanctification in the use of this sacrament, through | |
| 7408 the form of words. Therefore another sanctification is superfluous if it be applied to the matter. | |
| 7409 </p> | |
| 7410 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p3"> | |
| 7411 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the efficacy and signification of the sacraments are in their very matter. But the signification of the effect of | |
| 7412 this sacrament, is suitable to oil on account of its natural properties, and the efficacy thereof is due to the Divine institution. | |
| 7413 Therefore its matter does not need to be sanctified. | |
| 7414 </p> | |
| 7415 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p4"> | |
| 7416 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Baptism is a more perfect sacrament than Extreme Unction. But, so far as the essentials of the sacrament are concerned, | |
| 7417 the baptismal matter needs no sanctification. Neither therefore does the matter of Extreme Unction need to be sanctified. | |
| 7418 </p> | |
| 7419 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p5"> | |
| 7420 <b>On the contrary,</b> In all other anointings the matter is previously consecrated. Therefore since this sacrament is an anointing, it requires | |
| 7421 consecrated matter. | |
| 7422 </p> | |
| 7423 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p6"> | |
| 7424 <b>I answer that,</b> Some hold that mere oil is the matter of this sacrament, and that the sacrament itself is perfected in the consecration of | |
| 7425 the oil by the bishop. But this is clearly false since we proved when treating of the Eucharist that that sacrament alone | |
| 7426 consists in the consecration of the matter ( | |
| 7427 <a id="XP_Q29_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q2_A1.html">Q[2], A[1]</a>, ad 2). | |
| 7428 </p> | |
| 7429 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p7"> We must therefore say that this sacrament consists in the anointing itself, just as Baptism consists in the washing, and | |
| 7430 that the matter of this sacrament is consecrated oil. Three reasons may be assigned why consecrated matter is needed in this | |
| 7431 sacrament and in certain others. The first is that all sacramental efficacy is derived from Christ: wherefore those sacraments | |
| 7432 which He Himself used, derived their efficacy from His use of them, even as, by the contact of His flesh, He | |
| 7433 bestowed the force of regeneration on the waters. But He did not use this sacrament, nor any bodily anointing, wherefore in | |
| 7434 all anointings a consecrated matter is required. The second reason is that this sacrament confers a plenitude of grace, so | |
| 7435 as to take away not only sin but also the remnants of sin, and bodily sickness. The third reason is that its effect on the | |
| 7436 body, viz. bodily health, is not caused by a natural property of the matter. wherefore it has to derive this efficacy from | |
| 7437 being | |
| 7438 consecrated. | |
| 7439 </p> | |
| 7440 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p8"> | |
| 7441 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The first consecration sanctifies the matter in itself, but the second regards rather the use of the matter considered as | |
| 7442 actually producing its effect. Hence neither is superfluous, because instruments also receive their efficacy from the craftsman, | |
| 7443 both when they are made, and when they are used for action. | |
| 7444 </p> | |
| 7445 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p9"> | |
| 7446 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The efficacy which the sacrament derives from its institution, is applied to this particular matter when it is consecrated. | |
| 7447 </p> | |
| 7448 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p10"> The Reply to the Third Objection is gathered from what has been said.</p> | |
| 7449 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p11"></p> | |
| 7450 <p id="XP_Q29_A5-p12"></p> | |
| 7451 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A4.html"></a> | |
| 7452 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A6.html"></a> | |
| 7453 </div> | |
| 7454 <div id="XP_Q29_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 7455 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A5.html"></a> | |
| 7456 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A7.html"></a> | |
| 7457 <h4 id="XP_Q29_A6-p0.1">Whether the matter of this sacrament need be consecrated by a bishop?</h4> | |
| 7458 <p id="XP_Q29_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 7459 <p id="XP_Q29_A6-p2"> | |
| 7460 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the matter of this sacrament need not be consecrated by a bishop. Because the consecration of the Eucharistic | |
| 7461 elements surpasses that of the matter in this sacrament. But a priest can consecrate the matter in the Eucharist. Therefore | |
| 7462 he can do so in this sacrament also. | |
| 7463 </p> | |
| 7464 <p id="XP_Q29_A6-p3"> | |
| 7465 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in material works the higher art never prepares the matter for the lower, because the art which applies the matter | |
| 7466 is more excellent than that which prepares it, as stated in Phys. ii, text. 25. Now a bishop is above a priest. Therefore | |
| 7467 he does not prepare the matter of a sacrament which is applied by a priest. But a priest dispenses this sacrament, as we shall | |
| 7468 state further on ( | |
| 7469 <a id="XP_Q29_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q31.html">Q[31])</a>. Therefore the consecration of the matter | |
| 7470 does not belong to a bishop. | |
| 7471 </p> | |
| 7472 <p id="XP_Q29_A6-p4"> | |
| 7473 <b>On the contrary,</b> In other anointings also the matter is consecrated by a bishop. Therefore the same applies to this. | |
| 7474 </p> | |
| 7475 <p id="XP_Q29_A6-p5"> | |
| 7476 <b>I answer that,</b> The minister of a sacrament produces the effect, not by his own power, as though he were the principal agent, but by the | |
| 7477 efficacy of the sacrament which he dispenses. This efficacy comes, in the first place, from Christ, and from Him flows down | |
| 7478 to others in due order, viz. to the people through the medium of the ministers who dispense the sacraments, and to the lower | |
| 7479 ministers through the medium of the higher ministers who sanctify the matter. Wherefore, in | |
| 7480 all the sacraments which require a sanctified matter, the first consecration of the matter is performed by a bishop, and the | |
| 7481 application thereof sometimes by a priest, in order to show that the priest's power is derived from the bishop's, according | |
| 7482 to | |
| 7483 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.132.2" target="asv"> Ps. 132:2</a>: "Like the precious ointment on the head," i.e. Christ, "that ran down upon the beard of Aaron" first, and then "to the skirt | |
| 7484 of his garment." | |
| 7485 </p> | |
| 7486 <p id="XP_Q29_A6-p6"> | |
| 7487 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sacrament of the Eucharist consists in the consecration of the matter and not in its use. Consequently, strictly speaking, | |
| 7488 that which is the matter of the sacrament is not a consecrated thing. Hence no consecration of the matter by a bishop is required | |
| 7489 beforehand: but the altar and such like things, even the priest himself, need to be consecrated, all of which can be done | |
| 7490 by none but a bishop: so that in this sacrament also, the priest's power is | |
| 7491 shown to be derived from the bishop's, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). The reason why a priest can perform that consecration | |
| 7492 of matter which is a sacrament by itself, and not that which, as a sacramental, is directed to a sacrament consisting in something | |
| 7493 used by the faithful, is that in respect of Christ's true body no order is above the priesthood, whereas, in respect of Christ's | |
| 7494 mystic body the episcopate is above the priesthood, as we shall state further on ( | |
| 7495 <a id="XP_Q29_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q40_A4.html">Q[40], A[4]</a>). | |
| 7496 </p> | |
| 7497 <p id="XP_Q29_A6-p7"> | |
| 7498 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sacramental matter is not one that is made into something else by him that uses it, as occurs in the mechanical arts: | |
| 7499 it is one, in virtue of which something is done, so that it partakes somewhat of the nature of an efficient cause, in so far | |
| 7500 as it is the instrument of a Divine operation. Hence the matter needs to acquire this virtue from a higher art or power, since | |
| 7501 among efficient causes, the more prior the cause the more perfect it is, whereas | |
| 7502 in material causes, the more prior the matter, the more imperfect it is. | |
| 7503 </p> | |
| 7504 <p id="XP_Q29_A6-p8"></p> | |
| 7505 <p id="XP_Q29_A6-p9"></p> | |
| 7506 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A5.html"></a> | |
| 7507 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A7.html"></a> | |
| 7508 </div> | |
| 7509 <div id="XP_Q29_A7" class="div4"> | |
| 7510 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A6.html"></a> | |
| 7511 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A8.html"></a> | |
| 7512 <h4 id="XP_Q29_A7-p0.1">Whether this sacrament has a form?</h4> | |
| 7513 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p1"></p> | |
| 7514 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p2"> | |
| 7515 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament has no form. Because, since the efficacy of the sacraments is derived from their institution, | |
| 7516 as also from their form, the latter must needs be appointed by the institutor of the sacrament. But there is no account of | |
| 7517 the form of this sacrament being instituted either by Christ or by the apostles. Therefore this sacrament has no form. | |
| 7518 </p> | |
| 7519 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p3"> | |
| 7520 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is essential to a sacrament is observed everywhere in the same way. Now nothing is so essential to a sacrament | |
| 7521 that has a form, as that very form. Therefore, as in this sacrament there is no form commonly used by all, since various words | |
| 7522 are in use, it seems that this sacrament has no form. | |
| 7523 </p> | |
| 7524 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p4"> | |
| 7525 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in Baptism no form is needed except for the sanctification of the matter, because the water is "sanctified by the | |
| 7526 word of life so as to wash sin away," as Hugh states (De Sacram. ii). Now the matter of this sacrament is already consecrated. | |
| 7527 Therefore it needs no form of words. | |
| 7528 </p> | |
| 7529 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p5"> | |
| 7530 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Master says (Sent. iv, D, 1) that every sacrament of the New Law consists in things and words. Now the words are the | |
| 7531 sacramental form. Therefore, since this is a sacrament of the New Law, it seems that it has a form. | |
| 7532 </p> | |
| 7533 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p6"> Further, this is confirmed by the rite of the Universal Church, who uses certain words in the bestowal of this sacrament.</p> | |
| 7534 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p7"> | |
| 7535 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have held that no farm is essential to this sacrament. This, however, seems derogatory to the effect of this sacrament, | |
| 7536 since every sacrament signifies its effect. Now the matter is indifferent as regards its effect, and consequently cannot be | |
| 7537 determined to any particular effect save by the form of words. Hence in all the sacraments of the New Law, since they effect | |
| 7538 what they signify, there must needs be things and words. Moreover James (5:14,15) seems | |
| 7539 to ascribe the whole force of this sacrament to prayer, which is the form thereof, as we shall state further on (ad 2: AA[8],9). | |
| 7540 Wherefore the foregoing opinion seems presumptuous and erroneous; and for that reason we should hold with the common opinion | |
| 7541 that this, like all the other sacraments, has a fixed form. | |
| 7542 </p> | |
| 7543 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p8"> | |
| 7544 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Holy Writ is proposed to all alike: and so, the form of Baptism, which can be conferred by all, should be expressed in Holy | |
| 7545 Writ, as also the form of the Eucharist, which in regard to that sacrament, expresses faith which is necessary for salvation. | |
| 7546 Now the forms of the other sacraments are not contained in Holy Writ, but were handed down to the Church by the apostles, | |
| 7547 who received them from our Lord, as the Apostle declares ( | |
| 7548 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A7-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.23" target="asv">1 Cor. | |
| 7549 11:23 | |
| 7550 </a>): "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you," etc. | |
| 7551 </p> | |
| 7552 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p9"> | |
| 7553 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The words which are essential to the form, viz. the prayer of deprecation, are said by all; but other words which pertain | |
| 7554 to the well-being thereof, are not said by all. | |
| 7555 </p> | |
| 7556 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p10"> | |
| 7557 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The matter of Baptism has a certain sanctification of its own from the very contact of our Saviour's flesh; but the form | |
| 7558 of words sanctifies it so that it has a sanctifying force. In like manner when the matter of this sacrament has been sanctified | |
| 7559 in itself, it requires sanctification in its use, so that it may sanctify actually. | |
| 7560 </p> | |
| 7561 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p11"></p> | |
| 7562 <p id="XP_Q29_A7-p12"></p> | |
| 7563 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A6.html"></a> | |
| 7564 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A8.html"></a> | |
| 7565 </div> | |
| 7566 <div id="XP_Q29_A8" class="div4"> | |
| 7567 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A7.html"></a> | |
| 7568 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A9.html"></a> | |
| 7569 <h4 id="XP_Q29_A8-p0.1">Whether the form of this sacrament should be expressed by way of assertion or of petition?</h4> | |
| 7570 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p1"></p> | |
| 7571 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p2"> | |
| 7572 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the form of this sacrament should be expressed by way of assertion rather than of petition. Because all | |
| 7573 the sacraments of the New Law have a sure effect. But sureness of effect is not expressed in the sacramental forms except | |
| 7574 by way of assertion, as when we say: "This is My body" or "I baptize thee." Therefore the form of this sacrament should be | |
| 7575 expressed as an assertion. | |
| 7576 </p> | |
| 7577 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p3"> | |
| 7578 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the intention of the minister should be expressed in the sacramental forms because it is essential to the sacrament. | |
| 7579 But the intention of conferring a sacrament is not expressed except by an assertion. Therefore, etc. | |
| 7580 </p> | |
| 7581 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p4"> | |
| 7582 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in some churches the following words are said in the conferring of this sacrament: "I anoint these eyes with consecrated | |
| 7583 oil in the name of the Father," etc., which is in keeping with the forms of the other sacraments. Therefore it seems that | |
| 7584 such is the form of this sacrament. | |
| 7585 </p> | |
| 7586 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p5"> | |
| 7587 <b>On the contrary,</b> The form of a sacrament must needs be one that is observed everywhere. Now the words employed according to the custom of | |
| 7588 all the churches are not those quoted above, but take the form of a petition viz.: "Through this holy unction, and His most | |
| 7589 tender mercy, may the Lord pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed, by sight," etc. Therefore the form of this sacrament | |
| 7590 is expressed as a petition. | |
| 7591 </p> | |
| 7592 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p6"> Further, this seems to follow from the words of James, who ascribes the effect of this sacrament to prayer: "The prayer of | |
| 7593 faith," says he (5:15), "shall save the sick man." Since then a sacrament takes its efficacy from its form, it seems that | |
| 7594 the form of this sacrament is expressed as a petition. | |
| 7595 </p> | |
| 7596 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p7"> | |
| 7597 <b>I answer that,</b> The form of this sacrament is expressed by way of a petition, as appears from the words of James, and from the custom of | |
| 7598 the Roman Church, who uses no other than words of supplication in conferring this sacrament. Several reasons are assigned | |
| 7599 for this: first, because the recipient of this sacrament is deprived of his strength, so that he needs to be helped by prayers; | |
| 7600 secondly, because it is given to the dying, who are on the point of quitting the courts of | |
| 7601 the Church, and rest in the hands of God alone, for which reason they are committed to Him by prayer; thirdly, because the | |
| 7602 effect of this sacrament is not such that it always results from the minister's prayer, even when all essentials have been | |
| 7603 duly observed, as is the case with the character in Baptism and Confirmation, transubstantiation in the Eucharist, remission | |
| 7604 of sin in Penance (given contrition) which remission is essential to the sacrament of Penance but not to this sacrament. | |
| 7605 Consequently the form of this sacrament cannot be expressed in the indicative mood, as in the sacraments just mentioned. | |
| 7606 </p> | |
| 7607 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p8"> | |
| 7608 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This sacrament, like the others mentioned, considered in itself, is sure of its effect. yet this effect can be hindered through | |
| 7609 the insincerity of the recipient (though by his intention he submit to the sacrament), so that he receives no effect at all. | |
| 7610 Hence there is no parity between this sacrament, and the others wherein some effect always ensues. | |
| 7611 </p> | |
| 7612 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p9"> | |
| 7613 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The intention is sufficiently expressed by the act which is mentioned in the form, viz.: "By this holy unction." | |
| 7614 </p> | |
| 7615 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p10"> | |
| 7616 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These words in the indicative mood, which some are wont to say before the prayer, are not the sacramental form, but are a | |
| 7617 preparation for the form, in so far as they determine the intention of the minister. | |
| 7618 </p> | |
| 7619 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p11"></p> | |
| 7620 <p id="XP_Q29_A8-p12"></p> | |
| 7621 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A7.html"></a> | |
| 7622 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A9.html"></a> | |
| 7623 </div> | |
| 7624 <div id="XP_Q29_A9" class="div4"> | |
| 7625 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A8.html"></a> | |
| 7626 <a href="summa.XP_Q30.html"></a> | |
| 7627 <h4 id="XP_Q29_A9-p0.1">Whether the foregoing prayer is a suitable form for this sacrament?</h4> | |
| 7628 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p1"></p> | |
| 7629 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p2"> | |
| 7630 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the foregoing prayer is not a suitable form for this sacrament. For in the forms of the other sacraments | |
| 7631 mention is made of the matter, for instance in Confirmation, whereas this is not done in the aforesaid words. Therefore it | |
| 7632 is not a suitable form. | |
| 7633 </p> | |
| 7634 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p3"> | |
| 7635 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as the effect of this sacrament is bestowed on us by the mercy of God, so are the effects of the other sacraments. | |
| 7636 But mention is made in the forms of the other sacraments, not of the Divine mercy, but rather of the Trinity and of the Passion. | |
| 7637 Therefore the same should be done here. | |
| 7638 </p> | |
| 7639 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p4"> | |
| 7640 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 23) to have a twofold effect. But in the foregoing words mention | |
| 7641 is made of only one effect, viz. the remission of sins, and not of the healing of the body to which end James directs the | |
| 7642 prayer of faith to be made ( | |
| 7643 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q29_A9-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.15" target="asv">James 5:15</a>): "The prayer of faith shall save the sick man." Therefore the above form is unsuitable. | |
| 7644 </p> | |
| 7645 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p5"> | |
| 7646 <b>I answer that,</b> The prayer given above | |
| 7647 <a id="XP_Q29_A9-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q29_A8.html">(A[8])</a> is a suitable form for this sacrament, for it includes the sacrament by the words: "By this holy unction," and that which | |
| 7648 works in the sacrament, viz. "the mercy of God," and the effect, viz. "remission of sins." | |
| 7649 </p> | |
| 7650 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p6"> | |
| 7651 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The matter of this sacrament may be understood in the act of anointing, whereas the matter of Confirmation cannot be implied | |
| 7652 by the act expressed in the form. Hence there is no parity. | |
| 7653 </p> | |
| 7654 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p7"> | |
| 7655 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The object of mercy is misery: and because this sacrament is given when we are in a state of misery, i.e. of sickness, mention | |
| 7656 of mercy is made in this rather than in other sacraments. | |
| 7657 </p> | |
| 7658 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p8"> | |
| 7659 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The form should contain mention of the principal effect, and of that which always ensues in virtue of the sacrament, unless | |
| 7660 there be something lacking on the part of the recipient. Now bodily health is not an effect of this kind, as we shall state | |
| 7661 further on ( | |
| 7662 <a id="XP_Q29_A9-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q30_A1.html">Q[30], AA[1]</a> ,2), though it does ensue at times, for which reason James ascribes this effect to the prayer which is the form of this sacrament. | |
| 7663 </p> | |
| 7664 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p9"></p> | |
| 7665 <p id="XP_Q29_A9-p10"></p> | |
| 7666 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A8.html"></a> | |
| 7667 <a href="summa.XP_Q30.html"></a> | |
| 7668 </div> | |
| 7669 <a href="summa.XP_Q28_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7670 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7671 </div> | |
| 7672 <div id="XP_Q30" class="div3"> | |
| 7673 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A9.html"></a> | |
| 7674 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7675 <h3 id="XP_Q30-p0.1">OF THE EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 7676 <p id="XP_Q30-p1"></p> | |
| 7677 <p id="XP_Q30-p2"> We must now consider the effect of this sacrament: under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 7678 <p id="XP_Q30-p3"> (1) Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?</p> | |
| 7679 <p id="XP_Q30-p4"> (2) Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament?</p> | |
| 7680 <p id="XP_Q30-p5"> (3) Whether this sacrament imprints a character?</p> | |
| 7681 <div id="XP_Q30_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 7682 <a href="summa.XP_Q30.html"></a> | |
| 7683 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7684 <h4 id="XP_Q30_A1-p0.1">Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?</h4> | |
| 7685 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 7686 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p2"> | |
| 7687 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Extreme Unction does not avail for the remission of sins. For when a thing can be attained by one means, | |
| 7688 no other is needed. Now repentance is required in the recipient of Extreme Unction for the remission of his sins. Therefore | |
| 7689 sins are not remitted by Extreme Unction. | |
| 7690 </p> | |
| 7691 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p3"> | |
| 7692 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there are no more than three things in sin, the stain, the debt of punishment, and the remnants of sin. Now Extreme | |
| 7693 Unction does not remit the stain without contrition, and this remits sin even without Unction; nor does it remit the punishment, | |
| 7694 for if the recipient recover, he is still bound to fulfill the satisfaction enjoined; nor does it take away the remnants of | |
| 7695 sin, since the dispositions remaining from preceding acts still remain, as may easily | |
| 7696 be seen after recovery. Therefore remission of sins is by no means the effect of Extreme Unction. | |
| 7697 </p> | |
| 7698 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p4"> | |
| 7699 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, remission of sins takes place, not successively, but instantaneously. On the other hand, Extreme Unction is not | |
| 7700 done all at once, since several anointings are required. Therefore the remission of sins is not its effect. | |
| 7701 </p> | |
| 7702 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p5"> | |
| 7703 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 7704 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q30_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.15" target="asv">James 5:15</a>): "If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." | |
| 7705 </p> | |
| 7706 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p6"> Further, every sacrament of the New Law confers grace. Now grace effects the forgiveness of sins. Therefore since Extreme | |
| 7707 Unction is a sacrament of the New Law, its effect is the remission of sins. | |
| 7708 </p> | |
| 7709 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p7"> | |
| 7710 <b>I answer that,</b> Each sacrament was instituted for the purpose of one principal effect, though it may, in consequence, produce other effects | |
| 7711 besides. And since a sacrament causes what it signifies, the principal effect of a sacrament must be gathered from its signification. | |
| 7712 Now this sacrament is conferred by way of a kind of medicament, even as Baptism is conferred by way of washing, and the purpose | |
| 7713 of a medicament is to expel sickness. Hence the chief object of the | |
| 7714 institution of this sacrament is to cure the sickness of sin. Therefore, just as Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, and | |
| 7715 Penance, a spiritual resurrection, so Extreme Unction is a spiritual healing or cure. Now just as a bodily cure presupposes | |
| 7716 bodily life in the one who is cured, so does a spiritual cure presuppose spiritual life. Hence this sacrament is not an antidote | |
| 7717 to those defects which deprive man of spiritual life, namely. original and mortal sin, but is a remedy for such defects as | |
| 7718 weaken man spiritually, so as to deprive him of perfect vigor for acts of the life of grace or of glory; which defects consist | |
| 7719 in nothing else but a certain weakness and unfitness, the result in us of actual or original sin. against which weakness man | |
| 7720 is strengthened by this sacrament. Since, however, this strength is given by grace, which is incompatible with sin, it follows | |
| 7721 that. in consequence, if it finds any sin, either mortal or venial, it removes it as far as the guilt is concerned, | |
| 7722 provided there be no obstacle on the part of the recipient; just as we have stated to be the case with regard to the Eucharist | |
| 7723 and Confirmation ( | |
| 7724 <a id="XP_Q30_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A7.html">TP, Q[73], A[7]</a>; | |
| 7725 <a id="XP_Q30_A1-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html">TP, Q[79], A[3]</a>). Hence, too, James speaks of the remission of sin as being conditional, for he says: "If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven | |
| 7726 him," viz. as to the guilt. Because it does not always blot out sin, since it does not always find any: but it always remits | |
| 7727 in respect of the | |
| 7728 aforesaid weakness which some call the remnants of sin. Some, however, maintain that it is instituted chiefly as a remedy | |
| 7729 for venial sin which cannot be cured perfectly in this lifetime: for which reason the sacrament of the dying is ordained specially | |
| 7730 against venial sin. But this does not seem to be true, since Penance also blots out venial sins sufficiently during this life | |
| 7731 as to their guilt, and that we cannot avoid them after doing penance, does not cancel the effect of the previous | |
| 7732 penance; moreover this is part of the weakness mentioned above. | |
| 7733 </p> | |
| 7734 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p8"> Consequently we must say that the principal effect of this sacrament is the remission of sin, as to its remnants, and, consequently, | |
| 7735 even as to its guilt, if it find it. | |
| 7736 </p> | |
| 7737 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p9"> | |
| 7738 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the principal effect of a sacrament can be obtained without actually receiving that sacrament (either without any | |
| 7739 sacrament at all, or indirectly by means of some other sacrament), yet it never can be obtained without the purpose of receiving | |
| 7740 that sacrament. And so, since Penance was instituted chiefly against actual sin, whichever other sacrament may blot out sin | |
| 7741 indirectly, it does not exclude the necessity of Penance. | |
| 7742 </p> | |
| 7743 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p10"> | |
| 7744 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Extreme Unction remits sin in some way as to those three things. For, although the stain of sin is not washed out without | |
| 7745 contrition, yet this sacrament, by the grace which it bestows, makes the movement of the free will towards sin to be one of | |
| 7746 contrition, just as may occur in the Eucharist and Confirmation. Again it diminishes the debt of temporal punishment; and | |
| 7747 this indirectly, in as much as it takes away weakness, for a strong man bears the same | |
| 7748 punishment more easily than a weak man. Hence it does not follow that the measure of satisfaction is diminished. As to the | |
| 7749 remnants of sin, they do not mean here those dispositions which result from acts, and are inchoate habits so to speak, but | |
| 7750 a certain spiritual debility in the mind, which debility being removed, though such like habits or dispositions remain, the | |
| 7751 mind is not so easily prone to sin. | |
| 7752 </p> | |
| 7753 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p11"> | |
| 7754 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> When many actions are ordained to one effect, the last is formal with respect to all the others that precede, and acts by | |
| 7755 virtue of them: wherefore by the last anointing is infused grace which gives the sacrament its effect. | |
| 7756 </p> | |
| 7757 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 7758 <p id="XP_Q30_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 7759 <a href="summa.XP_Q30.html"></a> | |
| 7760 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7761 </div> | |
| 7762 <div id="XP_Q30_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 7763 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7764 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7765 <h4 id="XP_Q30_A2-p0.1">Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament?</h4> | |
| 7766 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 7767 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p2"> | |
| 7768 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that bodily health is not an effect of this sacrament. For every sacrament is a spiritual remedy. Now a spiritual | |
| 7769 remedy is ordained to spiritual health, just as a bodily remedy is ordained to health of the body. Therefore bodily health | |
| 7770 is not an effect of this sacrament. | |
| 7771 </p> | |
| 7772 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p3"> | |
| 7773 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments always produce their effect in those who approach them in the proper dispositions. Now sometimes | |
| 7774 the recipient of this sacrament does not receive bodily health, no matter how devoutly he receives it. Therefore bodily health | |
| 7775 is not its effect. | |
| 7776 </p> | |
| 7777 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p4"> | |
| 7778 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the efficacy of this sacrament is notified to us in the fifth chapter of James. Now healing is ascribed there as | |
| 7779 the effect, not of the anointing, but of the prayer, for he says: "The prayer of faith shall save the sick man." Therefore | |
| 7780 bodily healing is not an effect of this sacrament. | |
| 7781 </p> | |
| 7782 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p5"> | |
| 7783 <b>On the contrary,</b> The operation of the Church is more efficacious since Christ's Passion than before. Now, before the Passion, those whom the | |
| 7784 apostles anointed with oil were healed ( | |
| 7785 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q30_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.6.13" target="asv">Mk. 6:13</a>). Therefore unction has its effect now in healing bodies. | |
| 7786 </p> | |
| 7787 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p6"> Further, the sacraments produce their effect by signifying it. Now Baptism signifies and effects a spiritual washing, through | |
| 7788 the bodily washing in which it consists outwardly. Therefore Extreme Unction signifies and causes a spiritual healing through | |
| 7789 the bodily healing which it effects externally. | |
| 7790 </p> | |
| 7791 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p7"> | |
| 7792 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as Baptism causes a spiritual cleansing from spiritual stains by means of a bodily washing, so this sacrament causes | |
| 7793 an inward healing by means of an outward sacramental healing: and even as the baptismal washing has the effect of a bodily | |
| 7794 washing, since it effects even a bodily cleansing, so too, Extreme Unction has the effect of a bodily remedy, namely a healing | |
| 7795 of the body. But there is a difference, for as much as the bodily washing causes a bodily | |
| 7796 cleansing by a natural property of the bodily element, and consequently always causes it, whereas Extreme Unction causes a | |
| 7797 bodily healing, not by a natural property of the matter, but by the Divine power which works reasonably. And since reasonable | |
| 7798 working never produces a secondary effect, except in so far as it is required for the principal effect, it follows that a | |
| 7799 bodily healing does not always ensue from this sacrament, but only when it is requisite for the spiritual healing: and then | |
| 7800 it | |
| 7801 produces it always, provided there be no obstacle on the part of the recipient. | |
| 7802 </p> | |
| 7803 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p8"> | |
| 7804 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This objection proves that bodily health is not the principal effect of this sacrament: and this is true. | |
| 7805 </p> | |
| 7806 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p9"> The Reply to the Second Objection is clear from what has been said above (cf. | |
| 7807 <a id="XP_Q30_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q29_A8.html"> Q[29], A[8]</a>). | |
| 7808 </p> | |
| 7809 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p10"> | |
| 7810 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This prayer is the form of this sacrament as stated above ( | |
| 7811 <a id="XP_Q30_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q29_A8.html">Q[29], AA[8]</a>,9). Hence, so far as its form is concerned, this sacrament derives from it its efficacy in healing the body. | |
| 7812 </p> | |
| 7813 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 7814 <p id="XP_Q30_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 7815 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7816 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7817 </div> | |
| 7818 <div id="XP_Q30_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 7819 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7820 <a href="summa.XP_Q31.html"></a> | |
| 7821 <h4 id="XP_Q30_A3-p0.1">Whether this sacrament imprints a character?</h4> | |
| 7822 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 7823 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p2"> | |
| 7824 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament imprints a character. For a character is a distinctive sign. Now just as one who is baptized | |
| 7825 is distinguished from one who is not so is one who is anointed, from one who is not. Therefore, just as Baptism imprints a | |
| 7826 character so does Extreme Unction. | |
| 7827 </p> | |
| 7828 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p3"> | |
| 7829 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there is an anointing in the sacraments or order and Confirmation, as there is in this sacrament. But a character | |
| 7830 is imprinted in those sacraments. Therefore a character is imprinted in this one also. | |
| 7831 </p> | |
| 7832 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p4"> | |
| 7833 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every sacrament contains something that is a reality only, something that is a sacrament only, and something that | |
| 7834 is both reality and sacrament. Now nothing in this sacrament can be assigned as both reality and sacrament except a character. | |
| 7835 Therefore in this sacrament also, a character is imprinted. | |
| 7836 </p> | |
| 7837 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p5"> | |
| 7838 <b>On the contrary,</b> No sacrament that imprints a character is repeated. But this sacrament is repeated as we shall state further on ( | |
| 7839 <a id="XP_Q30_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q33.html">Q[33])</a>. Therefore it does not imprint a character. | |
| 7840 </p> | |
| 7841 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p6"> Further, a sacramental character causes a distinction among those who are in the present Church. But Extreme Unction is given | |
| 7842 to one who is departing from the present Church. Therefore it does not imprint a character. | |
| 7843 </p> | |
| 7844 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p7"> | |
| 7845 <b>I answer that,</b> A character is not imprinted except in those sacraments whereby man is deputed to some sacred duty. Now this sacrament is | |
| 7846 for no other purpose than a remedy, and man is not deputed thereby to do or receive anything holy. Therefore it does not imprint | |
| 7847 a character. | |
| 7848 </p> | |
| 7849 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p8"> | |
| 7850 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A character marks a distinction of . states with regard to duties which have to be performed in the Church, a distinction | |
| 7851 which a man does not receive by being anointed. | |
| 7852 </p> | |
| 7853 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p9"> | |
| 7854 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The unction of orders and Confirmation, is the unction of consecration whereby a man is deputed to some sacred duty, whereas | |
| 7855 this unction is remedial. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 7856 </p> | |
| 7857 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p10"> | |
| 7858 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In this sacrament, that which is both reality and sacrament is not a character, but a certain inward devotion which is a | |
| 7859 kind of spiritual anointing. | |
| 7860 </p> | |
| 7861 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 7862 <p id="XP_Q30_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 7863 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7864 <a href="summa.XP_Q31.html"></a> | |
| 7865 </div> | |
| 7866 <a href="summa.XP_Q29_A9.html"></a> | |
| 7867 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7868 </div> | |
| 7869 <div id="XP_Q31" class="div3"> | |
| 7870 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7871 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7872 <h3 id="XP_Q31-p0.1">OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 7873 <p id="XP_Q31-p1"></p> | |
| 7874 <p id="XP_Q31-p2"> We must now consider the minister of this sacrament: under which head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 7875 <p id="XP_Q31-p3"> (1) Whether a layman can confer this sacrament?</p> | |
| 7876 <p id="XP_Q31-p4"> (2) Whether a deacon can?</p> | |
| 7877 <p id="XP_Q31-p5"> (3) Whether none but a bishop can confer it?</p> | |
| 7878 <div id="XP_Q31_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 7879 <a href="summa.XP_Q31.html"></a> | |
| 7880 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7881 <h4 id="XP_Q31_A1-p0.1">Whether a layman can confer this sacrament?</h4> | |
| 7882 <p id="XP_Q31_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 7883 <p id="XP_Q31_A1-p2"> | |
| 7884 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that even a layman can confer this sacrament. For this sacrament derives its efficacy from prayer, as James | |
| 7885 declares ( | |
| 7886 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q31_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.15" target="asv">James 5:15</a>). But a layman's prayer is sometimes as acceptable to God as a priest's. Therefore he can confer this sacrament. | |
| 7887 </p> | |
| 7888 <p id="XP_Q31_A1-p3"> | |
| 7889 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we read of certain fathers in Egypt that they sent the oil to the sick, and that these were healed. It is also related | |
| 7890 of the Blessed Genevieve that she anointed the sick with oil. Therefore this sacrament can be conferred even by lay people. | |
| 7891 </p> | |
| 7892 <p id="XP_Q31_A1-p4"> | |
| 7893 <b>On the contrary,</b> Remission of sins is given in this sacrament. But laymen have not the power to forgive sins. Therefore, etc. | |
| 7894 </p> | |
| 7895 <p id="XP_Q31_A1-p5"> | |
| 7896 <b>I answer that,</b> According to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) there are some who exercise hierarchical actions, and some who are recipients only. | |
| 7897 Hence laymen are officially incompetent to dispense any sacrament: and that they can baptize in cases of necessity, is due | |
| 7898 to the Divine dispensation, in order that no one may be deprived of spiritual regeneration. | |
| 7899 </p> | |
| 7900 <p id="XP_Q31_A1-p6"> | |
| 7901 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This prayer is not said by the priest in his own person, for since sometimes he is in sin, he would not in that case be heard. | |
| 7902 But it is said in the person of the whole Church, in whose person he can pray as a public official, whereas a layman cannot, | |
| 7903 for he is a private individual. | |
| 7904 </p> | |
| 7905 <p id="XP_Q31_A1-p7"> | |
| 7906 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> These unctions were not sacramental. It was due to the devotion of the recipients of the unction, and to the merits of those | |
| 7907 who anointed them that they procured the effects of bodily health, through the "grace of healing" ( | |
| 7908 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q31_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:9</a>) but not through sacramental grace. | |
| 7909 </p> | |
| 7910 <p id="XP_Q31_A1-p8"></p> | |
| 7911 <p id="XP_Q31_A1-p9"></p> | |
| 7912 <a href="summa.XP_Q31.html"></a> | |
| 7913 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7914 </div> | |
| 7915 <div id="XP_Q31_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 7916 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7917 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7918 <h4 id="XP_Q31_A2-p0.1">Whether deacons can confer this sacrament?</h4> | |
| 7919 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 7920 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p2"> | |
| 7921 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that deacons can confer this sacrament. For, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) "deacons have the power | |
| 7922 to cleanse." Now this sacrament was instituted precisely to cleanse from sickness of the mind and body. Therefore deacons | |
| 7923 also can confer it. | |
| 7924 </p> | |
| 7925 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p3"> | |
| 7926 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism is a more excellent sacrament than the one of which we are speaking. But deacons can baptize, as instanced | |
| 7927 by the Blessed Laurence. Therefore they can confer this sacrament also. | |
| 7928 </p> | |
| 7929 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p4"> | |
| 7930 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 7931 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q31_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.14" target="asv">James 5:14</a>): "Let him bring in the priests of the Church." | |
| 7932 </p> | |
| 7933 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p5"> | |
| 7934 <b>I answer that,</b> A deacon has the power to cleanse but not to enlighten. Hence, since enlightenment is an effect of grace, no sacrament whereby | |
| 7935 grace is conferred can be given by a deacon in virtue of his office: and so he cannot confer this sacrament, since grace is | |
| 7936 bestowed therein. | |
| 7937 </p> | |
| 7938 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p6"> | |
| 7939 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This sacrament cleanses by enlightening through the bestowal of grace: wherefore a deacon is not competent to confer it. | |
| 7940 </p> | |
| 7941 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p7"> | |
| 7942 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This is not a necessary sacrament, as Baptism is. Hence its bestowal is not committed to all in cases of necessity, but only | |
| 7943 to those who are competent to do so in virtue of their office. Nor are deacons competent to baptize in virtue of their office. | |
| 7944 </p> | |
| 7945 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 7946 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 7947 <p id="XP_Q31_A2-p10"></p> | |
| 7948 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7949 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7950 </div> | |
| 7951 <div id="XP_Q31_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 7952 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7953 <a href="summa.XP_Q32.html"></a> | |
| 7954 <h4 id="XP_Q31_A3-p0.1">Whether none but a bishop can confer this sacrament?</h4> | |
| 7955 <p id="XP_Q31_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 7956 <p id="XP_Q31_A3-p2"> | |
| 7957 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that none but a bishop can confer this sacrament. For this sacrament consists in an anointing, just as Confirmation | |
| 7958 does. Now none but a bishop can confirm. Therefore only a bishop can confer this sacrament. | |
| 7959 </p> | |
| 7960 <p id="XP_Q31_A3-p3"> | |
| 7961 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he who cannot do what is less cannot do what is greater. Now the use of consecrated matter surpasses the act of | |
| 7962 consecrating the matter, since the former is the end of the latter. Therefore since a priest cannot consecrate the matter, | |
| 7963 neither can he use the matter after it has been consecrated. | |
| 7964 </p> | |
| 7965 <p id="XP_Q31_A3-p4"> | |
| 7966 <b>On the contrary,</b> The minister of this sacrament has to be brought in to the recipient, as is clear from | |
| 7967 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q31_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.14" target="asv"> James 5:14.</a> Now a bishop cannot go to all the sick people of his diocese. Therefore the bishop is not the only one who can confer this | |
| 7968 sacrament. | |
| 7969 </p> | |
| 7970 <p id="XP_Q31_A3-p5"> | |
| 7971 <b>I answer that,</b> According to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), the office of perfecting belongs to a bishop, just as it belongs to a priest to enlighten. | |
| 7972 Wherefore those sacraments are reserved to a bishop's dispensation, which place the recipient in a state of perfection above | |
| 7973 others. But this is not the case with this sacrament, for it is given to all. Consequently it can be given by ordinary priests. | |
| 7974 </p> | |
| 7975 <p id="XP_Q31_A3-p6"> | |
| 7976 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Confirmation imprints a character, whereby man is placed in a state of perfection, as stated above ( | |
| 7977 <a id="XP_Q31_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html">TP, Q[63], AA[1]</a>, 2,6). But this does not take place in this sacrament; hence there is no comparison. | |
| 7978 </p> | |
| 7979 <p id="XP_Q31_A3-p7"> | |
| 7980 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the use of consecrated matter is of more importance than the consecration of the matter, from the point of view | |
| 7981 of the final cause; nevertheless, from the point of view of efficient cause, the consecration of the matter is the more important, | |
| 7982 since the use of the matter is dependent thereon, as on its active cause: hence the consecration of the matter demands a higher | |
| 7983 power than the use of the matter does. | |
| 7984 </p> | |
| 7985 <p id="XP_Q31_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 7986 <p id="XP_Q31_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 7987 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A2.html"></a> | |
| 7988 <a href="summa.XP_Q32.html"></a> | |
| 7989 </div> | |
| 7990 <a href="summa.XP_Q30_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7991 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7992 </div> | |
| 7993 <div id="XP_Q32" class="div3"> | |
| 7994 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A3.html"></a> | |
| 7995 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A1.html"></a> | |
| 7996 <h3 id="XP_Q32-p0.1">ON WHOM SHOULD THIS SACRAMENT BE CONFERRED AND ON WHAT PART OF THE BODY? (SEVEN ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 7997 <p id="XP_Q32-p1"></p> | |
| 7998 <p id="XP_Q32-p2"> We must now consider on whom this sacrament should be conferred and on what part of the body: under which head there are | |
| 7999 seven points of inquiry: | |
| 8000 </p> | |
| 8001 <p id="XP_Q32-p3"> (1) Whether this sacrament should be conferred on those who are in good health?</p> | |
| 8002 <p id="XP_Q32-p4"> (2) Whether it should be conferred in any kind of sickness?</p> | |
| 8003 <p id="XP_Q32-p5"> (3) Whether it should be conferred on madmen and imbeciles?</p> | |
| 8004 <p id="XP_Q32-p6"> (4) Whether it should be given to children?</p> | |
| 8005 <p id="XP_Q32-p7"> (5) Whether, in this sacrament, the whole body should be anointed?</p> | |
| 8006 <p id="XP_Q32-p8"> (6) Whether certain parts are suitably assigned to be anointed?</p> | |
| 8007 <p id="XP_Q32-p9"> (7) Whether those who are deformed in the above parts ought to be anointed thereon?</p> | |
| 8008 <div id="XP_Q32_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 8009 <a href="summa.XP_Q32.html"></a> | |
| 8010 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8011 <h4 id="XP_Q32_A1-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to be conferred on those who are in good health?</h4> | |
| 8012 <p id="XP_Q32_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 8013 <p id="XP_Q32_A1-p2"> | |
| 8014 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament should be conferred even on those who are in good health. For the healing of the mind is | |
| 8015 a more important effect of this sacrament than the healing of the body, as stated above ( | |
| 8016 <a id="XP_Q32_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q30_A2.html">Q[30], A[2]</a>). Now even those who are healthy in body need to be healed in mind. Therefore this sacrament should be conferred on them | |
| 8017 also. | |
| 8018 </p> | |
| 8019 <p id="XP_Q32_A1-p3"> | |
| 8020 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this is the sacrament of those who are departing this life, just as Baptism is the sacrament of those who are entering | |
| 8021 this life. Now Baptism is given to all who enter. Therefore this sacrament should be given to all who are departing. But sometimes | |
| 8022 those who are near departure are in good health, for instance those who are to be beheaded. Therefore this sacrament should | |
| 8023 be conferred on them. | |
| 8024 </p> | |
| 8025 <p id="XP_Q32_A1-p4"> | |
| 8026 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 8027 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q32_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.14" target="asv">James 5:14</a>): "Is any man sick among you," etc. Therefore none but the sick are competent to receive this sacrament. | |
| 8028 </p> | |
| 8029 <p id="XP_Q32_A1-p5"> | |
| 8030 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament is a spiritual healing, as stated above ( | |
| 8031 <a id="XP_Q32_A1-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q30_A1.html">Q[30], AA[1]</a>,2), and is signified by way of a healing of the body. Hence this sacrament should not be conferred on those who are not subjects | |
| 8032 for bodily healing, those namely, who are in good health. | |
| 8033 </p> | |
| 8034 <p id="XP_Q32_A1-p6"> | |
| 8035 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although spiritual health is the principal effect of this sacrament, yet this same spiritual healing needs to be signified | |
| 8036 by a healing of the body, although bodily health may not actually ensue. Consequently spiritual health can be conferred by | |
| 8037 this sacrament on those alone who are competent to receive bodily healing, viz. the sick; even as he alone can receive Baptism | |
| 8038 who is capable of a bodily washing, and not a child yet in its mother's womb. | |
| 8039 </p> | |
| 8040 <p id="XP_Q32_A1-p7"> | |
| 8041 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even those who are entering into life cannot receive Baptism unless they are capable of a bodily washing. And so those who | |
| 8042 are departing this life cannot receive this sacrament, unless they be subjects for a bodily healing. | |
| 8043 </p> | |
| 8044 <p id="XP_Q32_A1-p8"></p> | |
| 8045 <p id="XP_Q32_A1-p9"></p> | |
| 8046 <a href="summa.XP_Q32.html"></a> | |
| 8047 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8048 </div> | |
| 8049 <div id="XP_Q32_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 8050 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8051 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8052 <h4 id="XP_Q32_A2-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to be given in any kind of sickness?</h4> | |
| 8053 <p id="XP_Q32_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 8054 <p id="XP_Q32_A2-p2"> | |
| 8055 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament should be given in any kind of sickness. For no kind of sickness is determined in the fifth | |
| 8056 chapter of James where this sacrament is delivered to us. Therefore this sacrament should be given in all kinds of sickness. | |
| 8057 </p> | |
| 8058 <p id="XP_Q32_A2-p3"> | |
| 8059 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the more excellent a remedy is, the more generally should it be available. Now this sacrament is more excellent | |
| 8060 than bodily medicine. Since then bodily medicine is given to all manner of sick persons, it seems that this sacrament should | |
| 8061 be given in like manner to all. | |
| 8062 </p> | |
| 8063 <p id="XP_Q32_A2-p4"> | |
| 8064 <b>On the contrary,</b> This sacrament is called by all Extreme Unction. Now it is not every sickness that brings man to the extremity of his life, | |
| 8065 since some ailments prolong life, according to the Philosopher (De Long. et Brev. Vitae i). Therefore this sacrament should | |
| 8066 not be given in every case of sickness. | |
| 8067 </p> | |
| 8068 <p id="XP_Q32_A2-p5"> | |
| 8069 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament is the last remedy that the Church can give, since it is an immediate preparation for glory. Therefore it | |
| 8070 ought to be given to those only, who are so sick as to be in a state of departure from this life, through their sickness being | |
| 8071 of such a nature as to cause death, the danger of which is to be feared. | |
| 8072 </p> | |
| 8073 <p id="XP_Q32_A2-p6"> | |
| 8074 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Any sickness can cause death, if it be aggravated. Hence if we consider the different kinds of disease, there is none in | |
| 8075 which this sacrament cannot be given; and for this reason the apostle does not determine any particular one. But if we consider | |
| 8076 the degree and the stage of the complaint, this sacrament should not be given to every sick person. | |
| 8077 </p> | |
| 8078 <p id="XP_Q32_A2-p7"> | |
| 8079 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The principal effect of bodily medicine is bodily health, which all sick people lack, whatever be the stage of their sickness. | |
| 8080 But the principal effect of this sacrament is that immunity from disorder which is needed by those who are taking their departure | |
| 8081 from this life and setting out for the life of glory. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 8082 </p> | |
| 8083 <p id="XP_Q32_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 8084 <p id="XP_Q32_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 8085 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8086 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8087 </div> | |
| 8088 <div id="XP_Q32_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 8089 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8090 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8091 <h4 id="XP_Q32_A3-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to be given to madmen and imbeciles?</h4> | |
| 8092 <p id="XP_Q32_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 8093 <p id="XP_Q32_A3-p2"> | |
| 8094 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament should be given to madmen and imbeciles. For these diseases are full of danger and cause | |
| 8095 death quickly. Now when there is danger it is the time to apply the remedy. Therefore this sacrament, which was intended as | |
| 8096 a remedy to human weakness, should be given to such people. | |
| 8097 </p> | |
| 8098 <p id="XP_Q32_A3-p3"> | |
| 8099 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism is a greater sacrament than this. Now Baptism is conferred on mad people as stated above ( | |
| 8100 <a id="XP_Q32_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html">TP, Q[68], A[12]</a>). Therefore this sacrament also should be given to them. | |
| 8101 </p> | |
| 8102 <p id="XP_Q32_A3-p4"> | |
| 8103 <b>On the contrary,</b> This sacrament should be given to none but such as acknowledge it. Now this does not apply to madmen and imbeciles. Therefore | |
| 8104 it should not be given to them. | |
| 8105 </p> | |
| 8106 <p id="XP_Q32_A3-p5"> | |
| 8107 <b>I answer that,</b> The devotion of the recipient, the personal merit of the minister, and the general merits of the whole Church, are of great | |
| 8108 account towards the reception of the effect of this sacrament. This is evident from the fact that the form of this sacrament | |
| 8109 is pronounced by way of a prayer. Hence it should not be given those who cannot acknowledge it, and especially to madmen and | |
| 8110 imbeciles, who might dishonor the sacrament by their offensive conduct, unless they have | |
| 8111 lucid intervals, when they would be capable of acknowledging the sacrament, for then the sacrament should be given to children | |
| 8112 the same in that state. | |
| 8113 </p> | |
| 8114 <p id="XP_Q32_A3-p6"> | |
| 8115 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although such people are sometimes in danger of death; yet the remedy cannot be applied to them, on account of their lack | |
| 8116 of devotion. Hence it should not be given to them. | |
| 8117 </p> | |
| 8118 <p id="XP_Q32_A3-p7"> | |
| 8119 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Baptism does not require a movement of the free-will, because it is given chiefly as a remedy for original sin, which, in | |
| 8120 us, is not taken away by a movement of the free-will. On the other hand this sacrament requires a movement of the free-will; | |
| 8121 wherefore the comparison fails. Moreover Baptism is a necessary sacrament, while Extreme Unction is not. | |
| 8122 </p> | |
| 8123 <p id="XP_Q32_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 8124 <p id="XP_Q32_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 8125 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8126 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8127 </div> | |
| 8128 <div id="XP_Q32_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 8129 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8130 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8131 <h4 id="XP_Q32_A4-p0.1">Whether this sacrament should be given to children?</h4> | |
| 8132 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 8133 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p2"> | |
| 8134 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament ought to be given to children. Because children suffer from the same ailments sometimes | |
| 8135 as adults. Now the same disease requires the same remedy. Therefore this sacrament should be given to children the same as | |
| 8136 to adults. | |
| 8137 </p> | |
| 8138 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p3"> | |
| 8139 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is given in order to remove the remnants of sin, whether original or actual, as stated above ( | |
| 8140 <a id="XP_Q32_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q30_A1.html">Q[30], A[1]</a>). Now the remnants of original sin are in children. Therefore this sacrament should be given to them. | |
| 8141 </p> | |
| 8142 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p4"> | |
| 8143 <b>On the contrary,</b> This sacrament should be given to none but those to whom the form applies. But the form of this sacrament does not apply | |
| 8144 to children, since they have not sinned by sight and hearing; as expressed in the form. Therefore this sacrament should not | |
| 8145 be given to them. | |
| 8146 </p> | |
| 8147 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p5"> | |
| 8148 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament, like the Eucharist, requires actual devotion in the recipient. Therefore, just as the Eucharist ought not | |
| 8149 to be given to children, so neither ought this sacrament to be given to them. | |
| 8150 </p> | |
| 8151 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p6"> | |
| 8152 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Children's infirmities are not caused by actual sin, as in adults, and this sacrament is given chiefly as a remedy for infirmities | |
| 8153 that result from sins, being the remnants of sin, as it were. | |
| 8154 </p> | |
| 8155 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p7"> | |
| 8156 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This sacrament is not given as a remedy for the remnants of original sin, except in so far as they gather strength, so to | |
| 8157 speak, from actual sins. Hence from the very form it appears that it is given chiefly as a remedy for actual sins, which are | |
| 8158 not in children. | |
| 8159 </p> | |
| 8160 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p8"></p> | |
| 8161 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p9"></p> | |
| 8162 <p id="XP_Q32_A4-p10"></p> | |
| 8163 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8164 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8165 </div> | |
| 8166 <div id="XP_Q32_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 8167 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8168 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A6.html"></a> | |
| 8169 <h4 id="XP_Q32_A5-p0.1">Whether the whole body should be anointed in this sacrament?</h4> | |
| 8170 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 8171 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p2"> | |
| 8172 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the whole body should be anointed in this sacrament. For, according to Augustine (De Trin. vi, 6), "the | |
| 8173 whole soul is in every part of the body." Now this sacrament is given chiefly in order to heal the soul. Therefore the whole | |
| 8174 body ought to be anointed. | |
| 8175 </p> | |
| 8176 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p3"> | |
| 8177 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the remedy should be applied to the part affected by the disease. But sometimes the disease is general, and affects | |
| 8178 the whole body, as a fever does. Therefore the whole body should be anointed. | |
| 8179 </p> | |
| 8180 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p4"> | |
| 8181 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in Baptism the whole body is dipped under the water. Therefore in this sacrament the whole body should be anointed. | |
| 8182 </p> | |
| 8183 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p5"> | |
| 8184 <b>On the contrary,</b> stands the rite observed throughout the Church, according to which in this sacrament the sick man is anointed, only in certain | |
| 8185 fixed parts of the body. | |
| 8186 </p> | |
| 8187 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p6"> | |
| 8188 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament is shown to us under the form of a healing. Now bodily healing has to be effected, by applying the remedy, | |
| 8189 not to the whole body, but to those parts where the root of the disease is seated. Consequently the sacramental unction also | |
| 8190 ought to be applied to those parts only in which the spiritual sickness is rooted. | |
| 8191 </p> | |
| 8192 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p7"> | |
| 8193 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the whole soul is, as to its essence, in each part of the body, it is not as to its powers which are the roots of | |
| 8194 sinful acts. Hence certain fixed parts have to be anointed, those, namely, in which powers have their being. | |
| 8195 </p> | |
| 8196 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p8"> | |
| 8197 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The remedy is not always applied to the part affected by the disease, but, with greater reason, to the part where the root | |
| 8198 of the disease is seated. | |
| 8199 </p> | |
| 8200 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p9"> | |
| 8201 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism is given under the form of washing: and a bodily washing cleanses only the part to which it is applied; for this | |
| 8202 reason Baptism is applied to the whole body. It is different with Extreme Unction for the reason given above. | |
| 8203 </p> | |
| 8204 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p10"></p> | |
| 8205 <p id="XP_Q32_A5-p11"></p> | |
| 8206 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8207 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A6.html"></a> | |
| 8208 </div> | |
| 8209 <div id="XP_Q32_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 8210 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8211 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A7.html"></a> | |
| 8212 <h4 id="XP_Q32_A6-p0.1">Whether the parts to be anointed are suitably assigned?</h4> | |
| 8213 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 8214 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p2"> | |
| 8215 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that these parts are unsuitably assigned, namely, that the eyes, nose, ears, lips, hands, and feet should be | |
| 8216 anointed. For a wise physician heals the disease in its root. Now "from the heart come forth thoughts . . . that defile a | |
| 8217 man" ( | |
| 8218 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q32_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.19" target="asv">Mat. 15:19,20</a>). Therefore the breast ought to be anointed. | |
| 8219 </p> | |
| 8220 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p3"> | |
| 8221 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, purity of mind is not less necessary to those who are departing this life than to those who are entering therein. | |
| 8222 Now those who are entering are anointed with chrism on the head by the priest, to signify purity of mind. Therefore in this | |
| 8223 sacrament those who are departing should be anointed on the head. | |
| 8224 </p> | |
| 8225 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p4"> | |
| 8226 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the remedy should be applied where the disease is most virulent. Now spiritual sickness is most virulent in the | |
| 8227 loins in men, and in the navel in women, according to | |
| 8228 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q32_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Job.40.11" target="asv"> Job 40:11</a>: "His strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly," as Gregory expounds the passage (Moral. xxxii, | |
| 8229 11). Therefore these parts should be anointed. | |
| 8230 </p> | |
| 8231 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p5"> | |
| 8232 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, sins are committed with other parts of the body, no less than with the feet. Therefore, as the feet are anointed, | |
| 8233 so ought other members of the body to be anointed. | |
| 8234 </p> | |
| 8235 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p6"> | |
| 8236 <b>I answer that,</b> The principles of sinning are the same in us as the principles of action, for a sin is an act. Now there are in us three | |
| 8237 principles of action; the first is the directing principle, namely, the cognitive power; the second is the commanding principle, | |
| 8238 namely, the appetitive power; the third is the executive principle, namely, the motive power. | |
| 8239 </p> | |
| 8240 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p7"> Now all our knowledge has its origin in the senses. And, since the remedy for sin should be applied where sin originates | |
| 8241 in us first, for that reason the places of the five senses are anointed. the eyes, to wit, on account of the sight, the ears | |
| 8242 on account of hearing, the nostrils on account of the smell, the mouth on account of the taste, the hands on account of the | |
| 8243 touch which is keenest in the finger tips, (in some places too the loins are anointed on account of the | |
| 8244 appetite), and the feet are anointed on account of the motive power of which they are the chief instrument. And since the | |
| 8245 cognitive power is the first principle of human activity, the anointing of the five senses is observed by all, as being essential | |
| 8246 to the sacrament. But some do not observe the other unctions---some also anoint the feet but not the loins---because the appetitive | |
| 8247 and motive powers are secondary principles. | |
| 8248 </p> | |
| 8249 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p8"> | |
| 8250 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> No thought arises in the heart without an act of the imagination which is a movement proceeding from sensation (De Anima | |
| 8251 ii). Hence the primary root of thought is not the heart, but the sensory organs, except in so far as the heart is a principle | |
| 8252 of the whole body, albeit a remote principle. | |
| 8253 </p> | |
| 8254 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p9"> | |
| 8255 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those who enter have to receive purity of the mind, whereas those who are departing have to cleanse the mind. Hence the latter | |
| 8256 need to be anointed in those parts in respect of which the mind's purity may be sullied. | |
| 8257 </p> | |
| 8258 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p10"> | |
| 8259 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some are wont to anoint the loins, because they are the chief seat of the concupiscible appetite: however, as stated above, | |
| 8260 the appetitive power is not the primary root. | |
| 8261 </p> | |
| 8262 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p11"> | |
| 8263 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The bodily organs which are the instruments of sin, are the feet, hands, and tongue, all of which are anointed, and the organs | |
| 8264 of generation which it would be unbecoming to anoint, on account of their uncleanliness, and out of respect for the sacrament. | |
| 8265 </p> | |
| 8266 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p12"></p> | |
| 8267 <p id="XP_Q32_A6-p13"></p> | |
| 8268 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8269 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A7.html"></a> | |
| 8270 </div> | |
| 8271 <div id="XP_Q32_A7" class="div4"> | |
| 8272 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A6.html"></a> | |
| 8273 <a href="summa.XP_Q33.html"></a> | |
| 8274 <h4 id="XP_Q32_A7-p0.1">Whether those who are deformed in those parts should be anointed?</h4> | |
| 8275 <p id="XP_Q32_A7-p1"></p> | |
| 8276 <p id="XP_Q32_A7-p2"> | |
| 8277 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that those who are deformed should not be anointed in those parts. For just as this sacrament demands a certain | |
| 8278 disposition on the part of the recipient, viz. that he should be sick, so it demands that he should be anointed in a certain | |
| 8279 part of the body. Now he that is not sick cannot be anointed. Therefore neither can he be anointed who lacks the part to be | |
| 8280 anointed. | |
| 8281 </p> | |
| 8282 <p id="XP_Q32_A7-p3"> | |
| 8283 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a man born blind does not sin by his sight. Yet in the anointing of the eyes mention is made of sins by sight. Therefore | |
| 8284 this anointing ought not to be applied to one born blind, and in like manner as regards the other senses. | |
| 8285 </p> | |
| 8286 <p id="XP_Q32_A7-p4"> | |
| 8287 <b>On the contrary,</b> Bodily deformity is not an impediment to any other sacrament. Therefore it should not be an impediment to this one. Now each | |
| 8288 of the anointings is essential to the sacrament. Therefore all should be applied to those who are deformed. | |
| 8289 </p> | |
| 8290 <p id="XP_Q32_A7-p5"> | |
| 8291 <b>I answer that,</b> Even those who are deformed should be anointed, and that as near as possible to the part which ought to have been anointed. | |
| 8292 For though they have not the members, nevertheless, they have, at least radically, the powers of the soul, corresponding to | |
| 8293 those members, and they may commit inwardly the sins that pertain to those members, though they cannot outwardly. | |
| 8294 </p> | |
| 8295 <p id="XP_Q32_A7-p6"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 8296 <p id="XP_Q32_A7-p7"></p> | |
| 8297 <p id="XP_Q32_A7-p8"></p> | |
| 8298 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A6.html"></a> | |
| 8299 <a href="summa.XP_Q33.html"></a> | |
| 8300 </div> | |
| 8301 <a href="summa.XP_Q31_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8302 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8303 </div> | |
| 8304 <div id="XP_Q33" class="div3"> | |
| 8305 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A7.html"></a> | |
| 8306 <a href="summa.XP_Q33_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8307 <h3 id="XP_Q33-p0.1">OF THE REPETITION OF THIS SACRAMENT (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 8308 <p id="XP_Q33-p1"></p> | |
| 8309 <p id="XP_Q33-p2"> We must now consider the repetition of this sacrament: under which head there are two points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 8310 <p id="XP_Q33-p3"> (1) Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated?</p> | |
| 8311 <p id="XP_Q33-p4"> (2) Whether it ought to be repeated during the same sickness?</p> | |
| 8312 <div id="XP_Q33_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 8313 <a href="summa.XP_Q33.html"></a> | |
| 8314 <a href="summa.XP_Q33_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8315 <h4 id="XP_Q33_A1-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated?</h4> | |
| 8316 <p id="XP_Q33_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 8317 <p id="XP_Q33_A1-p2"> | |
| 8318 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament ought not to be repeated. For the anointing of a man is of greater import than the anointing | |
| 8319 of a stone. But the anointing of an altar is not repeated, unless the altar be shattered. Neither, therefore, should Extreme | |
| 8320 Unction, whereby a man is anointed, be repeated. | |
| 8321 </p> | |
| 8322 <p id="XP_Q33_A1-p3"> | |
| 8323 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing comes after what is extreme. But this unction is called extreme. Therefore it should not be repeated. | |
| 8324 </p> | |
| 8325 <p id="XP_Q33_A1-p4"> | |
| 8326 <b>On the contrary,</b> This sacrament is a spiritual healing applied under the form of a bodily cure. But a bodily cure is repeated. Therefore this | |
| 8327 sacrament also can be repeated. | |
| 8328 </p> | |
| 8329 <p id="XP_Q33_A1-p5"> | |
| 8330 <b>I answer that,</b> No sacramental or sacrament, having an effect that lasts for ever, can be repeated, because this would imply that the sacrament | |
| 8331 had failed to produce that effect; and this would be derogatory to the sacrament. On the other hand a sacrament whose effect | |
| 8332 does not last for ever, can be repeated without disparaging that sacrament, in order that the lost effect may be recovered. | |
| 8333 And since health of body and soul, which is the effect of this sacrament, can be lost | |
| 8334 after it has been effected, it follows that this sacrament can, without disparagement thereto, be repeated. | |
| 8335 </p> | |
| 8336 <p id="XP_Q33_A1-p6"> | |
| 8337 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The stone is anointed in order that the altar may be consecrated, and the stone remains consecrated, as long as the altar | |
| 8338 remains, hence it cannot be anointed again. But a man is not consecrated by being anointed, since it does not imprint a character | |
| 8339 on him. Hence there is no comparison. | |
| 8340 </p> | |
| 8341 <p id="XP_Q33_A1-p7"> | |
| 8342 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> What men think to be extreme is not always extreme in reality. It is thus that this sacrament is called Extreme Unction, | |
| 8343 because it ought not to be given save to those whose death men think to be nigh. | |
| 8344 </p> | |
| 8345 <p id="XP_Q33_A1-p8"></p> | |
| 8346 <p id="XP_Q33_A1-p9"></p> | |
| 8347 <a href="summa.XP_Q33.html"></a> | |
| 8348 <a href="summa.XP_Q33_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8349 </div> | |
| 8350 <div id="XP_Q33_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 8351 <a href="summa.XP_Q33_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8352 <a href="summa.XP_Q34.html"></a> | |
| 8353 <h4 id="XP_Q33_A2-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated during the same sickness?</h4> | |
| 8354 <p id="XP_Q33_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 8355 <p id="XP_Q33_A2-p2"> | |
| 8356 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament ought not to be repeated during the same sickness. For one disease demands one remedy. | |
| 8357 Now this sacrament is a spiritual remedy. Therefore it ought not to be repeated for one sickness. | |
| 8358 </p> | |
| 8359 <p id="XP_Q33_A2-p3"> | |
| 8360 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if a sick man could be anointed more than once during one disease, this might be done for a whole day: which is | |
| 8361 absurd. | |
| 8362 </p> | |
| 8363 <p id="XP_Q33_A2-p4"> | |
| 8364 <b>On the contrary,</b> Sometimes a disease lasts long after the sacrament has been received, so that the remnants of sin, against which chiefly | |
| 8365 this sacrament is given, would be contracted. Therefore it ought to be given again. | |
| 8366 </p> | |
| 8367 <p id="XP_Q33_A2-p5"> | |
| 8368 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament regards not only the sickness, but also the state of the sick man, because it ought not to be given except | |
| 8369 to those sick people who seem, in man's estimation, to be nigh to death. Now some diseases do not last long; so that if this | |
| 8370 sacrament is given at the time that the sick man is in a state of danger of death, he does not leave that state except the | |
| 8371 disease be cured, and thus he needs not to be anointed again. But if he has a relapse, it | |
| 8372 will be a second sickness, and he can be anointed again. on the other hand some diseases are of long duration, as hectic fever, | |
| 8373 dropsy and the like, and those who lie sick of them should not be anointed until they seem to be in danger of death. And if | |
| 8374 the sick man escape that danger while the disease continues, and be brought again thereby to the same state of danger, he | |
| 8375 can be anointed again, because it is, as it were, another state of sickness, although strictly speaking, it is not another | |
| 8376 sickness. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. | |
| 8377 </p> | |
| 8378 <p id="XP_Q33_A2-p6"></p> | |
| 8379 <p id="XP_Q33_A2-p7"></p> | |
| 8380 <a href="summa.XP_Q33_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8381 <a href="summa.XP_Q34.html"></a> | |
| 8382 </div> | |
| 8383 <a href="summa.XP_Q32_A7.html"></a> | |
| 8384 <a href="summa.XP_Q33_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8385 </div> | |
| 8386 <div id="XP_Q34" class="div3"> | |
| 8387 <a href="summa.XP_Q33_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8388 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8389 <h3 id="XP_Q34-p0.1">HOLY ORDERS (QQ[34]-40)</h3> | |
| 8390 <p id="XP_Q34-p1"></p> | |
| 8391 <p id="XP_Q34-p2">OF THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER AS TO ITS ESSENCE AND ITS PARTS (FIVE ARTICLES)</p> | |
| 8392 <p id="XP_Q34-p3"> In the next place we must consider the sacrament of Order: (1) Order in general; (2) the difference of Orders; (3) those | |
| 8393 who confer Orders; (4) the impediments to receiving Orders; (5) things connected with Orders. | |
| 8394 </p> | |
| 8395 <p id="XP_Q34-p4"> Concerning Order in general three points have to be considered: (1) Its essence, quiddity, and parts; (2) Its effect; (3) | |
| 8396 The recipients of Orders. | |
| 8397 </p> | |
| 8398 <p id="XP_Q34-p5"> Under the first head there are five points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 8399 <p id="XP_Q34-p6"> (1) Whether there should be Order in the Church?</p> | |
| 8400 <p id="XP_Q34-p7"> (2) Whether it is fittingly defined?</p> | |
| 8401 <p id="XP_Q34-p8"> (3) Whether it is a sacrament?</p> | |
| 8402 <p id="XP_Q34-p9"> (4) Whether its form is expressed properly?</p> | |
| 8403 <p id="XP_Q34-p10"> (5) Whether this sacrament has any matter?</p> | |
| 8404 <div id="XP_Q34_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 8405 <a href="summa.XP_Q34.html"></a> | |
| 8406 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8407 <h4 id="XP_Q34_A1-p0.1">Whether there should be Order in the Church?</h4> | |
| 8408 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 8409 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p2"> | |
| 8410 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there should not be Order in the Church. For Order requires subjection and preeminence. But subjection | |
| 8411 seemingly is incompatible with the liberty whereunto we are called by Christ. Therefore there should not be Order in the Church. | |
| 8412 </p> | |
| 8413 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p3"> | |
| 8414 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he who has received an Order becomes another's superior. But in the Church everyone should deem himself lower than | |
| 8415 another ( | |
| 8416 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q34_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.3" target="asv">Phil. 2:3</a>): "Let each esteem others better than themselves." Therefore Order should not be in the Church. | |
| 8417 </p> | |
| 8418 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p4"> | |
| 8419 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, we find order among the angels on account of their differing in natural and gratuitous gifts. But all men are one | |
| 8420 in nature, and it is not known who has the higher gifts of grace. Therefore Order should not be in the Church. | |
| 8421 </p> | |
| 8422 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p5"> | |
| 8423 <b>On the contrary,</b> "Those things that are of God, are in order [*Vulg: 'Those (powers) that are, are ordained of God.']." Now the Church is | |
| 8424 of God, for He Himself built it with His blood. Therefore there ought to be Order in the Church. | |
| 8425 </p> | |
| 8426 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p6"> Further, the state of the Church is between the state of nature and the state of glory. Now we find order in nature, in that | |
| 8427 some things are above others, and likewise in glory, as in the angels. Therefore there should be Order in the Church. | |
| 8428 </p> | |
| 8429 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p7"> | |
| 8430 <b>I answer that,</b> God wished to produce His works in likeness to Himself, as far as possible, in order that they might be perfect, and that | |
| 8431 He might be known through them. Hence, that He might be portrayed in His works, not only according to what He is in Himself, | |
| 8432 but also according as He acts on others, He laid this natural law on all things, that last things should be reduced and perfected | |
| 8433 by middle things, and middle things by the first, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). | |
| 8434 Wherefore that this beauty might not be lacking to the Church, He established Order in her so that some should deliver the | |
| 8435 sacraments to others, being thus made like to God in their own way, as co-operating with God; even as in the natural body, | |
| 8436 some members act on others. | |
| 8437 </p> | |
| 8438 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p8"> | |
| 8439 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The subjection of slavery is incompatible with liberty; for slavery consists in lording over others and employing them for | |
| 8440 one's own profit. Such subjection is not required in Order, whereby those who preside have to seek the salvation of their | |
| 8441 subjects and not their own profit. | |
| 8442 </p> | |
| 8443 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p9"> | |
| 8444 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Each one should esteem himself lower in merit, not in office; and orders are a kind of office. | |
| 8445 </p> | |
| 8446 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p10"> | |
| 8447 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Order among the angels does not arise from difference of nature, unless accidentally, in so far as difference of grace results | |
| 8448 in them from difference of nature. But in them it results directly from their difference in grace; because their orders regard | |
| 8449 their participation of divine things, and their communicating them in the state of glory, which is according to the measure | |
| 8450 of grace, as being the end and effect, so to speak, of grace. on the other | |
| 8451 hand, the Orders of the Church militant regard the participation in the sacraments and the communication thereof, which are | |
| 8452 the cause of grace and, in a way, precede grace; and consequently our Orders do not require sanctifying grace, but only the | |
| 8453 power to dispense the sacraments; for which reason order does not correspond to the difference of sanctifying grace, but to | |
| 8454 the difference of power. | |
| 8455 </p> | |
| 8456 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 8457 <p id="XP_Q34_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 8458 <a href="summa.XP_Q34.html"></a> | |
| 8459 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8460 </div> | |
| 8461 <div id="XP_Q34_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 8462 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8463 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8464 <h4 id="XP_Q34_A2-p0.1">Whether Order is properly defined?</h4> | |
| 8465 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 8466 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p2"> | |
| 8467 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that order is improperly defined by the Master (Sent. iv, D, 53), where it is said "Order is a seal of the | |
| 8468 Church, whereby spiritual power is conferred on the person ordained." For a part should not be described as the genus of the | |
| 8469 whole. Now the character which is denoted by the seal in a subsequent definition is a part of order, since it is placed in | |
| 8470 contradistinction with that which is either reality only, or sacrament only, since it is both | |
| 8471 reality and sacrament. Therefore seal should not be mentioned as the genus of Order. | |
| 8472 </p> | |
| 8473 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p3"> | |
| 8474 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as a character is imprinted in the sacrament of order, so is it in the sacrament of Baptism. Now character | |
| 8475 was not mentioned in the definition of Baptism. Therefore neither should it be mentioned in the definition of Order. | |
| 8476 </p> | |
| 8477 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p4"> | |
| 8478 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in Baptism there is also given a certain spiritual power to approach the sacraments; and again it is a seal, since | |
| 8479 it is a sacrament. Therefore this definition is applicable to Baptism; and consequently it is improperly applied to Order. | |
| 8480 </p> | |
| 8481 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p5"> | |
| 8482 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Order is a kind of relation, and relation is realized in both its terms. Now the terms of the relation of order | |
| 8483 are the superior and the inferior. Therefore inferiors have order as well as superiors. Yet there is no power of preeminence | |
| 8484 in them, such as is mentioned here in the definition of Order, as appears from the subsequent explanation (Sent. iv, D, 53), | |
| 8485 where promotion to power is mentioned. Therefore Order is improperly defined there. | |
| 8486 </p> | |
| 8487 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p6"> | |
| 8488 <b>I answer that,</b> The Master's definition of Order applies to Order as a sacrament of the Church. Hence he mentions two things, namely the | |
| 8489 outward sign, a "kind of seal," i.e. a kind of sign, and the inward effect, "whereby spiritual power," etc. | |
| 8490 </p> | |
| 8491 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p7"> | |
| 8492 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Seal stands here, not for the inward character, but for the outward action, which is the sign and cause of inward power; | |
| 8493 and this is also the sense of character in the other definition. If, however, it be taken for the inward character, the definition | |
| 8494 would not be unsuitable; because the division of a sacrament into those three things is not a division into integral parts, | |
| 8495 properly speaking; since what is reality only is not essential to the | |
| 8496 sacrament, and that which is the sacrament is transitory; while that which is sacrament and reality is said to remain. Wherefore | |
| 8497 it follows that inward character itself is essentially and principally the sacrament of Order. | |
| 8498 </p> | |
| 8499 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p8"> | |
| 8500 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although in Baptism there is conferred a spiritual power to receive the other sacraments, for which reason it imprints a | |
| 8501 character, nevertheless this is not its principal effect, but the inward cleansing; wherefore Baptism would be given even | |
| 8502 though the former motive did not exist. On the other hand, order denotes power principally. Wherefore the character which | |
| 8503 is a spiritual power is included in the definition of Order, but not in that of | |
| 8504 Baptism. | |
| 8505 </p> | |
| 8506 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p9"> | |
| 8507 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In Baptism there is given a certain spiritual potentiality to receive, and consequently a somewhat passive potentiality. | |
| 8508 But power properly denotes active potentiality, together with some kind of preeminence. Hence this definition is not applicable | |
| 8509 to Baptism. | |
| 8510 </p> | |
| 8511 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p10"> | |
| 8512 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The word "order" is used in two ways. For sometimes it denotes the relation itself, and thus it is both in the inferior and | |
| 8513 in the superior, as the objection states; but it is not thus that we use the word here. On the other hand, it denotes the | |
| 8514 degree which results in the order taken in the first sense. And since the notion of order as relation is observed where we | |
| 8515 first meet with something higher than another, it follows that this degree of | |
| 8516 pre-eminence by spiritual power is called Order. | |
| 8517 </p> | |
| 8518 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 8519 <p id="XP_Q34_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 8520 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8521 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8522 </div> | |
| 8523 <div id="XP_Q34_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 8524 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8525 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8526 <h4 id="XP_Q34_A3-p0.1">Whether Order is a sacrament?</h4> | |
| 8527 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 8528 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p2"> | |
| 8529 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Order is not a sacrament. For a sacrament, according to Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) "is a material | |
| 8530 element." Now Order denotes nothing of the kind, but rather relation or power; since Order is a part of power according to | |
| 8531 Isidore. Therefore it is not a sacrament. | |
| 8532 </p> | |
| 8533 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p3"> | |
| 8534 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments do not concern the Church triumphant. Yet Order is there, as in the angels. Therefore it is not a | |
| 8535 sacrament. | |
| 8536 </p> | |
| 8537 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p4"> | |
| 8538 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as spiritual authority, which is Order, is given by means of consecration, so is secular authority, since kings | |
| 8539 also are anointed, as stated above ( | |
| 8540 <a id="XP_Q34_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q19_A3.html">Q[19], A[3]</a>, ad 2). But the kingly power is not a sacrament. Therefore neither is order of which we speak now. | |
| 8541 </p> | |
| 8542 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p5"> | |
| 8543 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is mentioned by all among the seven sacraments of the Church. | |
| 8544 </p> | |
| 8545 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p6"> Further, "the cause of a thing being such, is still more so." Now Order is the cause of man being the dispenser of the other | |
| 8546 sacraments. Therefore Order has more reason for being a sacrament than the others. | |
| 8547 </p> | |
| 8548 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p7"> | |
| 8549 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (Q[29], A[1]; | |
| 8550 <a id="XP_Q34_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60.html">TP, Q[60])</a>, a sacrament is nothing else than a sanctification conferred on man with some outward sign. Wherefore, since by receiving | |
| 8551 orders a consecration is conferred on man by visible signs, it is clear that Order is a sacrament. | |
| 8552 </p> | |
| 8553 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p8"> | |
| 8554 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although Order does not by its name express a material element, it is not conferred without some material element. | |
| 8555 </p> | |
| 8556 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p9"> | |
| 8557 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Power must needs be proportionate to the purpose for which it is intended. Now the communication of divine things, which | |
| 8558 is the purpose for which spiritual power is given, is not effected among the angels by means of sensible signs, as is the | |
| 8559 case among men. Hence the spiritual power that is Order is not bestowed on the angels by visible signs, as on men. Wherefore | |
| 8560 Order is a sacrament among men, but not among angels. | |
| 8561 </p> | |
| 8562 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p10"> | |
| 8563 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Not every blessing or consecration given to men is a sacrament, for both monks and abbots are blessed, and yet such blessings | |
| 8564 are not sacraments, and in like manner neither is the anointing of a king; because by such blessings men are not ordained | |
| 8565 to the dispensing of the divine sacraments, as by the blessing of Order. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 8566 </p> | |
| 8567 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 8568 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 8569 <p id="XP_Q34_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 8570 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8571 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8572 </div> | |
| 8573 <div id="XP_Q34_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 8574 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8575 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8576 <h4 id="XP_Q34_A4-p0.1">Whether the form of this sacrament is suitably expressed?</h4> | |
| 8577 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 8578 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p2"> | |
| 8579 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the form of this sacrament is unsuitably set forth in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Because the sacraments | |
| 8580 take their efficacy from their form. Now the efficacy of the sacraments is from the divine power, which works our salvation | |
| 8581 in them in a most hidden manner. Therefore the form of this sacrament should include a mention of the divine power by the | |
| 8582 invocation of the Trinity, as in the other sacraments. | |
| 8583 </p> | |
| 8584 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p3"> | |
| 8585 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to command pertains to one who has authority. Now the dispenser of the sacrament exercises no authority, but only | |
| 8586 ministry. Therefore he should not use the imperative mood by saying: "Do" or "Receive" this or that, or some similar expression. | |
| 8587 </p> | |
| 8588 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p4"> | |
| 8589 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, mention should not be made in the sacramental form, except of such things as are essential to the sacrament. But | |
| 8590 the use of the power received is not essential to this sacrament, but is consequent upon it. Therefore it should not be mentioned | |
| 8591 in the form of this sacrament. | |
| 8592 </p> | |
| 8593 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p5"> | |
| 8594 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, all the sacraments direct us to an eternal reward. But the forms of the other sacraments make no mention of a reward. | |
| 8595 Therefore neither should any mention be made thereof in the form of this sacrament, as in the words: "Since thou wilt have | |
| 8596 a share, if faithfully," etc. | |
| 8597 </p> | |
| 8598 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p6"> | |
| 8599 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament consists chiefly in the power conferred. Now power is conferred by power, as like proceeds from like; and | |
| 8600 again power is made known by its use, since powers are manifested by their acts. Wherefore in the form of order the use of | |
| 8601 order is expressed by the act which is commanded; and the conferring of power is expressed by employing the imperative mood. | |
| 8602 </p> | |
| 8603 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p7"> | |
| 8604 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The other sacraments are not ordained chiefly to effects similar to the power whereby the sacraments are dispensed, as this | |
| 8605 sacrament is. Hence in this sacrament there is a kind of universal communication. Wherefore in the other sacraments something | |
| 8606 is expressed on the part of the divine power to which the effect of the sacrament is likened, but not in this sacrament. | |
| 8607 </p> | |
| 8608 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p8"> | |
| 8609 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> [There is a special reason why this sacrament, rather than the others, is conferred by employing the imperative mood. For]* | |
| 8610 although the bishop who is the minister of this sacrament has no authority in respect of the conferring of this sacrament, | |
| 8611 nevertheless he has some power with regard to the power of Order, which power he confers, in so far as it is derived, from | |
| 8612 his. [*The sentence in brackets is not in the Leonine edition.] | |
| 8613 </p> | |
| 8614 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p9"> | |
| 8615 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The use of power is the effect of power in the genus of efficient cause, and from this point of view it has no reason to | |
| 8616 be mentioned in the definition of Order. But it is somewhat a cause in the genus of final cause, and from this point of view | |
| 8617 it can be placed in the definition of order. | |
| 8618 </p> | |
| 8619 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p10"> | |
| 8620 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> There is here a difference between this and the other sacraments. Because by this sacrament an office or the power to do | |
| 8621 something is conferred; and so it is fitting that mention be made of the reward to be obtained if it be administered faithfully. | |
| 8622 But in the other sacraments no such office or power to act is conferred, and so no mention of reward is made in them. Accordingly | |
| 8623 the recipient is somewhat passive in relation to the other sacraments, | |
| 8624 because he receives them for the perfecting of his own state only, whereas in relation to this sacrament he holds himself | |
| 8625 somewhat actively, since he receives it for the sake of exercising hierarchical duties in the Church. Wherefore although the | |
| 8626 other sacraments, from the very fact that they give grace, direct the recipient to salvation, properly speaking they do not | |
| 8627 direct him to a reward, in the same way as this sacrament does. | |
| 8628 </p> | |
| 8629 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 8630 <p id="XP_Q34_A4-p12"></p> | |
| 8631 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8632 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8633 </div> | |
| 8634 <div id="XP_Q34_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 8635 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8636 <a href="summa.XP_Q35.html"></a> | |
| 8637 <h4 id="XP_Q34_A5-p0.1">Whether this sacrament has any matter?</h4> | |
| 8638 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 8639 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p2"> | |
| 8640 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament has no matter. Because in every sacrament that has a matter the power that works in the | |
| 8641 sacrament is in the matter. But in the material objects which are used here, such as keys, candlesticks, and so forth, there | |
| 8642 is not apparently any power of sanctification. Therefore it has no matter. | |
| 8643 </p> | |
| 8644 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p3"> | |
| 8645 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in this sacrament the fulness of sevenfold grace is conferred, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24), just as | |
| 8646 in Confirmation. But the matter of Confirmation requires to be consecrated beforehand. Since then the things which appear | |
| 8647 to be material in this sacrament are not consecrated beforehand, it would seem that they are not the matter of the sacrament. | |
| 8648 </p> | |
| 8649 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p4"> | |
| 8650 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in any sacrament that has matter there needs to be contact of matter with the recipient of the sacrament. Now, as | |
| 8651 some say, it is not essential to this sacrament that there be contact between the aforesaid material objects and the recipient | |
| 8652 of the sacrament, but only that they be presented to him. Therefore the aforesaid material objects are not the matter of this | |
| 8653 sacrament. | |
| 8654 </p> | |
| 8655 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p5"> | |
| 8656 <b>On the contrary,</b> Every sacrament consists of things and words. Now in any sacrament the thing is the matter. Therefore the things employed | |
| 8657 in this sacrament are its matter. | |
| 8658 </p> | |
| 8659 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p6"> Further, more is requisite to dispense the sacraments than to receive them. Yet Baptism, wherein the power is given to receive | |
| 8660 the sacraments, needs a matter. Therefore order also does, wherein the power is given to dispense them. | |
| 8661 </p> | |
| 8662 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p7"> | |
| 8663 <b>I answer that,</b> The matter employed outwardly in the sacraments signifies that the power which works in the sacraments comes entirely from | |
| 8664 without. Wherefore, since the effect proper to this sacrament, namely the character, is not received through any operation | |
| 8665 of the one who approaches the sacrament, as was the case in Penance, but comes wholly from without, it is fitting that it | |
| 8666 should have a matter, yet otherwise than the other sacraments that have matter; because that | |
| 8667 which is bestowed in the other sacraments comes from God alone, and not from the minister who dispenses the sacrament; whereas | |
| 8668 that which is conferred in this sacrament, namely the spiritual power, comes also from him who gives the sacrament, as imperfect | |
| 8669 from perfect power. Hence the efficacy of the other sacraments resides chiefly in the matter which both signifies and contains | |
| 8670 the divine power through the sanctification applied by the minister; whereas the efficacy of this sacrament resides | |
| 8671 chiefly with him who dispenses the sacrament. And the matter is employed to show the powers conferred in particular by one | |
| 8672 who has it completely, rather than to cause power; and this is clear from the fact that the matter is in keeping with the | |
| 8673 use of power. This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection. | |
| 8674 </p> | |
| 8675 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p8"> | |
| 8676 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is necessary for the matter to be consecrated in the other sacraments, on account of the power it contains; but it is | |
| 8677 not so in the case in point. | |
| 8678 </p> | |
| 8679 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p9"> | |
| 8680 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If we admit this assertion, the reason for it is clear from what we have said; for since the power of order is received from | |
| 8681 the minister and not from the matter, the presenting of the matter is more essential to the sacrament than contact therewith. | |
| 8682 However, the words themselves of the form would seem to indicate that contact with the matter is essential to the sacrament, | |
| 8683 for it is said: "Receive" this or that. | |
| 8684 </p> | |
| 8685 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p10"></p> | |
| 8686 <p id="XP_Q34_A5-p11"></p> | |
| 8687 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8688 <a href="summa.XP_Q35.html"></a> | |
| 8689 </div> | |
| 8690 <a href="summa.XP_Q33_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8691 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8692 </div> | |
| 8693 <div id="XP_Q35" class="div3"> | |
| 8694 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8695 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8696 <h3 id="XP_Q35-p0.1">OF THE EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 8697 <p id="XP_Q35-p1"></p> | |
| 8698 <p id="XP_Q35-p2"> We must next consider me effect of this sacrament. Under this head there are five points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 8699 <p id="XP_Q35-p3"> (1) Whether sanctifying grace is conferred in the sacrament of Order?</p> | |
| 8700 <p id="XP_Q35-p4"> (2) Whether a character is imprinted in connection with all the Orders?</p> | |
| 8701 <p id="XP_Q35-p5"> (3) Whether the character of Order presupposes of necessity the character of Baptism?</p> | |
| 8702 <p id="XP_Q35-p6"> (4) Whether it presupposes of necessity the character of Confirmation?</p> | |
| 8703 <p id="XP_Q35-p7"> (5) Whether the character of one Order presupposes of necessity the character of another Order?</p> | |
| 8704 <div id="XP_Q35_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 8705 <a href="summa.XP_Q35.html"></a> | |
| 8706 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8707 <h4 id="XP_Q35_A1-p0.1">Whether sanctifying grace is conferred in the sacrament of Order?</h4> | |
| 8708 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 8709 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p2"> | |
| 8710 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that sanctifying grace is not conferred in the sacrament of Order. For it is commonly agreed that the sacrament | |
| 8711 of Order is directed to counteract the defect of ignorance. Now not sanctifying grace but gratuitous grace is given to counteract | |
| 8712 ignorance, for sanctifying grace has more to do with the will. Therefore sanctifying grace is not given in the sacrament of | |
| 8713 Order. | |
| 8714 </p> | |
| 8715 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p3"> | |
| 8716 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Order implies distinction. Now the members of the Church are distinguished, not by sanctifying but by gratuitous | |
| 8717 grace, of which it is said ( | |
| 8718 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q35_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:4</a>): "There are diversities of graces." Therefore sanctifying grace is not given in order. | |
| 8719 </p> | |
| 8720 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p4"> | |
| 8721 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no cause presupposes its effect. But grace is presupposed in one who receives orders, so that he may be worthy to | |
| 8722 receive them. Therefore this same grace is not given in the conferring of Orders. | |
| 8723 </p> | |
| 8724 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p5"> | |
| 8725 <b>On the contrary,</b> The sacraments of the New Law cause what they signify. Now Order by its sevenfold number signifies the seven gifts of the | |
| 8726 Holy Ghost, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Therefore the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are not apart from sanctifying | |
| 8727 grace, are given in Orders. | |
| 8728 </p> | |
| 8729 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p6"> Further, Order is a sacrament of the New Law. Now the definition of a sacrament of that kind includes the words, "that it | |
| 8730 may be a cause of grace." Therefore it causes grace in the recipient. | |
| 8731 </p> | |
| 8732 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p7"> I answer that The works of God are perfect ( | |
| 8733 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q35_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.4" target="asv">Dt. 32:4</a>); and consequently whoever receives power from above receives also those things that render him competent to exercise that | |
| 8734 power. This is also the case in natural things, since animals are provided with members, by which their soul's powers are | |
| 8735 enabled to proceed to their respective actions unless there be some defect on the part of matter. Now just as sanctifying | |
| 8736 grace is necessary in order that man | |
| 8737 receive the sacraments worthily, so is it that he may dispense them worthily. Wherefore as in Baptism, whereby a man is adapted | |
| 8738 to receive the other sacraments, sanctifying grace is given, so is it in the sacrament of Order whereby man is ordained to | |
| 8739 the dispensation of the other sacraments. | |
| 8740 </p> | |
| 8741 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p8"> | |
| 8742 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Order is given as a remedy, not to one person but to the whole Church. Hence, although it is said to be given in order to | |
| 8743 counteract ignorance, it does not mean that by receiving Orders a man has his ignorance driven out of him, but that the recipient | |
| 8744 of Orders is set in authority to expel ignorance from among the people. | |
| 8745 </p> | |
| 8746 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p9"> | |
| 8747 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the gifts of sanctifying grace are common to all the members of the Church, nevertheless a man cannot be the worthy | |
| 8748 recipient of those gifts, in respect of which the members of the Church are distinguished from one another, unless he have | |
| 8749 charity, and this cannot be apart from sanctifying grace. | |
| 8750 </p> | |
| 8751 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p10"> | |
| 8752 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The worthy exercise of Orders requires not any kind of goodness but excellent goodness, in order that as they who receive | |
| 8753 orders are set above the people in the degree of Order, so may they be above them by the merit of holiness. Hence they are | |
| 8754 required to have the grace that suffices to make them worthy members of Christ's people, but when they receive Orders they | |
| 8755 are given a yet greater gift of grace, whereby they are rendered apt for greater | |
| 8756 things. | |
| 8757 </p> | |
| 8758 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 8759 <p id="XP_Q35_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 8760 <a href="summa.XP_Q35.html"></a> | |
| 8761 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8762 </div> | |
| 8763 <div id="XP_Q35_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 8764 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8765 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8766 <h4 id="XP_Q35_A2-p0.1">Whether in the sacrament of Order a character is imprinted in connection with all the Orders?</h4> | |
| 8767 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 8768 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p2"> | |
| 8769 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in the sacrament of Order a character is not imprinted in connection with all the Orders. For the character | |
| 8770 of Order is a spiritual power. Now some Orders are directed only to certain bodily acts, for instance those of the doorkeeper | |
| 8771 or of the acolyte. Therefore a character is not imprinted in these Orders. | |
| 8772 </p> | |
| 8773 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p3"> | |
| 8774 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every character is indelible. Therefore a character places a man in a state whence he cannot withdraw. Now those | |
| 8775 who have certain Orders can lawfully return to the laity. Therefore a character is not imprinted in all the Orders. | |
| 8776 </p> | |
| 8777 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p4"> | |
| 8778 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by means of a character a man is appointed to give or to receive some sacred thing. Now a man is sufficiently adapted | |
| 8779 to the reception of the sacraments by the character of Baptism, and a man is not appointed to dispense the sacraments except | |
| 8780 in the Order of priesthood. Therefore a character is not imprinted in the other Orders. | |
| 8781 </p> | |
| 8782 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p5"> | |
| 8783 <b>On the contrary,</b> Every sacrament in which a character is not imprinted can be repeated. But no Order can be repeated. Therefore a character | |
| 8784 is imprinted in each Order. | |
| 8785 </p> | |
| 8786 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p6"> Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now there is something distinct in every Order. Therefore every Order imprints | |
| 8787 a character. | |
| 8788 </p> | |
| 8789 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p7"> | |
| 8790 <b>I answer that,</b> There have been three opinions on this point. For some have said that a character is imprinted only in the Order of priesthood; | |
| 8791 but this is not true, since none but a deacon can exercise the act of the diaconate, and so it is clear that in the dispensation | |
| 8792 of the sacraments, he has a spiritual power which others have not. For this reason others have said that a character is impressed | |
| 8793 in the sacred, but not in the minor, Orders. But this again comes to | |
| 8794 nothing, since each Order sets a man above the people in some degree of authority directed to the dispensation of the sacraments. | |
| 8795 Wherefore since a character is a sign whereby one thing is distinguished from another, it follows that a character is imprinted | |
| 8796 in each Order. And this is confirmed by the fact that they remain for ever and are never repeated. This is the third and more | |
| 8797 common opinion. | |
| 8798 </p> | |
| 8799 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p8"> | |
| 8800 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Each Order either has an act connected with the sacrament itself, or adapts a man to the dispensation of the sacraments; | |
| 8801 thus doorkeepers exercise the act of admitting men to witness the Divine sacraments, and so forth; and consequently a spiritual | |
| 8802 power is required in each. | |
| 8803 </p> | |
| 8804 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p9"> | |
| 8805 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> For all that a man may return to the laity, the character always remains in him. This is evident from the fact that if he | |
| 8806 return to the clerical state, he does not receive again the order which he had already. | |
| 8807 </p> | |
| 8808 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p10"> The Reply to the Third Objection is the same as to the First.</p> | |
| 8809 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 8810 <p id="XP_Q35_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 8811 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8812 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8813 </div> | |
| 8814 <div id="XP_Q35_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 8815 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8816 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8817 <h4 id="XP_Q35_A3-p0.1">Whether the character of Order presupposes the baptismal character?</h4> | |
| 8818 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 8819 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p2"> | |
| 8820 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the character of Order does not presuppose the character of Baptism. For the character of Order makes | |
| 8821 a man a dispenser of the sacraments; while the character of Baptism makes him a recipient of them. Now active power does not | |
| 8822 necessarily presuppose passive power, for it can be without it, as in God. Therefore the character of Order does not necessarily | |
| 8823 presuppose the character of Baptism. | |
| 8824 </p> | |
| 8825 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p3"> | |
| 8826 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it may happen that a man is not baptized, and yet think with probability that he has been baptized. If therefore | |
| 8827 such a person present himself for Orders, he will not receive the character of Order, supposing the character of Order to | |
| 8828 presuppose the character of Baptism; and consequently whatever he does by way of consecration or absolution will be invalid, | |
| 8829 and the Church will be deceived therein, which is inadmissible. | |
| 8830 </p> | |
| 8831 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p4"> | |
| 8832 <b>On the contrary,</b> Baptism is the door of the sacraments. Therefore since Order is a sacrament, it presupposes Baptism. | |
| 8833 </p> | |
| 8834 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p5"> | |
| 8835 <b>I answer that,</b> No one can receive what he has not the power to receive. Now the character of Baptism gives a man the power to receive the | |
| 8836 other sacraments. Wherefore he that has not the baptismal character, can receive no other sacrament; and consequently the | |
| 8837 character of Order presupposes the character of Baptism. | |
| 8838 </p> | |
| 8839 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p6"> | |
| 8840 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In one who has active power of himself, the active does not presuppose the passive power; but in one who has active power | |
| 8841 from another, passive power, whereby he is enabled to receive the active power, is prerequisite to active power. | |
| 8842 </p> | |
| 8843 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p7"> | |
| 8844 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Such a man if he be ordained to the priesthood is not a priest, and he can neither consecrate, nor absolve in the tribunal | |
| 8845 of Penance. Wherefore according to the canons he must be baptized, and reordained (Extra De Presbyt. non Bapt., cap. Si quis; | |
| 8846 cap. Veniens). And even though he be raised to the episcopate, those whom he ordains receive not the Order. Yet it may piously | |
| 8847 be believed that as regards the ultimate effects of the sacraments, the High | |
| 8848 Priest will supply the defect, and that He would not allow this to be so hidden as to endanger the Church. | |
| 8849 </p> | |
| 8850 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 8851 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 8852 <p id="XP_Q35_A3-p10"></p> | |
| 8853 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8854 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8855 </div> | |
| 8856 <div id="XP_Q35_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 8857 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8858 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8859 <h4 id="XP_Q35_A4-p0.1">Whether the character of Order necessarily presupposes the character of Confirmation?</h4> | |
| 8860 <p id="XP_Q35_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 8861 <p id="XP_Q35_A4-p2"> | |
| 8862 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the character of Order necessarily presupposes the character of Confirmation. For in things subordinate | |
| 8863 to one another, as the middle presupposes the first, so does the last presuppose the middle. Now the character of Confirmation | |
| 8864 presupposes that of Baptism as being the first. Therefore the character of Order presupposes that of Confirmation as being | |
| 8865 in the middle. | |
| 8866 </p> | |
| 8867 <p id="XP_Q35_A4-p3"> | |
| 8868 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those who are appointed to confirm should themselves be most firm. Now those who receive the sacrament of Order | |
| 8869 are appointed to confirm others. Therefore they especially should have received the sacrament of Confirmation. | |
| 8870 </p> | |
| 8871 <p id="XP_Q35_A4-p4"> | |
| 8872 <b>On the contrary,</b> The apostles received the power of order before the Ascension ( | |
| 8873 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q35_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.22" target="asv">Jn. 20:22</a>), where it is said: "Receive the Holy Ghost." But they were confirmed after the Ascension by the coming of the Holy Ghost. | |
| 8874 Therefore order does not presuppose Confirmation. | |
| 8875 </p> | |
| 8876 <p id="XP_Q35_A4-p5"> | |
| 8877 <b>I answer that,</b> For the reception of Orders something is prerequisite for the validity of the sacrament, and something as congruous to the | |
| 8878 sacrament. For the validity of the sacrament it is required that one who presents himself for Orders should be capable of | |
| 8879 receiving them, and this is competent to him through Baptism; wherefore the baptismal character is prerequisite for the validity | |
| 8880 of the sacrament, so that the sacrament of Order cannot be conferred without it. On the | |
| 8881 other hand, as congruous to the sacrament a man is required to have every perfection whereby he becomes adapted to the exercise | |
| 8882 of Orders, and one of these is that he be confirmed. Wherefore the character of Order presupposes the character of Confirmation | |
| 8883 as congruous but not as necessary. | |
| 8884 </p> | |
| 8885 <p id="XP_Q35_A4-p6"> | |
| 8886 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In this case the middle does not stand in the same relation to the last as the first to the middle, because the character | |
| 8887 of Baptism enables a man to receive the sacrament of Confirmation, whereas the character of Confirmation does not enable a | |
| 8888 man to receive the sacrament of Order. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 8889 </p> | |
| 8890 <p id="XP_Q35_A4-p7"> | |
| 8891 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument considers aptness by way of congruity. | |
| 8892 </p> | |
| 8893 <p id="XP_Q35_A4-p8"></p> | |
| 8894 <p id="XP_Q35_A4-p9"></p> | |
| 8895 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A3.html"></a> | |
| 8896 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8897 </div> | |
| 8898 <div id="XP_Q35_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 8899 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8900 <a href="summa.XP_Q36.html"></a> | |
| 8901 <h4 id="XP_Q35_A5-p0.1">Whether the character of one Order necessarily presupposes the character of another Order?</h4> | |
| 8902 <p id="XP_Q35_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 8903 <p id="XP_Q35_A5-p2"> | |
| 8904 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the character of one Order necessarily presupposes the character of another Order. For there is more in | |
| 8905 common between one Order and another, than between Order and another sacrament. But the character of Order presupposes the | |
| 8906 character of another sacrament, namely Baptism. Much more therefore does the character of one Order presuppose the character | |
| 8907 of another. | |
| 8908 </p> | |
| 8909 <p id="XP_Q35_A5-p3"> | |
| 8910 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Orders are degrees of a kind. Now no one can reach a further degree, unless he first mount the previous degree. | |
| 8911 Therefore no one can receive the character of a subsequent Order unless he has first received the preceding Order. | |
| 8912 </p> | |
| 8913 <p id="XP_Q35_A5-p4"> | |
| 8914 <b>On the contrary,</b> If anything necessary for a sacrament be omitted in that sacrament, the sacrament must be repeated. But if one receive a | |
| 8915 subsequent Order, without receiving a preceding Order, he is not reordained, but he receives what was lacking, according to | |
| 8916 the canonical statutes (cap. Tuae literae, De clerico per salt. prom.). Therefore the preceding Order is not necessary for | |
| 8917 the following. | |
| 8918 </p> | |
| 8919 <p id="XP_Q35_A5-p5"> | |
| 8920 <b>I answer that,</b> It is not necessary for the higher Orders that one should have received the minor Orders, because their respective powers | |
| 8921 are distinct, and one, considered in its essentials, does not require another in the same subject. Hence even in the early | |
| 8922 Church some were ordained priests without having previously received the lower Orders and yet they could do all that the lower | |
| 8923 Orders could, because the lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in | |
| 8924 understanding, and dukedom in kingdom. Afterwards, however, it was decided by the legislation of the Church that no one should | |
| 8925 present himself to the higher orders who had not previously humbled himself in the lower offices. And hence it is that according | |
| 8926 to the Canons (cap. Tuae literae, De clerico per salt. prom.) those who are ordained without receiving a preceding Order are | |
| 8927 not reordained, but receive what was lacking to them of the preceding Order. | |
| 8928 </p> | |
| 8929 <p id="XP_Q35_A5-p6"> | |
| 8930 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Orders have more in common with one another as regards specific likeness, than order has with Baptism. But as regards proportion | |
| 8931 of power to action, Baptism has more in common with Order, than one Order with another, because Baptism confers on man the | |
| 8932 passive power to receive Orders, whereas a lower Order does not give him the passive power to receive higher Orders. | |
| 8933 </p> | |
| 8934 <p id="XP_Q35_A5-p7"> | |
| 8935 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Orders are not degrees combining in one action or in one movement, so that it be necessary to reach the last through the | |
| 8936 first; but they are like degrees consisting in things of different kinds, such as the degrees between man and angel, and it | |
| 8937 is not necessary that one who is an angel be first of all a man. Such also are the degrees between the head and all members | |
| 8938 of the body; nor is it necessary that that which is the head should be previously a | |
| 8939 foot; and thus it is in the case in point. | |
| 8940 </p> | |
| 8941 <p id="XP_Q35_A5-p8"></p> | |
| 8942 <p id="XP_Q35_A5-p9"></p> | |
| 8943 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A4.html"></a> | |
| 8944 <a href="summa.XP_Q36.html"></a> | |
| 8945 </div> | |
| 8946 <a href="summa.XP_Q34_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8947 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8948 </div> | |
| 8949 <div id="XP_Q36" class="div3"> | |
| 8950 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A5.html"></a> | |
| 8951 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A1.html"></a> | |
| 8952 <h3 id="XP_Q36-p0.1">OF THE QUALITIES REQUIRED OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 8953 <p id="XP_Q36-p1"></p> | |
| 8954 <p id="XP_Q36-p2"> We must next consider the qualities required of those who receive the sacrament of Order. Under this head there are five | |
| 8955 points of inquiry: | |
| 8956 </p> | |
| 8957 <p id="XP_Q36-p3"> (1) Whether goodness of life is required of those who receive this sacrament?</p> | |
| 8958 <p id="XP_Q36-p4"> (2) Whether the knowledge of the whole of Sacred Writ is required?</p> | |
| 8959 <p id="XP_Q36-p5"> (3) Whether the degree of Orders is obtained by mere merit of life?</p> | |
| 8960 <p id="XP_Q36-p6"> (4) Whether he who raises the unworthy to Orders sins?</p> | |
| 8961 <p id="XP_Q36-p7"> (5) Whether one who is in sin can without committing a sin exercise the Order he has received?</p> | |
| 8962 <div id="XP_Q36_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 8963 <a href="summa.XP_Q36.html"></a> | |
| 8964 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A2.html"></a> | |
| 8965 <h4 id="XP_Q36_A1-p0.1">Whether goodness of life is required of those who receive Orders?</h4> | |
| 8966 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 8967 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p2"> | |
| 8968 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that goodness of life is not required of those who receive Orders. For by Orders a man is ordained to the dispensation | |
| 8969 of the sacraments. But the sacraments can be administered by good and wicked. Therefore goodness of life is not requisite. | |
| 8970 </p> | |
| 8971 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p3"> | |
| 8972 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the service of God in the sacraments is no greater than service offered to Him in the body. Now our Lord did not | |
| 8973 cast aside the sinful and notorious woman from rendering Him a bodily service ( | |
| 8974 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q36_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.7" target="asv">Lk. 7</a>). Therefore neither should the like be debarred from His service in the sacraments. | |
| 8975 </p> | |
| 8976 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p4"> | |
| 8977 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by every grace a remedy is given against sin. Now those who are in sin should not be refused a remedy that may avail | |
| 8978 them. Since then grace is given in the sacrament of order, it would seem that this sacrament ought also to be conferred on | |
| 8979 sinners. | |
| 8980 </p> | |
| 8981 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p5"> | |
| 8982 <b>On the contrary,</b> "Whosoever of the seed of Aaron throughout their families hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God neither shall | |
| 8983 he approach to minister to him [*Vulg.: 'Say to Aaron: Whosoever of thy seed,'etc.]" ( | |
| 8984 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q36_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.21.17" target="asv">Lev. 21:17,18</a>). Now "blemish signifies all kinds of vice" according to a gloss. Therefore he who is shackled by any vice should not be | |
| 8985 admitted to the ministry of Orders. | |
| 8986 </p> | |
| 8987 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p6"> Further, Jerome commenting on the words of | |
| 8988 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q36_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.2.15" target="asv"> Titus 2:15, </a> "Let no man despise thee," says that "not only should bishops, priests, and deacons take very great care to be examples of | |
| 8989 speech and conduct to those over whom they are placed, but also the lower grades, and without exception all who serve the | |
| 8990 household of God, since it is most disastrous to the Church if the laity be better than the clergy." Therefore holiness of | |
| 8991 life is requisite in all the | |
| 8992 Orders. | |
| 8993 </p> | |
| 8994 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p7"> | |
| 8995 <b>I answer that,</b> As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), "even as the more subtle and clear essences, being filled by the outpouring of the solar | |
| 8996 radiance, like the sun enlighten other bodies with their brilliant light, so in all things pertaining to God a man must not | |
| 8997 dare to become a leader of others, unless in all his habits he be most deiform and godlike." Wherefore, since in every order | |
| 8998 a man is appointed to lead others in Divine things, he who being conscious of mortal | |
| 8999 sin presents himself for Orders is guilty of presumption and sins mortally. Consequently holiness of life is requisite for | |
| 9000 Orders, as a matter of precept, but not as essential to the sacrament; and if a wicked man be ordained, he receives the Order | |
| 9001 none the less, and yet with sin withal. | |
| 9002 </p> | |
| 9003 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p8"> | |
| 9004 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as the sinner dispenses sacraments validly, so does he receive validly the sacrament of Orders, and as he dispenses | |
| 9005 unworthily, even so he receives unworthily. | |
| 9006 </p> | |
| 9007 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p9"> | |
| 9008 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The service in point consisted only in the exercise of bodily homage, which even sinners can offer lawfully. It is different | |
| 9009 with the spiritual service to which the ordained are appointed, because thereby they are made to stand between God and the | |
| 9010 people. Wherefore they should shine with a good conscience before God, and with a good name before men. | |
| 9011 </p> | |
| 9012 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p10"> | |
| 9013 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Certain medicines require a robust constitution, else it is mortally dangerous to take them; others can be given to the weakly. | |
| 9014 So too in spiritual things certain sacraments are ordained as remedies for sin, and the like are to be given to sinners, as | |
| 9015 Baptism and Penance, while others, which confer the perfection of grace, require a man made strong by grace. | |
| 9016 </p> | |
| 9017 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 9018 <p id="XP_Q36_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 9019 <a href="summa.XP_Q36.html"></a> | |
| 9020 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9021 </div> | |
| 9022 <div id="XP_Q36_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 9023 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9024 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A3.html"></a> | |
| 9025 <h4 id="XP_Q36_A2-p0.1">Whether knowledge of all Holy Writ is required?</h4> | |
| 9026 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 9027 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p2"> | |
| 9028 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that knowledge of all Holy Writ is required. For one from whose lips we seek the law, should have knowledge | |
| 9029 of the law. Now the laity seek the law at the mouth of the priest ( | |
| 9030 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q36_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.2.7" target="asv">Malachi 2:7</a>). Therefore he should have knowledge of the whole law. | |
| 9031 </p> | |
| 9032 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p3"> | |
| 9033 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "being always ready to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that faith and hope in you [*Vulg.: 'Of that | |
| 9034 hope which is in you; St. Thomas apparently took his reading from Bede]." Now to give a reason for things pertaining to faith | |
| 9035 and hope belongs to those who have perfect knowledge of Holy Writ. Therefore the like knowledge should be possessed by those | |
| 9036 who are placed in Orders, and to whom the aforesaid words are addressed. | |
| 9037 </p> | |
| 9038 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p4"> | |
| 9039 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no one is competent to read what he understands not, since to read without intelligence is "negligence,"* as Cato | |
| 9040 declares (Rudiment.). [*"Legere et non intelligere est negligere." The play on the words is more evident in Latin.] Now it | |
| 9041 belongs to the reader (which is the lower Order) to read the Old Testament, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Therefore | |
| 9042 he should understand the whole of the Old Testament; and much more those in the higher | |
| 9043 Orders. | |
| 9044 </p> | |
| 9045 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p5"> | |
| 9046 <b>On the contrary,</b> Many are raised to the priesthood even who know nothing at all of these things, even in many religious Orders. Therefore | |
| 9047 apparently this knowledge is not required. | |
| 9048 </p> | |
| 9049 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p6"> Further, we read in the Lives of the Fathers that some who were monks were raised to the priesthood, being of a most holy | |
| 9050 life. Therefore the aforesaid knowledge is not required in those to be ordained. | |
| 9051 </p> | |
| 9052 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p7"> | |
| 9053 <b>I answer that,</b> For any human act to be rightly ordered there must needs be the direction of reason. Wherefore in order that a man exercise | |
| 9054 the office of an Order, it is necessary for him to have as much knowledge as suffices for his direction in the act of that | |
| 9055 Order. And consequently one who is to be raised to Orders is required to have that knowledge, and to be instructed in Sacred | |
| 9056 Scripture, not the whole, but more or less, according as his office is of a greater or | |
| 9057 lesser extent---to wit, that those who are placed over others, and receive the care of souls, know things pertaining to the | |
| 9058 doctrine of faith and morals, and that others know whatever concerns the exercise of their Order. | |
| 9059 </p> | |
| 9060 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p8"> | |
| 9061 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A priest exercises a twofold action: the one, which is principal, over the true body of Christ; the other, which is secondary, | |
| 9062 over the mystical body of Christ. The second act depends on the first, but not conversely. Wherefore some are raised to the | |
| 9063 priesthood, to whom the first act alone is deputed, for instance those religious who are not empowered with the care of souls. | |
| 9064 The law is not sought at the mouth of these, they are required only for the | |
| 9065 celebration of the sacraments; and consequently it is enough for them to have such knowledge as enables them to observe rightly | |
| 9066 those things that regard the celebration of the sacrament. Others are raised to exercise the other act which is over the mystical | |
| 9067 body of Christ, and it is at the mouth of these that the people seek the law; wherefore they ought to possess knowledge of | |
| 9068 the law, not indeed to know all the difficult points of the law (for in these they should have recourse to their | |
| 9069 superiors), but to know what the people have to believe and fulfill in the law. To the higher priests, namely the bishops, | |
| 9070 it belongs to know even those points of the law which may offer some difficulty, and to know them the more perfectly according | |
| 9071 as they are in a higher position. | |
| 9072 </p> | |
| 9073 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p9"> | |
| 9074 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The reason that we have to give for our faith and hope does not denote one that suffices to prove matters of faith and hope, | |
| 9075 since they are both of things invisible; it means that we should be able to give general proofs of the probability of both, | |
| 9076 and for this there is not much need of great knowledge. | |
| 9077 </p> | |
| 9078 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p10"> | |
| 9079 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The reader has not to explain Holy Writ to the people (for this belongs to the higher orders), but merely to voice the words. | |
| 9080 Therefore he is not required to have so much knowledge as to understand Holy Writ, but only to know how to pronounce it correctly. | |
| 9081 And since such knowledge is obtained easily and from many persons, it may be supposed with probability that the ordained will | |
| 9082 acquire that knowledge even if he have it not already, especially if it | |
| 9083 appear that he is on the road to acquire it. | |
| 9084 </p> | |
| 9085 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 9086 <p id="XP_Q36_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 9087 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9088 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A3.html"></a> | |
| 9089 </div> | |
| 9090 <div id="XP_Q36_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 9091 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9092 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A4.html"></a> | |
| 9093 <h4 id="XP_Q36_A3-p0.1">Whether a man obtains the degrees of Order by the merit of one's life?</h4> | |
| 9094 <p id="XP_Q36_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 9095 <p id="XP_Q36_A3-p2"> | |
| 9096 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man obtains the degrees of order by the mere merit of his life. For, according to Chrysostom [*Hom. | |
| 9097 xliii in the Opus Imperfectum, wrongly ascribed to St. John Chrysostom], "not every priest is a saint, but every saint is | |
| 9098 a priest." Now a man becomes a saint by the merit of his life. Consequently he thereby also becomes a priest, and "a fortiori" | |
| 9099 has he the other Orders. | |
| 9100 </p> | |
| 9101 <p id="XP_Q36_A3-p3"> | |
| 9102 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in natural things, men obtain a higher degree from the very fact that they are near God, and have a greater share | |
| 9103 of His favors, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv). Now it is by merit of holiness and knowledge that a man approaches nearer | |
| 9104 to God and receives more of His favors. Therefore by this alone he is raised to the degree of Orders. | |
| 9105 </p> | |
| 9106 <p id="XP_Q36_A3-p4"> | |
| 9107 <b>On the contrary,</b> Holiness once possessed can be lost. But when once a man is ordained he never loses his order. Therefore order does not consist | |
| 9108 in the mere merit of holiness. | |
| 9109 </p> | |
| 9110 <p id="XP_Q36_A3-p5"> | |
| 9111 <b>I answer that,</b> A cause should be proportionate to its effect. And consequently as in Christ, from Whom grace comes down on all men, there | |
| 9112 must needs be fulness of grace; so in the ministers of the Church, to whom it belongs, not to give grace, but to give the | |
| 9113 sacraments of grace, the degree of order does not result from their having grace, but from their participating in a sacrament | |
| 9114 of grace. | |
| 9115 </p> | |
| 9116 <p id="XP_Q36_A3-p6"> | |
| 9117 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Chrysostom is speaking of the priest in reference to the reason for which he is so called, the word "sacerdos" signifying | |
| 9118 dispenser of holy things [sacra dans]: for in this sense every righteous man, in so far as he assists others by the sacraments, | |
| 9119 may be called a priest. But he is not speaking according to the actual meaning of the words; for this word "sacerdos" [priest] | |
| 9120 is employed to signify one who gives sacred things by dispensing the | |
| 9121 sacraments. | |
| 9122 </p> | |
| 9123 <p id="XP_Q36_A3-p7"> | |
| 9124 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Natural things acquire a degree of superiority over others, from the fact that they are able to act on them by virtue of | |
| 9125 their form; wherefore from the very fact that they have a higher form, they obtain a higher degree. But the ministers of the | |
| 9126 Church are placed over others, not to confer anything on them by virtue of their own holiness (for this belongs to God alone), | |
| 9127 but as ministers, and as instruments, so to say, of the outpouring from the Head | |
| 9128 to the members. Hence the comparison fails as regards the dignity of Order, although it applies as to congruity. | |
| 9129 </p> | |
| 9130 <p id="XP_Q36_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 9131 <p id="XP_Q36_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 9132 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9133 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A4.html"></a> | |
| 9134 </div> | |
| 9135 <div id="XP_Q36_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 9136 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A3.html"></a> | |
| 9137 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A5.html"></a> | |
| 9138 <h4 id="XP_Q36_A4-p0.1">Whether he who raises the unworthy to Orders commits a sin?</h4> | |
| 9139 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 9140 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p2"> | |
| 9141 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that he who raises the unworthy to orders commits no sin. For a bishop needs assistants appointed to the lesser | |
| 9142 offices. But he would be unable to find them in sufficient number, if he were to require of them such qualifications as the | |
| 9143 saints enumerate. Therefore if he raise some who are not qualified, he would seem to be excusable. | |
| 9144 </p> | |
| 9145 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p3"> | |
| 9146 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Church needs not only ministers for the dispensation of things spiritual, but also for the supervision of temporalities. | |
| 9147 But sometimes men without knowledge or holiness of life may be useful for the conduct of temporal affairs, either because | |
| 9148 of their worldly power, or on account of their natural industry. Therefore seemingly the like can be promoted without sin. | |
| 9149 </p> | |
| 9150 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p4"> | |
| 9151 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, everyone is bound to avoid sin, as far as he can. If therefore a bishop sins in promoting the unworthy, he is bound | |
| 9152 to take the utmost pains to know whether those who present themselves for Orders be worthy, by making a careful inquiry about | |
| 9153 their morals and knowledge, and yet seemingly this is not done anywhere. | |
| 9154 </p> | |
| 9155 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p5"> | |
| 9156 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is worse to raise the wicked to the sacred ministry, than not to correct those who are raised already. But Heli sinned | |
| 9157 mortally by not correcting his sons for their wickedness; wherefore "he fell backwards . . . and died" ( | |
| 9158 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q36_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.4.18" target="asv">1 Kings 4:18</a>). Therefore he who promotes the unworthy does not escape sin. | |
| 9159 </p> | |
| 9160 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p6"> Further, spiritual things must be set before temporal things in the Church. Now a man would commit a mortal sin were he knowingly | |
| 9161 to endanger the temporalities of the Church. Much more therefore is it a mortal sin to endanger spiritual things. But whoever | |
| 9162 promotes the unworthy endangers spiritual things, since according to Gregory (Hom. xii in Evang.) "if a man's life is contemptible, | |
| 9163 his preaching is liable to be despised"; and for the same reason all the spiritual things that | |
| 9164 he dispenses. Therefore he who promotes the unworthy sins mortally. | |
| 9165 </p> | |
| 9166 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p7"> | |
| 9167 <b>I answer that,</b> Our Lord describes the faithful servant whom He has set "over His household to give them their measure of wheat." Hence he | |
| 9168 is guilty of unfaithfulness who gives any man Divine things above his measure: and whoso promotes the unworthy does this. | |
| 9169 Wherefore he commits a mortal crime, as being unfaithful to his sovereign Lord, especially since this is detrimental to the | |
| 9170 Church and to the Divine honor which is promoted by good ministers. For a man would be | |
| 9171 unfaithful to his earthly lord were he to place unworthy subjects in his offices. | |
| 9172 </p> | |
| 9173 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p8"> | |
| 9174 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God never so abandons His Church that apt ministers are not to be found sufficient for the needs of the people, if the worthy | |
| 9175 be promoted and the unworthy set aside. And though it were impossible to find as many ministers as there are now, it were | |
| 9176 better to have few good ministers than many bad ones, as the blessed Clement declares in his second epistle to James the brother | |
| 9177 of the Lord. | |
| 9178 </p> | |
| 9179 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p9"> | |
| 9180 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Temporal things are not to be sought but for the sake of spiritual things. Wherefore all temporal advantage should count | |
| 9181 for nothing, and all gain be despised for the advancement of spiritual good. | |
| 9182 </p> | |
| 9183 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p10"> | |
| 9184 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is at least required that the ordainer know that nothing contrary to holiness is in the candidate for ordination. But | |
| 9185 besides this he is required to take the greatest care, in proportion to the Order or office to be enjoined, so as to be certain | |
| 9186 of the qualifications of those to be promoted, at least from the testification of others. This is the meaning of the Apostle | |
| 9187 when he says ( | |
| 9188 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q36_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.22" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:22</a>): "Impose not hands lightly on any | |
| 9189 man." | |
| 9190 </p> | |
| 9191 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 9192 <p id="XP_Q36_A4-p12"></p> | |
| 9193 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A3.html"></a> | |
| 9194 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A5.html"></a> | |
| 9195 </div> | |
| 9196 <div id="XP_Q36_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 9197 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A4.html"></a> | |
| 9198 <a href="summa.XP_Q37.html"></a> | |
| 9199 <h4 id="XP_Q36_A5-p0.1">Whether a man who is in sin can without sin exercise the Order he has received? [*Cf. TP, Q[64], A[6]]</h4> | |
| 9200 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 9201 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p2"> | |
| 9202 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one who is in sin can without sin exercise the order he has received. For since, by virtue of his office, | |
| 9203 he is bound to exercise his order, he sins if he fails to do so. If therefore he sins by exercising it, he cannot avoid sin: | |
| 9204 which is inadmissible. | |
| 9205 </p> | |
| 9206 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p3"> | |
| 9207 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a dispensation is a relaxation of the law. Therefore although by rights it would be unlawful for him to exercise | |
| 9208 the order he has received, it would be lawful for him to do so by dispensation. | |
| 9209 </p> | |
| 9210 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p4"> | |
| 9211 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whoever co-operates with another in a mortal sin, sins mortally. If therefore a sinner sins mortally by exercising | |
| 9212 his order, he who receives or demands any Divine thing from him also sins mortally: and this seems absurd. | |
| 9213 </p> | |
| 9214 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p5"> | |
| 9215 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if he sins by exercising his order, it follows that every act of his order that he performs is a mortal sin; and | |
| 9216 consequently since many acts concur in the one exercise of his order, it would seem that he commits many mortal sins: which | |
| 9217 seems very hard. | |
| 9218 </p> | |
| 9219 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p6"> | |
| 9220 <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Ep. ad Demophil.): "It seems presumptuous for such a man, one to wit who is not enlightened, to lay hands | |
| 9221 on priestly things; he is not afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is to take part in Divine things, with the thought | |
| 9222 that God does not see what he sees in himself; he thinks, by false pretense, to cheat Him Whom he falsely calls his Father; | |
| 9223 he dares to utter in the person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call | |
| 9224 them prayers, over the Divine symbols." Therefore a priest is a blasphemer and a cheat if he exercises his order unworthily, | |
| 9225 and thus he sins mortally: and in like manner any other person in orders. | |
| 9226 </p> | |
| 9227 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p7"> Further, holiness of life is required in one who receives an order, that he may be qualified to exercise it. Now a man sins | |
| 9228 mortally if he present himself for orders in mortal sin. Much more therefore does he sin mortally whenever he exercises his | |
| 9229 order. | |
| 9230 </p> | |
| 9231 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p8"> | |
| 9232 <b>I answer that,</b> The law prescribes ( | |
| 9233 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q36_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.16.20" target="asv">Dt. 16:20</a>) that "man should follow justly after that which is just." Wherefore whoever fulfills unworthily the duties of his order | |
| 9234 follows unjustly after that which is just, and acts contrary to a precept of the law, and thereby sins mortally. Now anyone | |
| 9235 who exercises a sacred office in mortal sin, without doubt does so unworthily. Hence it is clear that he sins mortally. | |
| 9236 </p> | |
| 9237 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p9"> | |
| 9238 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> He is not perplexed as though he were in the necessity of sinning; for he can renounce his sin, or resign his office whereby | |
| 9239 he was bound to the exercise of his order. | |
| 9240 </p> | |
| 9241 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p10"> | |
| 9242 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The natural law allows of no dispensation; and it is of natural law that man handle holy things holily. Therefore no one | |
| 9243 can dispense from this. | |
| 9244 </p> | |
| 9245 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p11"> | |
| 9246 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> So long as a minister of the Church who is in mortal sin is recognized by the Church, his subject must receive the sacraments | |
| 9247 from him, since this is the purpose for which he is bound to him. Nevertheless, outside the case of necessity, it would not | |
| 9248 be safe to induce him to an execution of his Order, as long as he is conscious of being in mortal sin, which conscience, however, | |
| 9249 he can lay aside since a man is repaired in an instant by Divine grace. | |
| 9250 </p> | |
| 9251 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p12"> | |
| 9252 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> When any man performs an action as a minister of the Church while in a state of mortal sin, he sins mortally, and as often | |
| 9253 as he performs that action, since, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. i), "it is wrong for the unclean even to touch the symbols," | |
| 9254 i.e. the sacramental signs. Hence when they touch sacred things in the exercise of their office they sin mortally. It would | |
| 9255 be otherwise if they were to touch some sacred thing or perform some sacred duty | |
| 9256 in a case of necessity, when it would be allowable even to a layman, for instance if they were to baptize in a case of urgency, | |
| 9257 or gather up the Lord's body should it be cast to the ground. | |
| 9258 </p> | |
| 9259 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p13"></p> | |
| 9260 <p id="XP_Q36_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 9261 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A4.html"></a> | |
| 9262 <a href="summa.XP_Q37.html"></a> | |
| 9263 </div> | |
| 9264 <a href="summa.XP_Q35_A5.html"></a> | |
| 9265 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9266 </div> | |
| 9267 <div id="XP_Q37" class="div3"> | |
| 9268 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A5.html"></a> | |
| 9269 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9270 <h3 id="XP_Q37-p0.1">OF THE DISTINCTION OF ORDERS, OF THEIR ACTS, AND THE IMPRINTING OF THE CHARACTER (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 9271 <p id="XP_Q37-p1"></p> | |
| 9272 <p id="XP_Q37-p2"> In the next place we must consider the distinction of the orders and their acts, and the imprinting of the character. Under | |
| 9273 this head there are five points of inquiry: | |
| 9274 </p> | |
| 9275 <p id="XP_Q37-p3"> (1) Whether Order should be divided into several kinds?</p> | |
| 9276 <p id="XP_Q37-p4"> (2) How many are there?</p> | |
| 9277 <p id="XP_Q37-p5"> (3) Whether they ought to be divided into those that are sacred and those that are not?</p> | |
| 9278 <p id="XP_Q37-p6"> (4) Whether the acts of the Orders are rightly assigned in the text?</p> | |
| 9279 <p id="XP_Q37-p7"> (5) When are the characters of the Orders imprinted?</p> | |
| 9280 <div id="XP_Q37_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 9281 <a href="summa.XP_Q37.html"></a> | |
| 9282 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9283 <h4 id="XP_Q37_A1-p0.1">Whether we ought to distinguish several Orders? </h4> | |
| 9284 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 9285 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p2"> | |
| 9286 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that we ought not to distinguish several Orders. For the greater a power is, the less is it multiplied. Now | |
| 9287 this sacrament ranks above the others in so far as it places its recipients in a degree above other persons. Since then the | |
| 9288 other sacraments are not divided into several of which the whole is predicated, neither ought this sacrament to be divided | |
| 9289 into several Orders. | |
| 9290 </p> | |
| 9291 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p3"> | |
| 9292 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if it be divided, the parts of the division are either integral or subjective. But they are not integral, for then | |
| 9293 the whole would not be predicated of them. Therefore it is a division into subjective parts. Now subjective parts can have | |
| 9294 the remote genus predicated of them in the plural in the same way as the proximate genus; thus man and ass are several animals, | |
| 9295 and are several animated bodies. Therefore also priesthood and diaconate, as they are | |
| 9296 several Orders, even so are several sacraments, since sacrament is the genus, so to speak, in respect of Orders. | |
| 9297 </p> | |
| 9298 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p4"> | |
| 9299 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 10) the form of authority in which one alone governs is a better government | |
| 9300 of the common weal than aristocracy, where different persons occupy different offices. But the government of the Church should | |
| 9301 be the best of all. Therefore in the Church there should be no distinction of Orders for different acts, but the whole power | |
| 9302 should reside in one person; and consequently there ought to be only one Order. | |
| 9303 </p> | |
| 9304 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p5"> | |
| 9305 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Church is Christ's mystical body, like to our natural body, according to the Apostle ( | |
| 9306 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.12.5" target="asv">Rom. 12:5</a>; | |
| 9307 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:12</a>, | |
| 9308 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A1-p5.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.27" target="asv">27</a>; | |
| 9309 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A1-p5.4" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.22" target="asv">Eph. 1:22,23</a>; | |
| 9310 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A1-p5.5" href="./asv.html#Col.1.24" target="asv"> Col. 1:24</a>). Now in the natural body there are various offices of the members. Therefore in the Church also there should be various | |
| 9311 Orders. | |
| 9312 </p> | |
| 9313 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p6"> Further, the ministry of the New Testament is superior to that of the Old Testament ( | |
| 9314 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3" target="asv">2 Cor. 3</a>). Now in the Old Testament not only the priests, but also their ministers, the Levites, were consecrated. Therefore likewise | |
| 9315 in the New Testament not only the priests but also their ministers should be consecrated by the sacrament of Order; and consequently | |
| 9316 there ought to be several Orders. | |
| 9317 </p> | |
| 9318 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p7"> | |
| 9319 <b>I answer that,</b> Multiplicity of Orders was introduced into the Church for three reasons. First to show forth the wisdom of God, which is | |
| 9320 reflected in the orderly distinction of things both natural and spiritual. This is signified in the statement of | |
| 9321 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 10:4,5</a> that "when the queen of Saba saw . . . the order of" Solomon's "servants . . . she had no longer any spirit in her," for | |
| 9322 she was breathless from admiration of his wisdom. Secondly, in order | |
| 9323 to succor human weakness, because it would be impossible for one man, without his being heavily burdened, to fulfill all things | |
| 9324 pertaining to the Divine mysteries; and so various orders are severally appointed to the various offices; and this is shown | |
| 9325 by the Lord giving Moses seventy ancients to assist him. Thirdly, that men may be given a broader way for advancing (to perfection), | |
| 9326 seeing that the various duties are divided among many men, so that all become the co-operators of God; than which | |
| 9327 nothing is more God-like, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). | |
| 9328 </p> | |
| 9329 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p8"> | |
| 9330 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The other sacraments are given that certain effects may be received; but this sacrament is given chiefly that certain acts | |
| 9331 may be performed. Hence it behooves the sacrament of Order to be differentiated according to the diversity of acts, even as | |
| 9332 powers are differentiated by their acts. | |
| 9333 </p> | |
| 9334 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p9"> | |
| 9335 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The division of Order is not that of an integral whole into its parts, nor of a universal whole, but of a potential whole, | |
| 9336 the nature of which is that the notion of the whole is found to be complete in one part, but in the others by some participation | |
| 9337 thereof. Thus it is here: for the entire fulness of the sacrament is in one Order, namely the priesthood, while in the other | |
| 9338 sacraments there is a participation of Order. And this is signified by the | |
| 9339 Lord saying ( | |
| 9340 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Num.11.17" target="asv">Num. 11:17</a>): "I will take of thy spirit and give to them, that they may bear with thee the burden of the people." Therefore all the | |
| 9341 Orders are one sacrament. | |
| 9342 </p> | |
| 9343 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p10"> | |
| 9344 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In a kingdom, although the entire fulness of power resides in the king, this does not exclude the ministers having a power | |
| 9345 which is a participation of the kingly power. It is the same in Order. In the aristocratic form of government, on the contrary, | |
| 9346 the fulness of power resides in no one, but in all. | |
| 9347 </p> | |
| 9348 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 9349 <p id="XP_Q37_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 9350 <a href="summa.XP_Q37.html"></a> | |
| 9351 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9352 </div> | |
| 9353 <div id="XP_Q37_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 9354 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9355 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A3.html"></a> | |
| 9356 <h4 id="XP_Q37_A2-p0.1">Whether there are seven Orders?</h4> | |
| 9357 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 9358 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p2"> | |
| 9359 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there are not seven Orders. For the Orders of the Church are directed to the hierarchical acts. But there | |
| 9360 are only three hierarchical acts, namely "to cleanse, to enlighten, and to perfect," for which reason Dionysius distinguishes | |
| 9361 three Orders (Eccl. Hier. v). Therefore there are not seven. | |
| 9362 </p> | |
| 9363 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p3"> | |
| 9364 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, all the sacraments derive their efficacy and authenticity from their institution by Christ, or at least by His apostles. | |
| 9365 But no mention except of priests and deacons is made in the teaching of Christ and His apostles. Therefore seemingly there | |
| 9366 are no other Orders. | |
| 9367 </p> | |
| 9368 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p4"> | |
| 9369 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by the sacrament of Order a man is appointed to dispense the other sacraments. But there are only six other sacraments. | |
| 9370 Therefore there should be only six Orders. | |
| 9371 </p> | |
| 9372 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p5"> | |
| 9373 <b>Objection 4:</b> On the other hand, It would seem that there ought to be more. For the higher a power is, the less is it subject to multiplication. | |
| 9374 Now the hierarchical power is in the angels in a higher way than in us, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. i). Since then there | |
| 9375 are nine Orders in the angelic hierarchy, there should be as many, or more, in the Church. | |
| 9376 </p> | |
| 9377 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p6"> | |
| 9378 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the prophecy of the Psalms is the most noble of all the prophecies. Now there is one Order, namely of readers, for | |
| 9379 reading the other prophecies in the Church. Therefore there ought to be another Order for reading the Psalms, especially since | |
| 9380 (Decretals, Dist. xxi, cap. Cleros) the "psalmist" is reckoned as the second Order after the doorkeeper. | |
| 9381 </p> | |
| 9382 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p7"> | |
| 9383 <b>I answer that,</b> Some show the sufficiency of the orders from their correspondence with the gratuitous graces which are indicated | |
| 9384 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 12</a>. For they say that the "word of wisdom" belongs to the bishop, because he is the ordainer of others, which pertains to wisdom; | |
| 9385 the "word of knowledge" to the priest, for he ought to have the key of knowledge; "faith" to the deacon, for he preaches the | |
| 9386 Gospel; the "working of miracles" to the subdeacon, who sets himself to do deeds of | |
| 9387 perfection by the vow of continency; "interpretation of speeches" to the acolyte, this being signified by the light which | |
| 9388 he bears; the "grace of healing" to the exorcist; "diverse kinds of tongues" to the psalmist; "prophecy" to the reader; and | |
| 9389 the "discerning of spirits" to the doorkeeper, for he excludes some and admits others. But this is of no account, for the | |
| 9390 gratuitous graces are not given, as the Orders are, to one same man. For it is written ( | |
| 9391 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:4</a>): "There | |
| 9392 are distributions [Douay: 'diversities'] of graces." Moreover the episcopate [*Cf. | |
| 9393 <a id="XP_Q37_A2-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q40_A5.html"> Q[40], A[5]</a>] and the office of psalmist are included, which are not Orders. Wherefore others account for the Orders by likening them | |
| 9394 to the heavenly hierarchy, where the Orders are distinguished in reference to cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting. Thus | |
| 9395 they say that the doorkeeper cleanses outwardly, by separating even in the body the good from the wicked; that the acolyte | |
| 9396 cleanses | |
| 9397 inwardly, because by the light which he bears, he signifies that he dispels inward darkness; and that the exorcist cleanses | |
| 9398 both ways, for he casts out the devil who disturbs a man both ways. But enlightening, which is effected by teaching, is done | |
| 9399 by readers as regards prophetic doctrine; by subdeacons as to apostolic doctrine; and by deacons as to the gospel doctrine; | |
| 9400 while ordinary perfection, such as the perfection of Penance, Baptism, and so forth is the work of the priest; excellent | |
| 9401 perfection, such as the consecration of priests and virgins, is the work of the bishop; while the most excellent perfection | |
| 9402 is the work of the Sovereign Pontiff in whom resides the fulness of authority. But this again is of no account; both because | |
| 9403 the orders of the heavenly hierarchy are not distinguished by the aforesaid hierarchical actions, since each of them is applicable | |
| 9404 to every Order; and because, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), perfecting belongs to the bishops alone, | |
| 9405 enlightening to the priests, and cleansing to all the ministers. Wherefore others suit the orders to the seven gifts, so that | |
| 9406 the priesthood corresponds to the gift of wisdom, which feeds us with the bread of life and understanding, even as the priest | |
| 9407 refreshes us with the heavenly bread; fear to the doorkeeper, for he separates us from the wicked; and thus the intermediate | |
| 9408 Orders to the intermediate gifts. But this again is of no account, since the sevenfold grace is given in each one of the | |
| 9409 Orders. Consequently we must answer differently by saying that the sacrament of Order is directed to the sacrament of the | |
| 9410 Eucharist, which is the sacrament of sacraments, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). For just as temple, altar, vessels, | |
| 9411 and vestments need to be consecrated, so do the ministers who are ordained for the Eucharist; and this consecration is the | |
| 9412 sacrament of Order. Hence the distinction of Orders is derived from their relation to the Eucharist. For the power of Order | |
| 9413 is | |
| 9414 directed either to the consecration of the Eucharist itself, or to some ministry in connection with this sacrament of the | |
| 9415 Eucharist. If in the former way, then it is the Order of priests; hence when they are ordained, they receive the chalice with | |
| 9416 wine, and the paten with the bread, because they are receiving the power to consecrate the body and blood of Christ. The co-operation | |
| 9417 of the ministers is directed either to the sacrament itself, or to the recipients. If the former, this happens in | |
| 9418 three ways. For in the first place, there is the ministry whereby the minister co-operates with the priest in the sacrament | |
| 9419 itself, by dispensing, but not by consecrating, for this is done by the priest alone; and this belongs to the deacon. Hence | |
| 9420 in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24) it is said that it belongs to the deacon to minister to the priests in whatever is done in Christ's | |
| 9421 sacraments, wherefore he dispenses Christ's blood. Secondly, there is the ministry directed to the disposal of the | |
| 9422 sacramental matter in the sacred vessels of the sacrament. and this belongs to subdeacons. Wherefore it is stated in the text | |
| 9423 (Sent. iv, D, 24) that they carry the vessels of our Lord's body and blood, and place the oblation on the altar; hence, when | |
| 9424 they are ordained, they receive the chalice, empty however, from the bishop's hands. Thirdly, there is the ministry directed | |
| 9425 to the proffering of the sacramental matter, and this belongs to the acolyte. For he, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, | |
| 9426 24), prepares the cruet with wine and water; wherefore he receives an empty cruet. The ministry directed to the preparation | |
| 9427 of the recipients can be exercised only over the unclean, since those who are clean are already apt for receiving the sacraments. | |
| 9428 Now the unclean are of three kinds, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). For some are absolute unbelievers and unwilling | |
| 9429 to believe; and these must be altogether debarred from beholding Divine things and from the assembly of the faithful; | |
| 9430 this belongs to the doorkeepers. Some, however, are willing to believe, but are not as yet instructed, namely catechumens, | |
| 9431 and to the instruction of such persons the Order of readers is directed, who are therefore entrusted with the reading of the | |
| 9432 first rudiments of the doctrine of faith, namely the Old Testament. But some are believers and instructed, yet lie under an | |
| 9433 impediment through the power of the devil, namely those who are possessed: and to this ministry the order of exorcists is | |
| 9434 directed. Thus the reason and number of the degrees of Orders is made clear. | |
| 9435 </p> | |
| 9436 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p8"> | |
| 9437 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Dionysius is speaking of the orders not as sacraments, but as directed to hierarchical actions. Wherefore he distinguishes | |
| 9438 three Orders corresponding to those actions. The first of these Orders, namely the bishop, has all three actions; the second, | |
| 9439 namely the priest, has two; while the third has one, namely to cleanse; this is the deacon who is called a minister: and under | |
| 9440 this last all the lower Orders are comprised. But the Orders derive their | |
| 9441 sacramental nature from their relation to the greatest of the sacraments, and consequently the number of Orders depends on | |
| 9442 this. | |
| 9443 </p> | |
| 9444 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p9"> | |
| 9445 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the early Church, on account of the fewness of ministers, all the lower ministries were entrusted to the deacons, as Dionysius | |
| 9446 says (Eccl. Hier. iii), where he says: "Some of the ministers stand at the closed door of the Church, others are otherwise | |
| 9447 occupied in the exercise of their own order; others place the sacred bread and the chalice of benediction on the altar and | |
| 9448 offer them to the priests." Nevertheless all the power to do all these things | |
| 9449 was included in the one power of the deacon, though implicitly. But afterwards the Divine worship developed, and the Church | |
| 9450 committed expressly to several persons that which had hitherto been committed implicitly in one Order. This is what the Master | |
| 9451 means, when He says in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24) that the Church instituted other Orders. | |
| 9452 </p> | |
| 9453 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p10"> | |
| 9454 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The orders are directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist chiefly, and to the other sacraments consequently, for even the | |
| 9455 other sacraments flow from that which is contained in that sacrament. Hence it does not follow that the orders ought to be | |
| 9456 distinguished according to the sacraments. | |
| 9457 </p> | |
| 9458 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p11"> | |
| 9459 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The angels differ specifically [*Cf. | |
| 9460 <a id="XP_Q37_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q50_A4.html">FP, Q[50], A[4]</a>]: for this reason it is possible for them to have various modes of receiving Divine things, and hence also they are divided | |
| 9461 into various hierarchies. But in men there is only one hierarchy, because they have only one mode of receiving Divine things, | |
| 9462 which results from the human species, namely through the images of sensible objects. Consequently the distinction of orders | |
| 9463 in | |
| 9464 the angels cannot bear any relation to a sacrament as it is with us, but only a relation to the hierarchical actions which | |
| 9465 among them each Order exercises on the Orders below. In this respect our Orders correspond to theirs; since in our hierarchy | |
| 9466 there are three Orders, distinguished according to the three hierarchical actions, even as in each angelic hierarchy. | |
| 9467 </p> | |
| 9468 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p12"> | |
| 9469 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The office of psalmist is not an Order, but an office annexed to an Order. For the psalmist is also styled precentor because | |
| 9470 the psalms are recited with chant. Now precentor is not the name of a special Order, both because it belongs to the whole | |
| 9471 choir to sing, and because he has no special relation to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Since, however, it is a particular | |
| 9472 office, it is sometimes reckoned among the Orders, taking these in a broad | |
| 9473 sense. | |
| 9474 </p> | |
| 9475 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 9476 <p id="XP_Q37_A2-p14"></p> | |
| 9477 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9478 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A3.html"></a> | |
| 9479 </div> | |
| 9480 <div id="XP_Q37_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 9481 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9482 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A4.html"></a> | |
| 9483 <h4 id="XP_Q37_A3-p0.1">Whether the Order should be divided into those that are sacred and those that are not?</h4> | |
| 9484 <p id="XP_Q37_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 9485 <p id="XP_Q37_A3-p2"> | |
| 9486 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Orders ought not to be divided into those that are sacred and those that are not. For all the Orders | |
| 9487 are sacraments, and all the sacraments are sacred. Therefore all the Orders are sacred. | |
| 9488 </p> | |
| 9489 <p id="XP_Q37_A3-p3"> | |
| 9490 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by the Orders of the Church a man is not appointed to any other than Divine offices. Now all these are sacred. Therefore | |
| 9491 all the Orders also are sacred. | |
| 9492 </p> | |
| 9493 <p id="XP_Q37_A3-p4"> | |
| 9494 <b>On the contrary,</b> The sacred Orders are an impediment to the contracting of marriage and annul the marriage that is already contracted. But | |
| 9495 the four lower orders neither impede the contracting nor annul the contract. Therefore these are not sacred Orders. | |
| 9496 </p> | |
| 9497 <p id="XP_Q37_A3-p5"> | |
| 9498 <b>I answer that,</b> An Order is said to be sacred in two ways. First, in itself, and thus every order is sacred, since it is a sacrament. Secondly, | |
| 9499 by reason of the matter about which it exercises an act, and thus an Order is called sacred, if it exercises an act about | |
| 9500 some consecrated thing. In this sense there are only three sacred Orders, namely the priesthood and diaconate, which exercise | |
| 9501 an act about the consecrated body and blood of Christ, and the subdiaconate, which | |
| 9502 exercises an act about the consecrated vessels. Wherefore continency is enjoined them, that they who handle holy things may | |
| 9503 themselves be holy and clean. | |
| 9504 </p> | |
| 9505 <p id="XP_Q37_A3-p6"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 9506 <p id="XP_Q37_A3-p7"></p> | |
| 9507 <p id="XP_Q37_A3-p8"></p> | |
| 9508 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9509 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A4.html"></a> | |
| 9510 </div> | |
| 9511 <div id="XP_Q37_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 9512 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A3.html"></a> | |
| 9513 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A5.html"></a> | |
| 9514 <h4 id="XP_Q37_A4-p0.1">Whether the acts of the Orders are rightly assigned in the text?</h4> | |
| 9515 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 9516 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p2"> | |
| 9517 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the acts of the Orders are not rightly assigned in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Because a person is prepared | |
| 9518 by absolution to receive Christ's body. Now the preparation of the recipients of a sacrament belongs to the lower Orders. | |
| 9519 Therefore absolution from sins is unfittingly reckoned among the acts of a priest. | |
| 9520 </p> | |
| 9521 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p3"> | |
| 9522 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, man is made like to God immediately in Baptism, by receiving the character which causes this likeness. But prayer | |
| 9523 and the offering of oblations are acts directed immediately to God. Therefore every baptized person can perform these acts, | |
| 9524 and not priests alone. | |
| 9525 </p> | |
| 9526 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p4"> | |
| 9527 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, different Orders have different acts. But it belongs to the subdeacon to place the oblations on the altar, and to | |
| 9528 read the epistle; and subdeacons carry the cross before the Pope. Therefore these acts should not be assigned to the deacon. | |
| 9529 </p> | |
| 9530 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p5"> | |
| 9531 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the same truth is contained in the Old and in the New Testament. But it belongs to the readers to read the Old Testament. | |
| 9532 Therefore it should belong to them likewise, and not to deacons, to read the New Testament. | |
| 9533 </p> | |
| 9534 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p6"> | |
| 9535 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the apostles preached naught else but the gospel of Christ ( | |
| 9536 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.15" target="asv">Rom. 1:15</a>). But the teaching of the apostles is entrusted to subdeacons to be read by them. Therefore the Gospel teaching should be | |
| 9537 also. | |
| 9538 </p> | |
| 9539 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p7"> | |
| 9540 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) that which belongs to a higher Order should not be applicable to a lower | |
| 9541 Order. But it is an act of subdeacons to minister with the cruets. Therefore it should not be assigned to acolytes. | |
| 9542 </p> | |
| 9543 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p8"> | |
| 9544 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, spiritual actions should rank above bodily actions. But the acolyte's act is merely corporeal. Therefore the exorcist | |
| 9545 has not the spiritual act of casting out devils, since he is of inferior rank. | |
| 9546 </p> | |
| 9547 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p9"> | |
| 9548 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, things that have most in common should be placed beside one another. Now the reading of the Old Testament must needs | |
| 9549 have most in common with the reading of the New Testament, which latter belongs to the higher ministers. Therefore the reading | |
| 9550 of the Old Testament should be reckoned the act, not of the reader, but rather of the acolyte; especially since the bodily | |
| 9551 light which the acolytes carry signifies the light of spiritual doctrine. | |
| 9552 </p> | |
| 9553 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p10"> | |
| 9554 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, in every act of a special Order, there should be some special power, which the person ordained has to the exclusion | |
| 9555 of other persons. But in opening and shutting doors the doorkeeper has no special power that other men have not. Therefore | |
| 9556 this should not be reckoned their act. | |
| 9557 </p> | |
| 9558 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p11"> | |
| 9559 <b>I answer that,</b> Since the consecration conferred in the sacrament of orders is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, as stated above | |
| 9560 | |
| 9561 <a id="XP_Q37_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q37_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, the principal act of each order is that whereby it is most nearly directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. In this respect, | |
| 9562 too, one order ranks above another, in so far as one act is more nearly directed to that same sacrament. But because many | |
| 9563 things are directed to the Eucharist, as being the most | |
| 9564 exalted of the sacraments, it follows not unfittingly that one Order has many acts besides its principal act, and all the | |
| 9565 more, as it ranks higher, since a power extends to the more things, the higher it is. | |
| 9566 </p> | |
| 9567 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p12"> | |
| 9568 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The preparation of the recipients of a sacrament is twofold. One is remote and is effected by the ministers: another is proximate, | |
| 9569 whereby they are rendered apt at once for receiving the sacraments. This latter belongs to priests, since even in natural | |
| 9570 things matter receives from one and the same agent both the ultimate disposition to the form, and the form itself. And since | |
| 9571 a person acquires the proximate disposition to the Eucharist by being | |
| 9572 cleansed from sin, it follows that the priest is the proper minister of all those sacraments which are chiefly instituted | |
| 9573 for the cleansing of sins, namely Baptism, Penance, and Extreme Unction. | |
| 9574 </p> | |
| 9575 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p13"> | |
| 9576 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Acts are directed immediately to God in two ways; in one way on the part of one person only, for instance the prayers of | |
| 9577 individuals, vows, and so forth: such acts befit any baptized person. In another way on the part of the whole Church, and | |
| 9578 thus the priest alone exercises acts immediately directed to God; because to impersonate the whole Church belongs to him alone | |
| 9579 who consecrates the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the universal Church. | |
| 9580 </p> | |
| 9581 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p14"> | |
| 9582 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The offerings made by the people are offered through the priest. Hence a twofold ministry is necessary with regard to offerings. | |
| 9583 One on the part of the people: and this belongs to the subdeacon who receives the offerings from the people and places them | |
| 9584 on the altar or offers them to the deacon. the other is on the part of the priest, and belongs to the deacon, who hands the | |
| 9585 offerings to the priest. This is the principal act of both Orders, and for | |
| 9586 this reason the deacon's Order is the higher. But to read the epistle does not belong to a deacon, except as the acts of lower | |
| 9587 Orders are ascribed to the higher; and in like manner to carry the cross. Moreover, this depends on the customs of Churches, | |
| 9588 because in secondary acts it is not unfitting for customs to vary. | |
| 9589 </p> | |
| 9590 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p15"> | |
| 9591 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Doctrine is a remote preparation for the reception of a sacrament; wherefore the announcement of doctrine is entrusted to | |
| 9592 the ministers. But the doctrine of the Old Testament is more remote than that of the New Testament, since it contains no instruction | |
| 9593 about this sacrament except in figures. Hence announcing of the New Testament is entrusted to the higher ministers, and that | |
| 9594 of the Old Testament to the lower ministers. Moreover the doctrine of the | |
| 9595 New Testament is more perfect as delivered by our Lord Himself, than as made known by His apostles. Wherefore the Gospel is | |
| 9596 committed to deacons and the Epistle to subdeacons. | |
| 9597 </p> | |
| 9598 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p16"> This suffices for the Reply to the Fifth Objection.</p> | |
| 9599 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p17"> | |
| 9600 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Acolytes exercise an act over the cruet alone, and not over the contents of the cruet; whereas the subdeacon exercises an | |
| 9601 act over the contents of the cruet, because he handles the water and wine to the end that they be put into the chalice,* and | |
| 9602 again he pours the water over the hands of the priest; and the deacon, like the subdeacon, exercises an act over the chalice | |
| 9603 only, not over its contents, whereas the priest exercises an act over the contents. | |
| 9604 [*The wording of St. Thomas is sufficiently vague to refer either to the Roman rite, where the priest pours the wine and water | |
| 9605 into the chalice, or to the Dominican rite, where this is done by the subdeacon.] Wherefore as the subdeacon at his ordination | |
| 9606 receives an empty chalice, while the priest receives a full chalice, so the acolyte receives an empty cruet, but the subdeacon | |
| 9607 a full one. Thus there is a certain connection among the Orders. | |
| 9608 </p> | |
| 9609 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p18"> | |
| 9610 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The bodily acts of the acolyte are more intimately connected with the act of Holy orders than the act of the exorcist, although | |
| 9611 the latter is, in a fashion, spiritual. For the acolytes exercise a ministry over the vessels in which the sacramental matter | |
| 9612 is contained, as regards the wine, which needs a vessel to hold it on account of its humidity. Hence of all the minor orders | |
| 9613 the Order of acolytes is the highest. | |
| 9614 </p> | |
| 9615 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p19"> | |
| 9616 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> The act of the acolyte is more closely connected with the principal acts of the higher ministers, than the acts of the other | |
| 9617 minor Orders, as is self-evident; and again as regards the secondary acts whereby they prepare the people by doctrine. For | |
| 9618 the acolyte by bearing a light represents the doctrine of the New Testament in a visible manner, while the reader by his recital | |
| 9619 represents it differently, wherefore the acolyte is of higher rank. It is the | |
| 9620 same with the exorcist, for as the act of the reader is compared with the secondary act of the deacon and subdeacon, so is | |
| 9621 the act of the exorcist compared with the secondary act of the priest, namely to bind and to loose, by which man is wholly | |
| 9622 freed from the slavery of the devil. This, too, shows the degrees of Order to be most orderly. since only the three higher | |
| 9623 Orders co-operate with the priest in his principal act which is to consecrate the body of Christ, while both the higher and | |
| 9624 lower | |
| 9625 Orders co-operate with him in his secondary act, which is to loose and bind. | |
| 9626 </p> | |
| 9627 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p20"> | |
| 9628 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> Some say that in receiving the Order the doorkeeper is given a Divine power to debar others from entering the Church, even | |
| 9629 as Christ had, when He cast out the sellers from the Temple. But this belongs to a gratuitous grace rather than to a sacramental | |
| 9630 grace. Wherefore we should reply that he receives the power to do this by virtue of his office, although others may do so, | |
| 9631 but not officially. It is the case in all the acts of the minor Orders, that | |
| 9632 they can be lawfully exercised by others, even though these have no office to that effect: just as Mass may be said in an | |
| 9633 unconsecrated building, although the consecration of a church is directed to the purpose that Mass be said there. | |
| 9634 </p> | |
| 9635 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p21"></p> | |
| 9636 <p id="XP_Q37_A4-p22"></p> | |
| 9637 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A3.html"></a> | |
| 9638 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A5.html"></a> | |
| 9639 </div> | |
| 9640 <div id="XP_Q37_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 9641 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A4.html"></a> | |
| 9642 <a href="summa.XP_Q38.html"></a> | |
| 9643 <h4 id="XP_Q37_A5-p0.1">Whether the character is imprinted on a priest when the chalice is handed to him?</h4> | |
| 9644 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 9645 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p2"> | |
| 9646 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the character is not imprinted on the priest at the moment when the chalice is handed to him. For the | |
| 9647 consecration of a priest is done by anointing as in Confirmation. Now in Confirmation the character is imprinted at the moment | |
| 9648 of anointing; and therefore in the priesthood also and not at the handing of the chalice. | |
| 9649 </p> | |
| 9650 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p3"> | |
| 9651 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord gave His disciples the priestly power when He said ( | |
| 9652 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.22" target="asv">Jn. 20:22,23</a>): "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive," etc. Now the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition of hands. | |
| 9653 Therefore the character of order is given at the moment of the imposition of hands. | |
| 9654 </p> | |
| 9655 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p4"> | |
| 9656 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as the ministers are consecrated, even so are the ministers' vestments. Now the blessing alone consecrates the vestments. | |
| 9657 Therefore the consecration of the priest also is effected by the mere blessing of the bishop. | |
| 9658 </p> | |
| 9659 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p5"> | |
| 9660 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, as a chalice is handed to the priest, even so is the priestly vestment. Therefore if a character is imprinted at | |
| 9661 the giving of the chalice, so likewise is there at the giving of the chasuble, and thus a priest would have two characters: | |
| 9662 but this is false. | |
| 9663 </p> | |
| 9664 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p6"> | |
| 9665 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the deacon's order is more closely allied to the priest's Order than is the subdeacon's. But if a character is imprinted | |
| 9666 on the priest at the moment of the handing of the chalice, the subdeacon would be more closely allied to the priest than the | |
| 9667 deacon; because the subdeacon receives the character at the handing of the chalice and not the deacon. Therefore the priestly | |
| 9668 character is not imprinted at the handing of the chalice. | |
| 9669 </p> | |
| 9670 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p7"> | |
| 9671 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the Order of acolytes approaches nearer to the priestly act by exercising an act over the cruet than by exercising | |
| 9672 an act over the torch. Yet the character is imprinted on the acolytes when they receive the torch rather than when they receive | |
| 9673 the cruet, because the name of acolyte signifies candle-bearer. Therefore the character is not imprinted on the priest when | |
| 9674 he receives the chalice. | |
| 9675 </p> | |
| 9676 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p8"> | |
| 9677 <b>On the contrary,</b> The principal act of the priest's Order is to consecrate Christ's body. Now he receives the power to this effect at the handing | |
| 9678 of the chalice. Therefore the character is imprinted on him then. | |
| 9679 </p> | |
| 9680 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p9"> | |
| 9681 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[4], ad 1), to cause the form and to give the matter its proximate preparation for the form belong to the | |
| 9682 same agent. Wherefore the bishop in conferring orders does two things; for he prepares the candidates for the reception of | |
| 9683 orders, and delivers to them the power of order. He prepares them, both by instructing them in their respective offices and | |
| 9684 by doing something to them, so that they may be adapted to receive the power. This | |
| 9685 preparation consists of three things, namely blessing, imposition of hands, and anointing. By the blessing they are enlisted | |
| 9686 in the Divine service, wherefore the blessing is given to all. By the imposition of hands the fulness of grace is given, whereby | |
| 9687 they are qualified for exalted duties, wherefore only deacons and priests receive the imposition of hands, because they are | |
| 9688 competent to dispense the sacraments, although the latter as principal dispensers, the former as ministers. But by the | |
| 9689 anointing they are consecrated for the purpose of handling the sacrament, wherefore the anointing is done to the priests alone | |
| 9690 who touch the body of Christ with their own hands; even as a chalice is anointed because it holds the blood, and the paten | |
| 9691 because it holds the body. | |
| 9692 </p> | |
| 9693 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p10"> The conferring of power is effected by giving them something pertaining to their proper act. And since the principal act | |
| 9694 of a priest is to consecrate the body and blood of Christ, the priestly character is imprinted at the very giving of the chalice | |
| 9695 under the prescribed form of words. | |
| 9696 </p> | |
| 9697 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p11"> | |
| 9698 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In Confirmation there is not given the office of exercising an act on an exterior matter, wherefore the character is not | |
| 9699 imprinted in that sacrament at the handing of some particular thing, but at the mere imposition of hands and anointing. But | |
| 9700 it is otherwise in the priestly Order, and consequently the comparison fails. | |
| 9701 </p> | |
| 9702 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p12"> | |
| 9703 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Our Lord gave His disciples the priestly power, as regards the principal act, before His passion at the supper when He said: | |
| 9704 "Take ye and eat" ( | |
| 9705 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A5-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.26" target="asv">Mat. 26:26</a>), wherefore He added: "Do this for a commemoration of Me" ( | |
| 9706 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q37_A5-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv">Lk. 22:19</a>). After the resurrection, however, He gave them the priestly power, as to its secondary act, which is to bind and loose. | |
| 9707 </p> | |
| 9708 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p13"> | |
| 9709 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Vestments require no other consecration except to be set aside for the Divine worship, wherefore the blessing suffices for | |
| 9710 their consecration. But it is different with those who are ordained, as explained above. | |
| 9711 </p> | |
| 9712 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p14"> | |
| 9713 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The priestly vestment signifies, not the power given to the priest, but the aptitude required of him for exercising the act | |
| 9714 of that power. Wherefore a character is imprinted neither on the priest nor on anyone else at the giving of a vestment. | |
| 9715 </p> | |
| 9716 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p15"> | |
| 9717 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The deacon's power is midway between the subdeacon's and the priest's. For the priest exercises a power directly on Christ's | |
| 9718 body, the subdeacon on the vessels only, and the deacon on Christ's body contained in a vessel. Hence it is not for him to | |
| 9719 touch Christ's body, but to carry the body on the paten, and to dispense the blood with the chalice. Consequently his power, | |
| 9720 as to the principal act, could not be expressed, either by the giving of the | |
| 9721 vessel only, or by the giving of the matter; and his power is expressed as to the secondary act alone, by his receiving the | |
| 9722 book of the Gospels, and this power is understood to contain the other; wherefore the character is impressed at the handing | |
| 9723 of the book. | |
| 9724 </p> | |
| 9725 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p16"> | |
| 9726 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The act of the acolyte whereby he serves with the cruet ranks before his act of carrying the torch; although he takes his | |
| 9727 name from the secondary act, because it is better known and more proper to him. Hence the acolyte receives the character when | |
| 9728 he is given the cruet, by virtue of the words uttered by the bishop. | |
| 9729 </p> | |
| 9730 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p17"></p> | |
| 9731 <p id="XP_Q37_A5-p18"></p> | |
| 9732 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A4.html"></a> | |
| 9733 <a href="summa.XP_Q38.html"></a> | |
| 9734 </div> | |
| 9735 <a href="summa.XP_Q36_A5.html"></a> | |
| 9736 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9737 </div> | |
| 9738 <div id="XP_Q38" class="div3"> | |
| 9739 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A5.html"></a> | |
| 9740 <a href="summa.XP_Q38_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9741 <h3 id="XP_Q38-p0.1">OF THOSE WHO CONFER THIS SACRAMENT (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 9742 <p id="XP_Q38-p1"></p> | |
| 9743 <p id="XP_Q38-p2"> We must now consider those who confer this sacrament. Under this head there are two points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 9744 <p id="XP_Q38-p3"> (1) Whether a bishop alone can confer this sacrament?</p> | |
| 9745 <p id="XP_Q38-p4"> (2) Whether a heretic or any other person cut off from the Church can confer this sacrament?</p> | |
| 9746 <div id="XP_Q38_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 9747 <a href="summa.XP_Q38.html"></a> | |
| 9748 <a href="summa.XP_Q38_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9749 <h4 id="XP_Q38_A1-p0.1">Whether a bishop alone confers the sacrament of Order?</h4> | |
| 9750 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 9751 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p2"> | |
| 9752 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not only a bishop confers the sacrament of Order. For the imposition of hands has something to do with | |
| 9753 the consecration. Now not only the bishop but also the assisting priests lay hands on the priests who are being ordained. | |
| 9754 Therefore not only a bishop confers the sacrament of Order. | |
| 9755 </p> | |
| 9756 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p3"> | |
| 9757 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a man receives the power of Order, when that which pertains to the act of his Order is handed to him. Now the cruet | |
| 9758 with water, bowl* and towel, are given to the subdeacon by the archdeacon; as also the candlestick with candle, and the empty | |
| 9759 cruet to the acolyte. [*"Bacili." The rubric has "aquamanili." Some texts of the Summa have "mantili" ("maniple"), but the | |
| 9760 archdeacon does not give the maniple to the subdeacon.] Therefore not only the bishop | |
| 9761 confers the sacrament of Order. | |
| 9762 </p> | |
| 9763 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p4"> | |
| 9764 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which belongs to an Order cannot be entrusted to one who has not the Order. Now the conferring of minor Orders | |
| 9765 is entrusted to certain persons who are not bishops, for instance to Cardinal priests. Therefore the conferring of Orders | |
| 9766 does not belong to the episcopal Order. | |
| 9767 </p> | |
| 9768 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p5"> | |
| 9769 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, whoever is entrusted with the principal is entrusted with the accessory also. Now the sacrament of Order is directed | |
| 9770 to the Eucharist, as accessory to principal. Since then a priest consecrates the Eucharist, he can also confer Orders. | |
| 9771 </p> | |
| 9772 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p6"> | |
| 9773 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, there is a greater distinction between a priest and a deacon than between bishop and bishop. But a bishop can consecrate | |
| 9774 a bishop. Therefore a priest can ordain a deacon. | |
| 9775 </p> | |
| 9776 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p7"> | |
| 9777 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ministers are applied by their Orders to the Divine worship in a more noble way than the sacred vessels. But the consecration | |
| 9778 of the vessels belongs to a bishop only. Much more therefore does the consecration of ministers. | |
| 9779 </p> | |
| 9780 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p8"> Further, the sacrament of Order ranks higher than the sacrament of Confirmation. Now a bishop alone confirms. Much more therefore | |
| 9781 does a bishop alone confer the sacrament of Order. | |
| 9782 </p> | |
| 9783 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p9"> Further, virgins are not placed in a degree of spiritual power by their consecration, as the ordained are. Yet a bishop alone | |
| 9784 can consecrate a virgin. Therefore much more can he alone ordain. | |
| 9785 </p> | |
| 9786 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p10"> | |
| 9787 <b>I answer that,</b> The episcopal power stands in the same relation to the power of the lower Orders, as political science, which seeks the common | |
| 9788 good, to the lower acts and virtues which seek some special good, as appears from what was said above ( | |
| 9789 <a id="XP_Q38_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q37_A1.html">Q[37], A[1]</a>). Now political science, as stated in Ethic. i, 2, lays down the law to lower sciences, namely what science each one ought | |
| 9790 to cultivate, and how far he should pursue it and in what way. Wherefore | |
| 9791 it belongs to a bishop to assign others to places in all the Divine services. Hence he alone confirms, because those who are | |
| 9792 confirmed receive the office, as it were, of confessing the faith; again he alone blesses virgins who are images of the Church, | |
| 9793 Christ's spouse, the care of which is entrusted chiefly to him; and he it is who consecrates the candidates for ordination | |
| 9794 to the ministry of Orders, and, by his consecration, appoints the vessels that they are to use; even as secular offices in | |
| 9795 various cities are allotted by him who holds the highest power, for instance by the king. | |
| 9796 </p> | |
| 9797 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p11"> | |
| 9798 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above ( | |
| 9799 <a id="XP_Q38_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q37_A5.html">Q[37], A[5]</a>), at the imposition of hands there is given, not the character of the priestly Order, but grace which makes a man fit to | |
| 9800 exercise his Order. And since those who are raised to the priesthood need most copious grace, the priests together with the | |
| 9801 bishop lay hands on them, but the bishop alone lays hands on deacons. | |
| 9802 </p> | |
| 9803 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p12"> | |
| 9804 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Since the archdeacon is as it were minister-in-chief, all things pertaining to the ministry are handed by him, for instance | |
| 9805 the candle with which the acolyte serves the deacon by carrying it before him at the Gospel, and the cruet with which he serves | |
| 9806 the subdeacon; and in like manner he gives the subdeacon the things with which the latter serves the higher Orders. And yet | |
| 9807 the principal act of the subdeacon does not consist in these things, but in his | |
| 9808 co-operation as regards the matter of the sacrament; wherefore he receives the character through the chalice being handed | |
| 9809 to him by the bishop. On the other hand, the acolyte receives the character by virtue of the words of the bishop when the | |
| 9810 aforesaid things---the cruet rather than the candlestick---are handed to him by the archdeacon. Hence it does not follow that | |
| 9811 the archdeacon ordains. | |
| 9812 </p> | |
| 9813 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p13"> | |
| 9814 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Pope, who has the fulness of episcopal power, can entrust one who is not a bishop with things pertaining to the episcopal | |
| 9815 dignity, provided they bear no immediate relation to the true body of Christ. Hence by virtue of his commission a simple priest | |
| 9816 can confer the minor Orders and confirm; but not one who is not a priest. Nor can a priest confer the higher Orders which | |
| 9817 bear an immediate relation to Christ's body, over the consecration of which the | |
| 9818 Pope's power is no greater than that of a simple priest. | |
| 9819 </p> | |
| 9820 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p14"> | |
| 9821 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although the Eucharist is in itself the greatest of the sacraments, it does not place a man in an office as does the sacrament | |
| 9822 of Order. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 9823 </p> | |
| 9824 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p15"> | |
| 9825 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> In order to bestow what one has on another, it is necessary not only to be near him but also to have fulness of power. And | |
| 9826 since a priest has not fulness of power in the hierarchical offices, as a bishop has, it does not follow that he can raise | |
| 9827 others to the diaconate, although the latter Order is near to his. | |
| 9828 </p> | |
| 9829 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p16"></p> | |
| 9830 <p id="XP_Q38_A1-p17"></p> | |
| 9831 <a href="summa.XP_Q38.html"></a> | |
| 9832 <a href="summa.XP_Q38_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9833 </div> | |
| 9834 <div id="XP_Q38_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 9835 <a href="summa.XP_Q38_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9836 <a href="summa.XP_Q39.html"></a> | |
| 9837 <h4 id="XP_Q38_A2-p0.1">Whether heretics and those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders? [*Cf. TP, Q[64], AA[5],9] </h4> | |
| 9838 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 9839 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p2"> | |
| 9840 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that heretics and those who are cut off from the Church cannot confer Orders. For to confer Orders is a greater | |
| 9841 thing than to loose or bind anyone. But a heretic cannot loose or bind. Neither therefore can he ordain. | |
| 9842 </p> | |
| 9843 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p3"> | |
| 9844 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a priest that is separated from the Church can consecrate, because the character whence he derives this power remains | |
| 9845 in him indelibly. But a bishop receives no character when he is raised to the episcopate. Therefore he does not necessarily | |
| 9846 retain the episcopal power after his separation from the Church. | |
| 9847 </p> | |
| 9848 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p4"> | |
| 9849 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in no community can one who is expelled therefrom dispose of the offices of the community. Now Orders are offices | |
| 9850 of the Church. Therefore one who is outside the Church cannot confer Orders. | |
| 9851 </p> | |
| 9852 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p5"> | |
| 9853 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's passion. Now a heretic is not united to Christ's passion; neither | |
| 9854 by his own faith, since he is an unbeliever, nor by the faith of the Church, since he is severed from the Church. Therefore | |
| 9855 he cannot confer the sacrament of Orders. | |
| 9856 </p> | |
| 9857 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p6"> | |
| 9858 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a blessing is necessary in the conferring of Orders. But a heretic cannot bless; in fact his blessing is turned | |
| 9859 into a curse, as appears from the authorities quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 25). Therefore he cannot ordain. | |
| 9860 </p> | |
| 9861 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p7"> | |
| 9862 <b>On the contrary,</b> When a bishop who has fallen into heresy is reconciled he is not reconsecrated. Therefore he did not lose the power which | |
| 9863 he had of conferring Orders. | |
| 9864 </p> | |
| 9865 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p8"> Further, the power to ordain is greater than the power of Orders. But the power of Orders is not forfeited on account of | |
| 9866 heresy and the like. Neither therefore is the power to ordain. | |
| 9867 </p> | |
| 9868 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p9"> Further, as the one who baptizes exercises a merely outward ministry, so does one who ordains, while God works inwardly. | |
| 9869 But one who is cut off from the Church by no means loses the power to baptize. Neither therefore does he lose the power to | |
| 9870 ordain. | |
| 9871 </p> | |
| 9872 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p10"> | |
| 9873 <b>I answer that,</b> on this question four opinions are mentioned in the text (Sent. iv, D, 25). For some said that heretics, so long as they | |
| 9874 are tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but not after they have been cut off from the Church; as neither | |
| 9875 do those who have been degraded and the like. This is the first opinion. Yet this is impossible, because, happen what may, | |
| 9876 no power that is given with a consecration can be taken away so long as the thing itself | |
| 9877 remains, any more than the consecration itself can be annulled, for even an altar or chrism once consecrated remains consecrated | |
| 9878 for ever. Wherefore, since the episcopal power is conferred by consecration, it must needs endure for ever, however much a | |
| 9879 man may sin or be cut off from the Church. For this reason others said that those who are cut off from the Church after having | |
| 9880 episcopal power in the Church, retain the power to ordain and raise others, but that those who are raised by them have | |
| 9881 not this power. This is the fourth opinion. But this again is impossible, for if those who were ordained in the Church retain | |
| 9882 the power they received, it is clear that by exercising their power they consecrate validly, and therefore they validly confer | |
| 9883 whatever power is given with that consecration, and thus those who receive ordination or promotion from them have the same | |
| 9884 power as they. Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and the other | |
| 9885 sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the | |
| 9886 sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect which is the conferring of grace. This is the second opinion. But this again is inadmissible, | |
| 9887 since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the Church, he sins, | |
| 9888 and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a case of | |
| 9889 necessity. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments | |
| 9890 are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition | |
| 9891 of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion. | |
| 9892 </p> | |
| 9893 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p11"> | |
| 9894 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The effect of absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic | |
| 9895 cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is necessary to | |
| 9896 have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not. | |
| 9897 </p> | |
| 9898 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p12"> | |
| 9899 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When a man is raised to the episcopate he receives a power which he retains for ever. This, however, cannot be called a character, | |
| 9900 because a man is not thereby placed in direct relation to God, but to Christ's mystical body. Nevertheless it remains indelibly | |
| 9901 even as the character, because it is given by consecration. | |
| 9902 </p> | |
| 9903 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p13"> | |
| 9904 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those who are ordained by heretics, although they receive an Order, do not receive the exercise thereof, so as to minister | |
| 9905 lawfully in their Orders, for the very reason indicated in the Objection. | |
| 9906 </p> | |
| 9907 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p14"> | |
| 9908 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> They are united to the passion of Christ by the faith of the Church, for although in themselves they are severed from it, | |
| 9909 they are united to it as regards the form of the Church which they observe. | |
| 9910 </p> | |
| 9911 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p15"> | |
| 9912 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> This refers to the ultimate effect of the sacraments, as the third opinion maintains. | |
| 9913 </p> | |
| 9914 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p16"></p> | |
| 9915 <p id="XP_Q38_A2-p17"></p> | |
| 9916 <a href="summa.XP_Q38_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9917 <a href="summa.XP_Q39.html"></a> | |
| 9918 </div> | |
| 9919 <a href="summa.XP_Q37_A5.html"></a> | |
| 9920 <a href="summa.XP_Q38_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9921 </div> | |
| 9922 <div id="XP_Q39" class="div3"> | |
| 9923 <a href="summa.XP_Q38_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9924 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A1.html"></a> | |
| 9925 <h3 id="XP_Q39-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 9926 <p id="XP_Q39-p1"></p> | |
| 9927 <p id="XP_Q39-p2"> We must next consider the impediments to this sacrament. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 9928 <p id="XP_Q39-p3"> (1) Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving this sacrament?</p> | |
| 9929 <p id="XP_Q39-p4"> (2) Whether lack of the use of reason is?</p> | |
| 9930 <p id="XP_Q39-p5"> (3) Whether the state of slavery is?</p> | |
| 9931 <p id="XP_Q39-p6"> (4) Whether homicide is?</p> | |
| 9932 <p id="XP_Q39-p7"> (5) Whether illegitimate birth is?</p> | |
| 9933 <p id="XP_Q39-p8"> (6) Whether lack of members is?</p> | |
| 9934 <div id="XP_Q39_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 9935 <a href="summa.XP_Q39.html"></a> | |
| 9936 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9937 <h4 id="XP_Q39_A1-p0.1">Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders?</h4> | |
| 9938 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 9939 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p2"> | |
| 9940 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the female sex is no impediment to receiving Orders. For the office of prophet is greater than the office | |
| 9941 of priest, since a prophet stands midway between God and priests, just as the priest does between God and people. Now the | |
| 9942 office of prophet was sometimes granted to women, as may be gathered from | |
| 9943 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">4 Kings 22:14.</a> Therefore the office of priest also may be competent to them. | |
| 9944 </p> | |
| 9945 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p3"> | |
| 9946 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as Order pertains to a kind of pre-eminence, so does a position of authority as well as martyrdom and the religious | |
| 9947 state. Now authority is entrusted to women in the New Testament, as in the case of abbesses, and in the Old Testament, as | |
| 9948 in the case of Debbora, who judged Israel ( | |
| 9949 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Judg.2" target="asv">Judges 2</a>). Moreover martyrdom and the religious life are also befitting to them. Therefore the Orders of the Church are also competent | |
| 9950 to them. | |
| 9951 </p> | |
| 9952 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p4"> | |
| 9953 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the power of orders is founded in the soul. But sex is not in the soul. Therefore difference in sex makes no difference | |
| 9954 to the reception of Orders. | |
| 9955 </p> | |
| 9956 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p5"> | |
| 9957 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( | |
| 9958 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.12" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:12</a>): "I suffer not a woman to teach (in the Church),* nor to use authority over the man." [*The words in parenthesis are from | |
| 9959 | |
| 9960 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.14.34" target="asv">1 Cor. 14:34, </a> "Let women keep silence in the churches."] | |
| 9961 </p> | |
| 9962 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p6"> Further, the crown is required previous to receiving Orders, albeit not for the validity of the sacrament. But the crown | |
| 9963 or tonsure is not befitting to women according to | |
| 9964 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 11</a>. Neither therefore is the receiving of Orders. | |
| 9965 </p> | |
| 9966 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p7"> | |
| 9967 <b>I answer that,</b> Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if | |
| 9968 such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are | |
| 9969 required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without | |
| 9970 these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say | |
| 9971 that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though | |
| 9972 a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament | |
| 9973 is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated | |
| 9974 above ( | |
| 9975 <a id="XP_Q39_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q32_A2.html">Q[32], A[2]</a>) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify | |
| 9976 the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is | |
| 9977 in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order. Some, however, have asserted that the | |
| 9978 male sex is necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres | |
| 9979 dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i) mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess there denotes a woman | |
| 9980 who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow, | |
| 9981 for the word "presbyter" means elder. | |
| 9982 </p> | |
| 9983 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p8"> | |
| 9984 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Prophecy is not a sacrament but a gift of God. Wherefore there it is not the signification, but only the thing which is necessary. | |
| 9985 And since in matters pertaining to the soul woman does not differ from man as to the thing (for sometimes a woman is found | |
| 9986 to be better than many men as regards the soul), it follows that she can receive the gift of prophecy and the like, but not | |
| 9987 the sacrament of Orders. | |
| 9988 </p> | |
| 9989 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p9"> And thereby appears the Reply to the Second and Third Objections. However, as to abbesses, it is said that they have not | |
| 9990 ordinary authority, but delegated as it were, on account of the danger of men and women living together. But Debbora exercised | |
| 9991 authority in temporal, not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal power. | |
| 9992 </p> | |
| 9993 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p10"></p> | |
| 9994 <p id="XP_Q39_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 9995 <a href="summa.XP_Q39.html"></a> | |
| 9996 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A2.html"></a> | |
| 9997 </div> | |
| 9998 <div id="XP_Q39_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 9999 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10000 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10001 <h4 id="XP_Q39_A2-p0.1">Whether boys and those who lack the use of reason can receive Orders?</h4> | |
| 10002 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 10003 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p2"> | |
| 10004 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that boys and those who lack the use of reason cannot receive Orders. For, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, | |
| 10005 D, 25), the sacred canons have appointed a certain fixed age in those who receive Orders. But this would not be if boys could | |
| 10006 receive the sacrament of Orders. Therefore, etc. | |
| 10007 </p> | |
| 10008 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p3"> | |
| 10009 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacrament of Orders ranks above the sacrament of matrimony. Now children and those who lack the use of reason | |
| 10010 cannot contract matrimony. Neither therefore can they receive Orders. | |
| 10011 </p> | |
| 10012 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p4"> | |
| 10013 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, act and power are in the same subject, according to the Philosopher (De Somn. et Vigil. i). Now the act of Orders | |
| 10014 requires the use of reason. Therefore the power of Orders does also. | |
| 10015 </p> | |
| 10016 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p5"> | |
| 10017 <b>On the contrary,</b> one who is raised to Orders before the age of discretion is sometimes allowed to exercise them without being reordained, | |
| 10018 as appears from Extra., De Cler. per salt. prom. But this would not be the case if he had not received Orders. Therefore a | |
| 10019 boy can receive Orders. | |
| 10020 </p> | |
| 10021 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p6"> Further, boys can receive other sacraments in which a character is imprinted, namely Baptism and Confirmation. Therefore | |
| 10022 in like manner they can receive Orders. | |
| 10023 </p> | |
| 10024 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p7"> | |
| 10025 <b>I answer that,</b> Boyhood and other defects which remove the use of reason occasion an impediment to act. Wherefore the like are unfit to receive | |
| 10026 all those sacraments which require an act on the part of the recipient of the sacrament, such as Penance, Matrimony, and so | |
| 10027 forth. But since infused powers like natural powers precede acts---although acquired powers follow acts---and the removal | |
| 10028 of that which comes after does not entail the removal of what comes first, it follows | |
| 10029 that children and those who lack the use of reason can receive all the sacraments in which an act on the part of the recipient | |
| 10030 is not required for the validity of the sacrament, but some spiritual power is conferred from above; with this difference, | |
| 10031 however, that in the minor orders the age of discretion is required out of respect for the dignity of the sacrament, but not | |
| 10032 for its lawfulness, nor for its validity. Hence some can without sin be raised to the minor orders before the years of | |
| 10033 discretion, if there be an urgent reason for it and hope of their proficiency. and they are validly ordained; for although | |
| 10034 at the time they are not qualified for the offices entrusted to them, they will become qualified by being habituated thereto. | |
| 10035 For the higher Orders, however, the use of reason is required both out of respect for, and for the lawfulness of the sacrament, | |
| 10036 not only on account of the vow of continency annexed thereto, but also because the handling of the sacraments is entrusted | |
| 10037 to them [*See Acts of the Council of Trent: De Reform., Sess. xxii, cap. 4,11,12]. But for the episcopate whereby a man receives | |
| 10038 power also over the mystical body, the act of accepting the pastoral care of souls is required; wherefore the use of reason | |
| 10039 is necessary for the validity of episcopal consecration. Some, however, maintain that the use of reason is necessary for the | |
| 10040 validity of the sacrament in all the Orders. but this statement is not confirmed either by authority or by reason. | |
| 10041 </p> | |
| 10042 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p8"> | |
| 10043 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated in the Article, not all that is necessary for the lawfulness of a sacrament is required for its validity. | |
| 10044 </p> | |
| 10045 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p9"> | |
| 10046 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The cause of matrimony is consent, which cannot be without the use of reason. Whereas in the reception of Orders no act is | |
| 10047 required on the part of the recipients since no act on their part is expressed in their consecration. Hence there is no comparison. | |
| 10048 </p> | |
| 10049 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p10"> | |
| 10050 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Act and power are in the same subject; yet sometimes a power, such as the free-will, precedes its act; and thus it is in | |
| 10051 the case in point. | |
| 10052 </p> | |
| 10053 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 10054 <p id="XP_Q39_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 10055 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10056 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10057 </div> | |
| 10058 <div id="XP_Q39_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 10059 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10060 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A4.html"></a> | |
| 10061 <h4 id="XP_Q39_A3-p0.1">Whether the state of slavery is an impediment to receiving Orders?</h4> | |
| 10062 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 10063 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p2"> | |
| 10064 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the state of slavery is not an impediment to receiving Orders. For corporal subjection is not incompatible | |
| 10065 with spiritual authority. But in a slave there is corporal subjection. Therefore he is not hindered from receiving the spiritual | |
| 10066 authority which is given in orders. | |
| 10067 </p> | |
| 10068 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p3"> | |
| 10069 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which is an occasion for humility should not be an impediment to the reception of a sacrament. Now such is | |
| 10070 slavery, for the Apostle counsels a man, if possible, rather to remain in slavery ( | |
| 10071 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.21" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:21</a>). Therefore it should not hinder him from being raised to Orders. | |
| 10072 </p> | |
| 10073 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p4"> | |
| 10074 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is more disgraceful for a cleric to become a slave than for a slave to be made a cleric. Yet a cleric may lawfully | |
| 10075 be sold as a slave; for a bishop of Nola, Paulinus, to wit, sold himself as a slave as related by Gregory (Dial. iii). Much | |
| 10076 more therefore can a slave be made a cleric. | |
| 10077 </p> | |
| 10078 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p5"> | |
| 10079 <b>Objection 4:</b> On the contrary, It would seem that it is an impediment to the validity of the sacrament. For a woman, on account of her | |
| 10080 subjection, cannot receive the sacrament of Orders. But greater still is the subjection in a slave; since woman was not given | |
| 10081 to man as his handmaid (for which reason she was not made from his feet). Therefore neither can a slave receive this sacrament. | |
| 10082 </p> | |
| 10083 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p6"> | |
| 10084 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a man, from the fact that he receives an Order, is bound to minister in that Order. But he cannot at the same time | |
| 10085 serve his carnal master and exercise his spiritual ministry. Therefore it would seem that he cannot receive Orders, since | |
| 10086 the master must be indemnified. | |
| 10087 </p> | |
| 10088 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p7"> | |
| 10089 <b>I answer that,</b> By receiving Orders a man pledges himself to the Divine offices. And since no man can give what is not his, a slave who has | |
| 10090 not the disposal of himself, cannot be raised to Orders. If, however, he be raised, he receives the Order, because freedom | |
| 10091 is not required for the validity of the sacrament, although it is requisite for its lawfulness, since it hinders not the power, | |
| 10092 but the act only. The same reason applies to all who are under an obligation to others, | |
| 10093 such as those who are in debt and like persons. | |
| 10094 </p> | |
| 10095 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p8"> | |
| 10096 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The reception of spiritual power involves also an obligation to certain bodily actions, and consequently it is hindered by | |
| 10097 bodily subjection. | |
| 10098 </p> | |
| 10099 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p9"> | |
| 10100 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A man may take an occasion for humility from many other things which do not prove a hindrance to the exercise of Orders. | |
| 10101 </p> | |
| 10102 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p10"> | |
| 10103 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The blessed Paulinus did this out of the abundance of his charity, being led by the spirit of God; as was proved by the result | |
| 10104 of his action, since by his becoming a slave, many of his flock were freed from slavery. Hence we must not draw a conclusion | |
| 10105 from this particular instance, since "where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" ( | |
| 10106 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.17" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:17</a>). | |
| 10107 </p> | |
| 10108 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p11"> | |
| 10109 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The sacramental signs signify by reason of their natural likeness. Now a woman is a subject by her nature, whereas a slave | |
| 10110 is not. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 10111 </p> | |
| 10112 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p12"> | |
| 10113 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> If he be ordained, his master knowing and not dissenting, by this very fact he becomes a freedman. But if his master be in | |
| 10114 ignorance, the bishop and he who presented him are bound to pay the master double the slave's value, if they knew him to be | |
| 10115 a slave. Otherwise if the slave has possessions of his own, he is bound to buy his freedom, else he would have to return to | |
| 10116 the bondage of his master, notwithstanding the impossibility of his exercising his | |
| 10117 Order. | |
| 10118 </p> | |
| 10119 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 10120 <p id="XP_Q39_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 10121 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10122 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A4.html"></a> | |
| 10123 </div> | |
| 10124 <div id="XP_Q39_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 10125 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10126 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A5.html"></a> | |
| 10127 <h4 id="XP_Q39_A4-p0.1">Whether a man should be debarred from receiving Orders on account of homicide?</h4> | |
| 10128 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 10129 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p2"> | |
| 10130 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man ought not to be debarred from receiving Orders on account of homicide. Because our Orders originated | |
| 10131 with the office of the Levites, as stated in the previous Distinction (Sent. iv, D, 24). But the Levites consecrated their | |
| 10132 hands by shedding the blood of their brethren ( | |
| 10133 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.32.29" target="asv">Ex. 32:29</a>). Therefore neither should anyone in the New Testament be debarred from receiving Orders on account of the shedding of blood. | |
| 10134 </p> | |
| 10135 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p3"> | |
| 10136 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one should be debarred from a sacrament on account of an act of virtue. Now blood is sometimes shed for justice' | |
| 10137 sake, for instance by a judge; and he who has the office would sin if he did not shed it. Therefore he is not hindered on | |
| 10138 that account from receiving Orders. | |
| 10139 </p> | |
| 10140 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p4"> | |
| 10141 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, punishment is not due save for a fault. Now sometimes a person commits homicide without fault, for instance by defending | |
| 10142 himself, or again by mishap. Therefore he ought not to incur the punishment of irregularity. | |
| 10143 </p> | |
| 10144 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p5"> | |
| 10145 <b>On the contrary,</b> Against this there are many canonical statutes [*Cap. Miror; cap. Clericum; cap. De his Cler., dist. 1; cap. Continebatur, | |
| 10146 De homic. volunt.], as also the custom of the Church. | |
| 10147 </p> | |
| 10148 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p6"> | |
| 10149 <b>I answer that,</b> All the Orders bear a relation to the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the peace vouchsafed to us by | |
| 10150 the shedding of Christ's blood. And since homicide is most opposed to peace, and those who slay are conformed to Christ's | |
| 10151 slayers rather than to Christ slain, to whom all the ministers of the aforesaid sacrament ought to be conformed, it follows | |
| 10152 that it is unlawful, although not invalid, for homicides to be raised to Orders. | |
| 10153 </p> | |
| 10154 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p7"> | |
| 10155 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Old Law inflicted the punishment of blood, whereas the New Law does not. Hence the comparison fails between the ministers | |
| 10156 of the Old Testament and those of the New, which is a sweet yoke and a light burden ( | |
| 10157 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.30" target="asv">Mat. 11:30</a>). | |
| 10158 </p> | |
| 10159 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p8"> | |
| 10160 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Irregularity is incurred not only on account of sin, but chiefly on account of a person being unfit to administer the sacrament | |
| 10161 of the Eucharist. Hence the judge and all who take part with him in a cause of blood, are irregular, because the shedding | |
| 10162 of blood is unbecoming to the ministers of that sacrament. | |
| 10163 </p> | |
| 10164 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p9"> | |
| 10165 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> No one does a thing without being the cause thereof, and in man this is something voluntary. Hence he who by mishap slays | |
| 10166 a man without knowing that it is a man, is not called a homicide, nor does he incur irregularity (unless he was occupying | |
| 10167 himself in some unlawful manner, or failed to take sufficient care, since in this case the slaying becomes somewhat voluntary). | |
| 10168 But this is not because he is not in fault, since irregularity is incurred even | |
| 10169 without fault. Wherefore even he who in a particular case slays a man in self-defense without committing a sin, is none the | |
| 10170 less irregular [*St. Thomas is speaking according to the canon law of his time. This is no longer the case now.]. | |
| 10171 </p> | |
| 10172 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p10"></p> | |
| 10173 <p id="XP_Q39_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 10174 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10175 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A5.html"></a> | |
| 10176 </div> | |
| 10177 <div id="XP_Q39_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 10178 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A4.html"></a> | |
| 10179 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A6.html"></a> | |
| 10180 <h4 id="XP_Q39_A5-p0.1">Whether those of illegitimate birth should be debarred from receiving Orders?</h4> | |
| 10181 <p id="XP_Q39_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 10182 <p id="XP_Q39_A5-p2"> | |
| 10183 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that those who are of illegitimate birth should not be debarred from receiving Orders. For the son should not | |
| 10184 bear the iniquity of the father ( | |
| 10185 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.18.20" target="asv">Ezech. 18:20</a>); and yet he would if this were an impediment to his receiving Orders. Therefore, etc. | |
| 10186 </p> | |
| 10187 <p id="XP_Q39_A5-p3"> | |
| 10188 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one's own fault is a greater impediment than the fault of another. Now unlawful intercourse does not always debar | |
| 10189 a man from receiving Orders. Therefore neither should he be debarred by the unlawful intercourse of his father. | |
| 10190 </p> | |
| 10191 <p id="XP_Q39_A5-p4"> | |
| 10192 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 10193 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.2" target="asv">Dt. 23:2</a>): "A mamzer, that is to say, one born of a prostitute, shall not enter into the Church of the Lord until the tenth generation." | |
| 10194 Much less therefore should he be ordained. | |
| 10195 </p> | |
| 10196 <p id="XP_Q39_A5-p5"> | |
| 10197 <b>I answer that,</b> Those who are ordained are placed in a position of dignity over others. Hence by a kind of propriety it is requisite that | |
| 10198 they should be without reproach, not for the validity but for the lawfulness of the sacrament, namely that they should be | |
| 10199 of good repute, bedecked with a virtuous life, and not publicly penitent. And since a man's good name is bedimmed by a sinful | |
| 10200 origin, therefore those also who are born of an unlawful union are debarred from receiving | |
| 10201 orders, unless they receive a dispensation; and this is the more difficult to obtain, according as their origin is more discreditable. | |
| 10202 </p> | |
| 10203 <p id="XP_Q39_A5-p6"> | |
| 10204 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Irregularity is not a punishment due for sin. Hence it is clear that those who are of illegitimate birth do not bear the | |
| 10205 iniquity of their father through being irregular. | |
| 10206 </p> | |
| 10207 <p id="XP_Q39_A5-p7"> | |
| 10208 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> What a man does by his own act can be removed by repentance and by a contrary act; not so the things which are from nature. | |
| 10209 Hence the comparison fails between sinful act and sinful origin. | |
| 10210 </p> | |
| 10211 <p id="XP_Q39_A5-p8"></p> | |
| 10212 <p id="XP_Q39_A5-p9"></p> | |
| 10213 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A4.html"></a> | |
| 10214 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A6.html"></a> | |
| 10215 </div> | |
| 10216 <div id="XP_Q39_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 10217 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A5.html"></a> | |
| 10218 <a href="summa.XP_Q40.html"></a> | |
| 10219 <h4 id="XP_Q39_A6-p0.1">Whether lack of members should be an impediment?</h4> | |
| 10220 <p id="XP_Q39_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 10221 <p id="XP_Q39_A6-p2"> | |
| 10222 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a man ought not to be debarred from receiving Orders on account of a lack of members. For one who is afflicted | |
| 10223 should not receive additional affliction. Therefore a man ought not to be deprived of the degree of Orders on account of his | |
| 10224 suffering a bodily defect. | |
| 10225 </p> | |
| 10226 <p id="XP_Q39_A6-p3"> | |
| 10227 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, integrity of discretion is more necessary for the act of orders than integrity of body. But some can be ordained | |
| 10228 before the years of discretion. Therefore they can also be ordained though deficient in body. | |
| 10229 </p> | |
| 10230 <p id="XP_Q39_A6-p4"> | |
| 10231 <b>On the contrary,</b> The like were debarred from the ministry of the Old Law ( | |
| 10232 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q39_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.21.18" target="asv">Lev. 21:18, </a> seqq.). Much more therefore should they be debarred in the New Law. | |
| 10233 </p> | |
| 10234 <p id="XP_Q39_A6-p5"> We shall speak of bigamy in the treatise on Matrimony ( | |
| 10235 <a id="XP_Q39_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q66.html">Q[66])</a>. | |
| 10236 </p> | |
| 10237 <p id="XP_Q39_A6-p6"> | |
| 10238 <b>I answer that,</b> As appears from what we have said above ( | |
| 10239 <a id="XP_Q39_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q39_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,4,5), a man is disqualified from receiving Orders, either on account of an impediment to the act, or on account of an impediment | |
| 10240 affecting his personal comeliness. Hence he who suffers from a lack of members is debarred from receiving Orders, if the defect | |
| 10241 be such as to cause a notable blemish, whereby a man's comeliness is bedimmed (for instance if his nose be cut off) or the | |
| 10242 exercise | |
| 10243 of his Order imperilled; otherwise he is not debarred. This integrity, however, is necessary for the lawfulness and not for | |
| 10244 the validity of the sacrament. | |
| 10245 </p> | |
| 10246 <p id="XP_Q39_A6-p7"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 10247 <p id="XP_Q39_A6-p8"></p> | |
| 10248 <p id="XP_Q39_A6-p9"></p> | |
| 10249 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A5.html"></a> | |
| 10250 <a href="summa.XP_Q40.html"></a> | |
| 10251 </div> | |
| 10252 <a href="summa.XP_Q38_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10253 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10254 </div> | |
| 10255 <div id="XP_Q40" class="div3"> | |
| 10256 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A6.html"></a> | |
| 10257 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10258 <h3 id="XP_Q40-p0.1">OF THE THINGS ANNEXED TO THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER (SEVEN ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 10259 <p id="XP_Q40-p1"></p> | |
| 10260 <p id="XP_Q40-p2"> We must now consider the things that are annexed to the sacrament of Order. Under this head there are seven points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 10261 <p id="XP_Q40-p3"> (1) Whether those who are ordained ought to be shaven and tonsured in the form of a crown?</p> | |
| 10262 <p id="XP_Q40-p4"> (2) Whether the tonsure is an Order?</p> | |
| 10263 <p id="XP_Q40-p5"> (3) Whether by receiving the tonsure one renounces temporal goods?</p> | |
| 10264 <p id="XP_Q40-p6"> (4) Whether above the priestly Order there should be an episcopal power?</p> | |
| 10265 <p id="XP_Q40-p7"> (5) Whether the episcopate is an Order?</p> | |
| 10266 <p id="XP_Q40-p8"> (6) Whether in the Church there can be any power above the episcopate?</p> | |
| 10267 <p id="XP_Q40-p9"> (7) Whether the vestments of the ministers are fittingly instituted by the Church?</p> | |
| 10268 <div id="XP_Q40_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 10269 <a href="summa.XP_Q40.html"></a> | |
| 10270 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10271 <h4 id="XP_Q40_A1-p0.1">Whether those who are ordained ought to wear the tonsure?</h4> | |
| 10272 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 10273 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p2"> | |
| 10274 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that those who are ordained ought not to wear the tonsure in the shape of a crown. For the Lord threatened | |
| 10275 captivity and dispersion to those who were shaven in this way: "Of the captivity of the bare head of the enemies" ( | |
| 10276 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.42" target="asv">Dt. 32:42</a>), and: "I will scatter into every wind them that have their hair cut round" ( | |
| 10277 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.49.32" target="asv">Jer. 49:32</a>). Now the ministers of Christ should not be captives, but free. Therefore shaving and | |
| 10278 tonsure in the shape of a crown does not become them. | |
| 10279 </p> | |
| 10280 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p3"> | |
| 10281 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the truth should correspond to the figure. Now the crown was prefigured in the Old Law by the tonsure of the Nazarenes, | |
| 10282 as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Therefore since the Nazarenes were not ordained to the Divine ministry, it would | |
| 10283 seem that the ministers of the Church should not receive the tonsure or shave the head in the form of a crown. The same would | |
| 10284 seem to follow from the fact that lay brothers, who are not ministers of the Church, | |
| 10285 receive a tonsure in the religious Orders. | |
| 10286 </p> | |
| 10287 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p4"> | |
| 10288 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the hair signifies superabundance, because it grows from that which is superabundant. But the ministers of the Church | |
| 10289 should cast off all superabundance. Therefore they should shave the head completely and not in the shape of a crown. | |
| 10290 </p> | |
| 10291 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p5"> | |
| 10292 <b>On the contrary,</b> According to Gregory, "to serve God is to reign" (Super | |
| 10293 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.101.23" target="asv"> Ps. 101:23</a>). Now a crown is the sign of royalty. Therefore a crown is becoming to those who are devoted to the Divine ministry. | |
| 10294 </p> | |
| 10295 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p6"> Further, according to | |
| 10296 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:15, </a> hair is given us "for a covering." But the ministers of the altar should have the mind uncovered. Therefore the tonsure is | |
| 10297 becoming to them. | |
| 10298 </p> | |
| 10299 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p7"> | |
| 10300 <b>I answer that,</b> It is becoming for those who apply themselves to the Divine ministry to be shaven or tonsured in the form of a crown by reason | |
| 10301 of the shape. Because a crown is the sign of royalty; and of perfection, since it is circular; and those who are appointed | |
| 10302 to the Divine service acquire a royal dignity and ought to be perfect in virtue. It is also becoming to them as it involves | |
| 10303 the hair being taken both from the higher part of the head by shaving, lest their mind | |
| 10304 be hindered by temporal occupations from contemplating Divine things, and from the lower part by clipping, lest their senses | |
| 10305 be entangled in temporal things. | |
| 10306 </p> | |
| 10307 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p8"> | |
| 10308 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Lord threatens those who did this for the worship of demons. | |
| 10309 </p> | |
| 10310 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p9"> | |
| 10311 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The things that were done in the Old Testament represent imperfectly the things of the New Testament. Hence things pertaining | |
| 10312 to the ministers of the New Testament were signified not only by the offices of the Levites, but also by all those persons | |
| 10313 who professed some degree of perfection. Now the Nazarenes professed a certain perfection by having their hair cut off, thus | |
| 10314 signifying their contempt of temporal things, although they did not have it cut | |
| 10315 in the shape of a crown, but cut it off completely, for as yet it was not the time of the royal and perfect priesthood. In | |
| 10316 like manner lay brothers have their hair cut because they renounce temporalities. but they do not shave the head, because | |
| 10317 they are not occupied in the Divine ministry, so as to have to contemplate Divine things with the mind. | |
| 10318 </p> | |
| 10319 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p10"> | |
| 10320 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Not only the renunciation of temporalities, but also the royal dignity has to be signified by the form of a crown; wherefore | |
| 10321 the hair should not be cut off entirely. Another reason is that this would be unbecoming. | |
| 10322 </p> | |
| 10323 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 10324 <p id="XP_Q40_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 10325 <a href="summa.XP_Q40.html"></a> | |
| 10326 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10327 </div> | |
| 10328 <div id="XP_Q40_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 10329 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10330 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10331 <h4 id="XP_Q40_A2-p0.1">Whether the tonsure is an Order?</h4> | |
| 10332 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 10333 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p2"> | |
| 10334 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the tonsure is an Order. For in the acts of the Church the spiritual corresponds to the corporal. Now | |
| 10335 the tonsure is a corporal sign employed by the Church. Therefore seemingly there is some interior signification corresponding | |
| 10336 thereto; so that a person receives a character when he receives the tonsure, and consequently the latter is an Order. | |
| 10337 </p> | |
| 10338 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p3"> | |
| 10339 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as Confirmation and the other Orders are given by a bishop alone, so is the tonsure. Now a character is imprinted | |
| 10340 in Confirmation, and the other Orders. Therefore one is imprinted likewise in receiving the tonsure. Therefore the same conclusion | |
| 10341 follows. | |
| 10342 </p> | |
| 10343 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p4"> | |
| 10344 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Order denotes a degree of dignity. Now a cleric by the very fact of being a cleric is placed on a degree above the | |
| 10345 people. Therefore the tonsure by which he is made a cleric is an Order. | |
| 10346 </p> | |
| 10347 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p5"> | |
| 10348 <b>On the contrary,</b> No Order is given except during the celebration of Mass. But the tonsure is given even outside the office of the Mass. Therefore | |
| 10349 it is not an Order. | |
| 10350 </p> | |
| 10351 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p6"> Further, in the conferring of every Order mention is made of some power granted, but not in the conferring of the tonsure. | |
| 10352 Therefore it is not an Order. | |
| 10353 </p> | |
| 10354 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p7"> | |
| 10355 <b>I answer that,</b> The ministers of the Church are severed from the people in order that they may give themselves entirely to the Divine worship. | |
| 10356 Now in the Divine worship are certain actions that have to be exercised by virtue of certain definite powers, and for this | |
| 10357 purpose the spiritual power of order is given; while other actions are performed by the whole body of ministers in common, | |
| 10358 for instance the recital of the Divine praises. For such things it is not necessary to | |
| 10359 have the power of Order, but only to be deputed to such an office; and this is done by the tonsure. Consequently it is not | |
| 10360 an Order but a preamble to Orders. | |
| 10361 </p> | |
| 10362 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p8"> | |
| 10363 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The tonsure has some spiritual thing inwardly corresponding to it, as signate corresponds to sign; but this is not a spiritual | |
| 10364 power. Wherefore a character is not imprinted in the tonsure as in an Order. | |
| 10365 </p> | |
| 10366 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p9"> | |
| 10367 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although a man does not receive a character in the tonsure, nevertheless he is appointed to the Divine worship. Hence this | |
| 10368 appointment should be made by the supreme minister, namely the bishop, who moreover blesses the vestments and vessels and | |
| 10369 whatsoever else is employed in the Divine worship. | |
| 10370 </p> | |
| 10371 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p10"> | |
| 10372 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A man through being a cleric is in a higher state than a layman; but as regards power he has not the higher degree that is | |
| 10373 required for Orders. | |
| 10374 </p> | |
| 10375 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 10376 <p id="XP_Q40_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 10377 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10378 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10379 </div> | |
| 10380 <div id="XP_Q40_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 10381 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10382 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A4.html"></a> | |
| 10383 <h4 id="XP_Q40_A3-p0.1">Whether by receiving the tonsure a man renounces temporal goods?</h4> | |
| 10384 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 10385 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p2"> | |
| 10386 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that men renounce temporal goods by receiving the tonsure, for when they are tonsured they say: "The Lord is | |
| 10387 the portion of my inheritance." But as Jerome says (Ep. ad Nepot.), "the Lord disdains to be made a portion together with | |
| 10388 these temporal things." Therefore he renounces temporalities. | |
| 10389 </p> | |
| 10390 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p3"> | |
| 10391 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the justice of the ministers of the New Testament ought to abound more than that of the ministers of the Old Testament | |
| 10392 ( | |
| 10393 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.20" target="asv">Mat. 5:20</a>). But the ministers of the Old Testament, namely the Levites, did not receive a portion of inheritance with their brethren | |
| 10394 ( | |
| 10395 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.10" target="asv">Dt. 10</a>; | |
| 10396 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A3-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.18" target="asv">Dt. 18</a>). Therefore neither should the ministers of the New Testament. | |
| 10397 </p> | |
| 10398 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p4"> | |
| 10399 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Hugh says (De Sacram. ii) that "after a man is made a cleric, he must from thenceforward live on the pay of the | |
| 10400 Church." But this would not be so were he to retain his patrimony. Therefore he would seem to renounce it by becoming a cleric. | |
| 10401 </p> | |
| 10402 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p5"> | |
| 10403 <b>On the contrary,</b> Jeremias was of the priestly order ( | |
| 10404 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.1.1" target="asv">Jer. 1:1</a>). Yet he retained possession of his inheritance ( | |
| 10405 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.32.8" target="asv">Jer. 32:8</a>). Therefore clerics can retain their patrimony. | |
| 10406 </p> | |
| 10407 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p6"> Further, if this were not so there would seem to be no difference between religious and the secular clergy.</p> | |
| 10408 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p7"> | |
| 10409 <b>I answer that,</b> Clerics by receiving the tonsure, do not renounce their patrimony or other temporalities; since the possession of earthly | |
| 10410 things is not contrary to the Divine worship to which clerics are appointed, although excessive care for such things is; for | |
| 10411 as Gregory says (Moral. x, 30), "it is not wealth but the love of wealth that is sinful." | |
| 10412 </p> | |
| 10413 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p8"> | |
| 10414 <b>Reply to Objection 11:</b> The Lord disdains to be a portion as being loved equally with other things, so that a man place his end in God and the things | |
| 10415 of the world. He does not, however, disdain to be the portion of those who so possess the things of the world as not to be | |
| 10416 withdrawn thereby from the Divine worship. | |
| 10417 </p> | |
| 10418 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p9"> | |
| 10419 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the Old Testament the Levites had a right to their paternal inheritance; and the reason why they did not receive a portion | |
| 10420 with the other tribes was because they were scattered throughout all the tribes, which would have been impossible if, like | |
| 10421 the other tribes, they had received one fixed portion of the soil. | |
| 10422 </p> | |
| 10423 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p10"> | |
| 10424 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Clerics promoted to holy orders, if they be poor, must be provided for by the bishop who ordained them; otherwise he is not | |
| 10425 so bound. And they are bound to minister to the Church in the Order they have received. The words of Hugh refer to those who | |
| 10426 have no means of livelihood. | |
| 10427 </p> | |
| 10428 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 10429 <p id="XP_Q40_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 10430 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10431 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A4.html"></a> | |
| 10432 </div> | |
| 10433 <div id="XP_Q40_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 10434 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10435 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A5.html"></a> | |
| 10436 <h4 id="XP_Q40_A4-p0.1">Whether above the priestly Order there ought to be an episcopal power?</h4> | |
| 10437 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 10438 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p2"> | |
| 10439 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there ought not to be an episcopal power above the priestly Order. For as stated in the text (Sent. iv, | |
| 10440 D, 24) "the priestly Order originated from Aaron." Now in the Old Law there was no one above Aaron. Therefore neither in the | |
| 10441 New Law ought there to be any power above that of the priests. | |
| 10442 </p> | |
| 10443 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p3"> | |
| 10444 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, powers rank according to acts. Now no sacred act can be greater than to consecrate the body of Christ, whereunto | |
| 10445 the priestly power is directed. Therefore there should not be an episcopal above the priestly power. | |
| 10446 </p> | |
| 10447 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p4"> | |
| 10448 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priest, in offering, represents Christ in the Church, Who offered Himself for us to the Father. Now no one is | |
| 10449 above Christ in the Church, since He is the Head of the Church. Therefore there should not be an episcopal above the priestly | |
| 10450 power. | |
| 10451 </p> | |
| 10452 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p5"> | |
| 10453 <b>On the contrary,</b> A power is so much the higher according as it extends to more things. Now the priestly power, according to Dionysius (Eccl. | |
| 10454 Hier. v), extends only to cleansing and enlightening, whereas the episcopal power extends both to this and to perfecting. | |
| 10455 Therefore the episcopal should be above the priestly power. | |
| 10456 </p> | |
| 10457 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p6"> Further, the Divine ministries should be more orderly than human ministries. Now the order of human ministries requires that | |
| 10458 in each office there should be one person to preside, just as a general is placed over soldiers. Therefore there should also | |
| 10459 be appointed over priests one who is the chief priest, and this is the bishop. Therefore the episcopal should be above the | |
| 10460 priestly power. | |
| 10461 </p> | |
| 10462 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p7"> | |
| 10463 <b>I answer that,</b> A priest has two acts: one is the principal, namely to consecrate the body of Christ. the other is secondary, namely to prepare | |
| 10464 God's people for the reception of this sacrament, as stated above ( | |
| 10465 <a id="XP_Q40_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q37_A2.html">Q[37], AA[2]</a>,4). As regards the first act, the priest's power does not depend on a higher power save God's; but as to the second, it depends | |
| 10466 on a higher and that a human power. For every power that cannot exercise its act without certain | |
| 10467 ordinances, depends on the power that makes those ordinances. Now a priest cannot loose and bind, except we presuppose him | |
| 10468 to have the jurisdiction of authority, whereby those whom he absolves are subject to him. But he can consecrate any matter | |
| 10469 determined by Christ, nor is anything else required for the validity of the sacrament; although, on account of a certain congruousness, | |
| 10470 the act of the bishop is pre-required in the consecration of the altar, vestments, and so forth. Hence it is clear | |
| 10471 that it behooves the episcopal to be above the priestly power, as regards the priest's secondary act, but not as regards his | |
| 10472 primary act. | |
| 10473 </p> | |
| 10474 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p8"> | |
| 10475 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Aaron was both priest and pontiff, that is chief priest. Accordingly the priestly power originated from him, in so far as | |
| 10476 he was a priest offering sacrifices, which was lawful even to the lesser priests; but it does not originate from him as pontiff, | |
| 10477 by which power he was able to do certain things; for instance, to enter once a year the Holy of Holies, which it was unlawful | |
| 10478 for the other priests to do. | |
| 10479 </p> | |
| 10480 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p9"> | |
| 10481 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There is no higher power with regard to this act, but with regard to another, as stated above. | |
| 10482 </p> | |
| 10483 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p10"> | |
| 10484 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as the perfections of all natural things pre-exist in God as their exemplar, so was Christ the exemplar of all ecclesiastical | |
| 10485 offices. Wherefore each minister of the Church is, in some respect, a copy of Christ, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, | |
| 10486 24). Yet he is the higher who represents Christ according to a greater perfection. Now a priest represents Christ in that | |
| 10487 He fulfilled a certain ministry by Himself, whereas a bishop represents Him in | |
| 10488 that He instituted other ministers and founded the Church. Hence it belongs to a bishop to dedicate a thing to the Divine | |
| 10489 offices, as establishing the Divine worship after the manner of Christ. For this reason also a bishop is especially called | |
| 10490 the bridegroom of the Church even as Christ is. | |
| 10491 </p> | |
| 10492 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 10493 <p id="XP_Q40_A4-p12"></p> | |
| 10494 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10495 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A5.html"></a> | |
| 10496 </div> | |
| 10497 <div id="XP_Q40_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 10498 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A4.html"></a> | |
| 10499 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A6.html"></a> | |
| 10500 <h4 id="XP_Q40_A5-p0.1">Whether the episcopate is an Order?</h4> | |
| 10501 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 10502 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p2"> | |
| 10503 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the episcopate is an Order. First of all, because Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) assigns these three orders | |
| 10504 to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the bishop, the priest, and the minister. In the text also (Sent. iv, D, 24) it is stated | |
| 10505 that the episcopal Order is fourfold. | |
| 10506 </p> | |
| 10507 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p3"> | |
| 10508 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Order is nothing else but a degree of power in the dispensing of spiritual things. Now bishops can dispense certain | |
| 10509 sacraments which priests cannot dispense, namely Confirmation and Order. Therefore the episcopate is an Order. | |
| 10510 </p> | |
| 10511 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p4"> | |
| 10512 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the Church there is no spiritual power other than of Order or jurisdiction. But things pertaining to the episcopal | |
| 10513 power are not matters of jurisdiction, else they might be committed to one who is not a bishop, which is false. Therefore | |
| 10514 they belong to the power of Order. Therefore the bishop has an Order which a simple priest has not; and thus the episcopate | |
| 10515 is an Order. | |
| 10516 </p> | |
| 10517 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p5"> | |
| 10518 <b>On the contrary,</b> One Order does not depend on a preceding order as regards the validity of the sacrament. But the episcopal power depends | |
| 10519 on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore | |
| 10520 the episcopate is not an Order. | |
| 10521 </p> | |
| 10522 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p6"> Further, the greater Orders are not conferred except on Saturdays [*The four Ember Saturdays]. But the episcopal power is | |
| 10523 bestowed on Sundays [*Dist. lxxv, can. Ordinationes]. Therefore it is not an Order. | |
| 10524 </p> | |
| 10525 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p7"> | |
| 10526 <b>I answer that,</b> Order may be understood in two ways. In one way as a sacrament, and thus, as already stated ( | |
| 10527 <a id="XP_Q40_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q37_A2.html">Q[37], AA[2]</a>,4), every Order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the | |
| 10528 priest, in this respect the episcopate is not an Order. In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to | |
| 10529 certain sacred actions: and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in | |
| 10530 relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order. It is in this sense that the authorities | |
| 10531 quoted speak. | |
| 10532 </p> | |
| 10533 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p8"> Hence the Reply to the First Objection is clear.</p> | |
| 10534 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p9"> | |
| 10535 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Order considered as a sacrament which imprints a character is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which | |
| 10536 Christ Himself is contained, because by a character we are made like to Christ Himself [*Cf. | |
| 10537 <a id="XP_Q40_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html">TP, Q[63], A[3]</a>]. Hence although at his promotion a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments, this power nevertheless | |
| 10538 has not the nature of a character. For this reason the episcopate is | |
| 10539 not an Order, in the sense in which an Order is a sacrament. | |
| 10540 </p> | |
| 10541 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p10"> | |
| 10542 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The episcopal power is one not only of jurisdiction but also of Order, as stated above, taking Order in the sense in which | |
| 10543 it is generally understood. | |
| 10544 </p> | |
| 10545 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p11"></p> | |
| 10546 <p id="XP_Q40_A5-p12"></p> | |
| 10547 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A4.html"></a> | |
| 10548 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A6.html"></a> | |
| 10549 </div> | |
| 10550 <div id="XP_Q40_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 10551 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A5.html"></a> | |
| 10552 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A7.html"></a> | |
| 10553 <h4 id="XP_Q40_A6-p0.1">Whether in the Church there can be anyone above the bishops?</h4> | |
| 10554 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 10555 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p2"> | |
| 10556 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there cannot be anyone in the Church higher than the bishops. For all the bishops are the successors of | |
| 10557 the apostles. Now the power so given to one of the apostles, namely Peter ( | |
| 10558 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>), was given to all the apostles ( | |
| 10559 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#John.20.23" target="asv">Jn. 20:23</a>). Therefore all bishops are equal, and one is not above another. | |
| 10560 </p> | |
| 10561 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p3"> | |
| 10562 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the rite of the Church ought to be more conformed to the Jewish rite than to that of the Gentiles. Now the distinction | |
| 10563 of the episcopal dignity and the appointment of one over another, were introduced by the Gentiles. as stated in the text (Sent. | |
| 10564 iv, D, 24); and there was no such thing in the Old Law. Therefore neither in the Church should one bishop be above another. | |
| 10565 </p> | |
| 10566 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p4"> | |
| 10567 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a higher power cannot be conferred by a lower, nor equal by equal, because "without all contradiction that which | |
| 10568 is less is blessed by the greater [Vulg.: 'better']"; hence a priest does not consecrate a bishop or a priest, but a bishop | |
| 10569 consecrates a priest. But a bishop can consecrate any bishop, since even the bishop of Ostia consecrates the Pope. Therefore | |
| 10570 the episcopal dignity is equal in all matters, and consequently one bishop should not be | |
| 10571 subject to another, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). | |
| 10572 </p> | |
| 10573 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p5"> | |
| 10574 <b>On the contrary,</b> We read in the council of Constantinople: "In accordance with the Scriptures and the statutes and definitions of the canons, | |
| 10575 we venerate the most holy bishop of ancient Rome the first and greatest of bishops, and after him the bishop of Constantinople." | |
| 10576 Therefore one bishop is above another. | |
| 10577 </p> | |
| 10578 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p6"> Further, the blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says: "That we may remain members of our apostolic head, the throne of | |
| 10579 the Roman Pontiffs, of whom it is our duty to seek what we are to believe and what we are to hold, venerating him, beseeching | |
| 10580 him above others; for his it is to reprove, to correct, to appoint, to loose, and to bind in place of Him Who set up that | |
| 10581 very throne, and Who gave the fulness of His own to no other, but to him alone, to whom by divine right all bow | |
| 10582 the head, and the primates of the world are obedient as to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself." Therefore bishops are subject to | |
| 10583 someone even by divine right. | |
| 10584 </p> | |
| 10585 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p7"> | |
| 10586 <b>I answer that,</b> Wherever there are several authorities directed to one purpose, there must needs be one universal authority over the particular | |
| 10587 authorities, because in all virtues and acts the order is according to the order of their ends (Ethic. i, 1,2). Now the common | |
| 10588 good is more Godlike than the particular good. Wherefore above the governing power which aims at a particular good there must | |
| 10589 be a universal governing power in respect of the common good, otherwise there | |
| 10590 would be no cohesion towards the one object. Hence since the whole Church is one body, it behooves, if this oneness is to | |
| 10591 be preserved, that there be a governing power in respect of the whole Church, above the episcopal power whereby each particular | |
| 10592 Church is governed, and this is the power of the Pope. Consequently those who deny this power are called schismatics as causing | |
| 10593 a division in the unity of the Church. Again, between a simple bishop and the Pope there are other degrees of rank | |
| 10594 corresponding to the degrees of union, in respect of which one congregation or community includes another; thus the community | |
| 10595 of a province includes the community of a city, and the community of a kingdom includes the community of one province, and | |
| 10596 the community of the whole world includes the community of one kingdom. | |
| 10597 </p> | |
| 10598 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p8"> | |
| 10599 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the power of binding and loosing was given to all the apostles in common, nevertheless in order to indicate some | |
| 10600 order in this power, it was given first of all to Peter alone, to show that this power must come down from him to the others. | |
| 10601 For this reason He said to him in the singular: "Confirm thy brethren" ( | |
| 10602 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.32" target="asv">Lk. 22:32</a>), and: "Feed My sheep" ( | |
| 10603 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A6-p8.2" href="./asv.html#John.21.17" target="asv">Jn. 21:17</a>), i.e. according to Chrysostom: "Be thou the | |
| 10604 president and head of thy brethren in My stead, that they, putting thee in My place, may preach and confirm thee throughout | |
| 10605 the world whilst thou sittest on thy throne." | |
| 10606 </p> | |
| 10607 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p9"> | |
| 10608 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Jewish rite was not spread abroad in various kingdoms and provinces, but was confined to one nation; hence there was | |
| 10609 no need to distinguish various pontiffs under the one who had the chief power. But the rite of the Church, like that of the | |
| 10610 Gentiles, is spread abroad through various nations; and consequently in this respect it is necessary for the constitution | |
| 10611 of the Church to be like the rite of the Gentiles rather than that of the Jews. | |
| 10612 </p> | |
| 10613 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p10"> | |
| 10614 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The priestly power is surpassed by the episcopal power, as by a power of a different kind; but the episcopal is surpassed | |
| 10615 by the papal power as by a power of the same kind. Hence a bishop can perform every hierarchical act that the Pope can; whereas | |
| 10616 a priest cannot perform every act that a bishop can in conferring the sacraments. Wherefore as regards matters pertaining | |
| 10617 to the episcopal Order, all bishops are equal, and for this reason any bishop can | |
| 10618 consecrate another bishop. | |
| 10619 </p> | |
| 10620 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p11"></p> | |
| 10621 <p id="XP_Q40_A6-p12"></p> | |
| 10622 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A5.html"></a> | |
| 10623 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A7.html"></a> | |
| 10624 </div> | |
| 10625 <div id="XP_Q40_A7" class="div4"> | |
| 10626 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A6.html"></a> | |
| 10627 <a href="summa.XP_Q41.html"></a> | |
| 10628 <h4 id="XP_Q40_A7-p0.1">Whether the vestments of the ministers are fittingly instituted in the Church?</h4> | |
| 10629 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p1"></p> | |
| 10630 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p2"> | |
| 10631 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the vestments of the ministers are not fittingly instituted in the Church. For the ministers of the New | |
| 10632 Testament are more bound to chastity than were the ministers of the Old Testament. Now among the vestments of the Old Testament | |
| 10633 there were the breeches as a sign of chastity. Much more therefore should they have a place among the vestments of the Church's | |
| 10634 ministers. | |
| 10635 </p> | |
| 10636 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p3"> | |
| 10637 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the priesthood of the New Testament is more worthy than the priesthood of the Old. But the priests of the Old Testament | |
| 10638 had mitres, which are a sign of dignity. Therefore the priests of the New Testament should also have them. | |
| 10639 </p> | |
| 10640 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p4"> | |
| 10641 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priest is nearer than the episcopal Order to the Orders of ministers. Now the bishop uses the vestments of the | |
| 10642 ministers, namely the dalmatic, which is the deacon's vestment, and the tunic, which is the subdeacon's. Much more therefore | |
| 10643 should simple priests use them. | |
| 10644 </p> | |
| 10645 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p5"> | |
| 10646 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in the Old Law the pontiff wore the ephod [*Superhumerale, i.e. over-the-shoulders], which signified the burden | |
| 10647 of the Gospel, as Bede observes (De Tabernac. iii). Now this is especially incumbent on our pontiffs. Therefore they ought | |
| 10648 to wear the ephod. | |
| 10649 </p> | |
| 10650 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p6"> | |
| 10651 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, "Doctrine and Truth" were inscribed on the "rational" which the pontiffs of the Old Testament wore. Now truth was | |
| 10652 made known especially in the New Law. Therefore it is becoming to the pontiffs of the New Law. | |
| 10653 </p> | |
| 10654 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p7"> | |
| 10655 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the golden plate on which was written the most admirable name of God, was the most admirable of the adornments of | |
| 10656 the Old Law. Therefore it should especially have been transferred to the New Law. | |
| 10657 </p> | |
| 10658 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p8"> | |
| 10659 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the things which the ministers of the Church wear outwardly are signs of inward power. Now the archbishop has no | |
| 10660 other kind of power than a bishop, as stated above | |
| 10661 <a id="XP_Q40_A7-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q40_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. Therefore he should not have the pallium which other bishops have not. | |
| 10662 </p> | |
| 10663 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p9"> | |
| 10664 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, the fulness of power resides in the Roman Pontiff. But he has not a crozier. Therefore other bishops should not | |
| 10665 have one. | |
| 10666 </p> | |
| 10667 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p10"> | |
| 10668 <b>I answer that,</b> The vestments of the ministers denote the qualifications required of them for handling Divine things. And since certain things | |
| 10669 are required of all, and some are required of the higher, that are not so exacted of the lower ministers, therefore certain | |
| 10670 vestments are common to all the ministers, while some pertain to the higher ministers only. Accordingly it is becoming to | |
| 10671 all the ministers to wear the "amice" which covers the shoulders, thereby signifying | |
| 10672 courage in the exercise of the Divine offices to which they are deputed; and the "alb," which signifies a pure life, and the | |
| 10673 "girdle," which signifies restraint of the flesh. But the subdeacon wears in addition the "maniple" on the left arm; this | |
| 10674 signifies the wiping away of the least stains, since a maniple is a kind of handkerchief for wiping the face; for they are | |
| 10675 the first to be admitted to the handling of sacred things. They also have the "narrow tunic," signifying the doctrine of Christ; | |
| 10676 wherefore in the Old Law little bells hung therefrom, and subdeacons are the first admitted to announce the doctrine of the | |
| 10677 New Law. The deacon has in addition the "stole" over the left shoulder, as a sign that he is deputed to a ministry in the | |
| 10678 sacraments themselves, and the "dalmatic" (which is a full vestment, so called because it first came into use in Dalmatia), | |
| 10679 to signify that he is the first to be appointed to dispense the sacraments: for he dispenses the blood, and in dispensing | |
| 10680 one | |
| 10681 should be generous. | |
| 10682 </p> | |
| 10683 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p11"> But in the case of the priest the "stole" hangs from both shoulders, to show that he has received full power to dispense | |
| 10684 the sacraments, and not as the minister of another man, for which reason the stole reaches right down. He also wears the "chasuble," | |
| 10685 which signifies charity, because he it is who consecrates the sacrament of charity, namely the Eucharist. | |
| 10686 </p> | |
| 10687 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p12"> Bishops have nine ornaments besides those which the priest has; these are the "stockings, sandals, succinctory, tunic, dalmatic, | |
| 10688 mitre, gloves, ring, and crozier," because there are nine things which they can, but priests cannot, do, namely ordain clerics, | |
| 10689 bless virgins, consecrate bishops, impose hands, dedicate churches, depose clerics, celebrate synods, consecrate chrism, bless | |
| 10690 vestments and vessels. | |
| 10691 </p> | |
| 10692 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p13"> We may also say that the "stockings" signify his upright walk; the "sandals" which cover the feet, his contempt of earthly | |
| 10693 things; the "succinctory" which girds the stole with the alb, his love of probity; the "tunic," perseverance, for Joseph is | |
| 10694 said ( | |
| 10695 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q40_A7-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.37.23" target="asv">Gn. 37:23</a>) to have had a long tunic---"talaric," because it reached down to the ankles [talos], which denote the end of life; the "dalmatic," | |
| 10696 generosity in works of mercy; the "gloves," prudence in action; the | |
| 10697 "mitre," knowledge of both Testaments, for which reason it has two crests; the "crozier," his pastoral care, whereby he has | |
| 10698 to gather together the wayward (this is denoted by the curve at the head of the crozier), to uphold the weak (this is denoted | |
| 10699 by the stem of the crozier), and to spur on the laggards (this is denoted by the point at the foot of the crozier). Hence | |
| 10700 the line: | |
| 10701 </p> | |
| 10702 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p14"> "Gather, uphold, spur on</p> | |
| 10703 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p15"> The wayward, the weak, and the laggard."</p> | |
| 10704 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p16">The "ring" signifies the sacraments of that faith whereby the Church is espoused to Christ. For bishops are espoused to the | |
| 10705 Church in the place of Christ. Furthermore archbishops have the "pallium" in sign of their privileged power, for it signifies | |
| 10706 the golden chain which those who fought rightfully were wont to receive. | |
| 10707 </p> | |
| 10708 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p17"> | |
| 10709 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The priests of the Old Law were enjoined continency only for the time of their attendance for the purpose of their ministry. | |
| 10710 Wherefore as a sign of the chastity which they had then to observe, they wore the breeches while offering sacrifices. But | |
| 10711 the ministers of the New Testament are enjoined perpetual continency; and so the comparison fails. | |
| 10712 </p> | |
| 10713 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p18"> | |
| 10714 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The mitre was not a sign of dignity, for it was a kind of hat, as Jerome says (Ep. ad Fabiol.). But the diadem which was | |
| 10715 a sign of dignity was given to the pontiffs alone, as the mitre is now. | |
| 10716 </p> | |
| 10717 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p19"> | |
| 10718 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The power of the ministers resides in the bishop as their source, but not in the priest, for he does not confer those Orders. | |
| 10719 Wherefore the bishop, rather than the priest, wears those vestments. | |
| 10720 </p> | |
| 10721 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p20"> | |
| 10722 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Instead of the ephod, they wear the stole, which is intended for the same signification as the ephod. | |
| 10723 </p> | |
| 10724 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p21"> | |
| 10725 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The pallium takes the place of the "rational." | |
| 10726 </p> | |
| 10727 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p22"> | |
| 10728 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Instead of that plate our pontiff wears the cross, as Innocent III says (De Myst. Miss. i), just as the breeches are replaced | |
| 10729 by the sandals, the linen garment by the alb, the belt by the girdle, the long or talaric garment by the tunic, the ephod | |
| 10730 by the amice, the "rational" by the pallium, the diadem by the mitre. | |
| 10731 </p> | |
| 10732 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p23"> | |
| 10733 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> Although he has not another kind of power he has the same power more fully. and so in order to designate this perfection, | |
| 10734 he receives the pallium which surrounds him on all sides. | |
| 10735 </p> | |
| 10736 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p24"> | |
| 10737 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> The Roman Pontiff does not use a pastoral staff because Peter sent his to restore to life a certain disciple who afterwards | |
| 10738 became bishop of Treves. Hence in the diocese of Treves the Pope carries a crozier but not elsewhere; or else it is a sign | |
| 10739 of his not having a restricted power denoted by the curve of the staff. | |
| 10740 </p> | |
| 10741 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p25"></p> | |
| 10742 <p id="XP_Q40_A7-p26"></p> | |
| 10743 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A6.html"></a> | |
| 10744 <a href="summa.XP_Q41.html"></a> | |
| 10745 </div> | |
| 10746 <a href="summa.XP_Q39_A6.html"></a> | |
| 10747 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10748 </div> | |
| 10749 <div id="XP_Q41" class="div3"> | |
| 10750 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A7.html"></a> | |
| 10751 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10752 <h3 id="XP_Q41-p0.1">MATRIMONY (QQ[41]-67)</h3> | |
| 10753 <p id="XP_Q41-p1"></p> | |
| 10754 <p id="XP_Q41-p2">OF THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY AS DIRECTED TO AN OFFICE OF NATURE (FOUR ARTICLES)</p> | |
| 10755 <p id="XP_Q41-p3"> In the next place we must consider matrimony. We must treat of it (1) as directed to an office of nature; (2) as a sacrament; | |
| 10756 (3) as considered absolutely and in itself. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: | |
| 10757 </p> | |
| 10758 <p id="XP_Q41-p4"> (1) Whether it is of natural law?</p> | |
| 10759 <p id="XP_Q41-p5"> (2) Whether it is a matter of precept?</p> | |
| 10760 <p id="XP_Q41-p6"> (3) Whether its act is lawful?</p> | |
| 10761 <p id="XP_Q41-p7"> (4) Whether its act can be meritorious?</p> | |
| 10762 <div id="XP_Q41_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 10763 <a href="summa.XP_Q41.html"></a> | |
| 10764 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10765 <h4 id="XP_Q41_A1-p0.1">Whether matrimony is of natural law?</h4> | |
| 10766 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 10767 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p2"> | |
| 10768 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that matrimony is not natural. Because "the natural law is what nature has taught all animals" [*Digest. I, | |
| 10769 i, de justitia et jure, 1]. But in other animals the sexes are united without matrimony. Therefore matrimony is not of natural | |
| 10770 law. | |
| 10771 </p> | |
| 10772 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p3"> | |
| 10773 <b>Objection 1:</b> Further, that which is of natural law is found in all men with regard to their every state. But matrimony was not in every | |
| 10774 state of man, for as Tully says (De Inv. Rhet.), "at the beginning men were savages and then no man knew his own children, | |
| 10775 nor was he bound by any marriage tie," wherein matrimony consists. Therefore it is not natural. | |
| 10776 </p> | |
| 10777 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p4"> | |
| 10778 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, natural things are the same among all. But matrimony is not in the same way among all, since its practice varies | |
| 10779 according to the various laws. Therefore it is not natural. | |
| 10780 </p> | |
| 10781 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p5"> | |
| 10782 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, those things without which the intention of nature can be maintained would seem not to be natural. But nature intends | |
| 10783 the preservation of the species by generation which is possible without matrimony, as in the case of fornicators. Therefore | |
| 10784 matrimony is not natural. | |
| 10785 </p> | |
| 10786 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p6"> | |
| 10787 <b>On the contrary,</b> At the commencement of the Digests it is stated: "The union of male and female, which we call matrimony, is of natural law." | |
| 10788 </p> | |
| 10789 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p7"> Further, the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12) says that "man is an animal more inclined by nature to connubial than political | |
| 10790 society." But "man is naturally a political and gregarious animal," as the same author asserts (Polit. i, 2). Therefore he | |
| 10791 is naturally inclined to connubial union, and thus the conjugal union or matrimony is natural. | |
| 10792 </p> | |
| 10793 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p8"> | |
| 10794 <b>I answer that,</b> A thing is said to be natural in two ways. First, as resulting of necessity from the principles of nature; thus upward movement | |
| 10795 is natural to fire. In this way matrimony is not natural, nor are any of those things that come to pass at the intervention | |
| 10796 or motion of the free-will. Secondly, that is said to be natural to which nature inclines although it comes to pass through | |
| 10797 the intervention of the free-will; thus acts of virtue and the virtues themselves are | |
| 10798 called natural; and in this way matrimony is natural, because natural reason inclines thereto in two ways. First, in relation | |
| 10799 to the principal end of matrimony, namely the good of the offspring. For nature intends not only the begetting of offspring, | |
| 10800 but also its education and development until it reach the perfect state of man as man, and that is the state of virtue. Hence, | |
| 10801 according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 11,12), we derive three things from our parents, namely "existence," | |
| 10802 "nourishment," and "education." Now a child cannot be brought up and instructed unless it have certain and definite parents, | |
| 10803 and this would not be the case unless there were a tie between the man and a definite woman and it is in this that matrimony | |
| 10804 consists. Secondly, in relation to the secondary end of matrimony, which is the mutual services which married persons render | |
| 10805 one another in household matters. For just as natural reason dictates that men should live together, since one is not | |
| 10806 self-sufficient in all things concerning life, for which reason man is described as being naturally inclined to political | |
| 10807 society, so too among those works that are necessary for human life some are becoming to men, others to women. Wherefore nature | |
| 10808 inculcates that society of man and woman which consists in matrimony. These two reasons are given by the Philosopher (Ethic. | |
| 10809 viii, 11,12). | |
| 10810 </p> | |
| 10811 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p9"> | |
| 10812 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Man's nature inclines to a thing in two ways. In one way, because that thing is becoming to the generic nature, and this | |
| 10813 is common to all animals; in another way because it is becoming to the nature of the difference, whereby the human species | |
| 10814 in so far as it is rational overflows the genus; such is an act of prudence or temperance. And just as the generic nature, | |
| 10815 though one in all animals, yet is not in all in the same way, so neither does it incline | |
| 10816 in the same way in all, but in a way befitting each one. Accordingly man's nature inclines to matrimony on the part of the | |
| 10817 difference, as regards the second reason given above; wherefore the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 11,12; Polit. i) gives this | |
| 10818 reason in men over other animals; but as regards the first reason it inclines on the part of the genus; wherefore he says | |
| 10819 that the begetting of offspring is common to all animals. Yet nature does not incline thereto in the same way in all animals; | |
| 10820 since | |
| 10821 there are animals whose offspring are able to seek food immediately after birth, or are sufficiently fed by their mother; | |
| 10822 and in these there is no tie between male and female; whereas in those whose offspring needs the support of both parents, | |
| 10823 although for a short time, there is a certain tie, as may be seen in certain birds. In man, however, since the child needs | |
| 10824 the parents' care for a long time, there is a very great tie between male and female, to which tie even the generic nature | |
| 10825 inclines. | |
| 10826 </p> | |
| 10827 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p10"> | |
| 10828 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The assertion of Tully may be true of some particular nation, provided we understand it as referring to the proximate beginning | |
| 10829 of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others; for that to which natural reason inclines is not realized in | |
| 10830 all things, and this statement is not universally true, since Holy Writ states that there has been matrimony from the beginning | |
| 10831 of the human race. | |
| 10832 </p> | |
| 10833 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p11"> | |
| 10834 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii) "human nature is not unchangeable as the Divine nature is." Hence things that are | |
| 10835 of natural law vary according to the various states and conditions of men; although those which naturally pertain to things | |
| 10836 Divine nowise vary. | |
| 10837 </p> | |
| 10838 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p12"> | |
| 10839 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Nature intends not only being in the offspring, but also perfect being, for which matrimony is necessary, as shown above. | |
| 10840 </p> | |
| 10841 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 10842 <p id="XP_Q41_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 10843 <a href="summa.XP_Q41.html"></a> | |
| 10844 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10845 </div> | |
| 10846 <div id="XP_Q41_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 10847 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10848 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10849 <h4 id="XP_Q41_A2-p0.1">Whether matrimony still comes under a precept?</h4> | |
| 10850 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 10851 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p2"> | |
| 10852 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that matrimony still comes under a precept. For a precept is binding so long as it is not recalled. But the | |
| 10853 primary institution of matrimony came under a precept, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 26); nor do we read anywhere that | |
| 10854 this precept was recalled, but rather that it was confirmed ( | |
| 10855 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.6" target="asv">Mat. 19:6</a>): "What . . . God hath joined together let no man put asunder." Therefore matrimony still comes under a precept. | |
| 10856 </p> | |
| 10857 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p3"> | |
| 10858 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the precepts of natural law are binding in respect of all time. Now matrimony is of natural law, as stated above | |
| 10859 | |
| 10860 <a id="XP_Q41_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q41_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore, etc. | |
| 10861 </p> | |
| 10862 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p4"> | |
| 10863 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the good of the species is better than the good of the individual, "for the good of the State is more Godlike than | |
| 10864 the good of one man" (Ethic. i, 2). Now the precept given to the first man concerning the preservation of the good of the | |
| 10865 individual by the act of the nutritive power is still in force. Much more therefore does the precept concerning matrimony | |
| 10866 still hold, since it refers to the preservation of the species. | |
| 10867 </p> | |
| 10868 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p5"> | |
| 10869 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, where the reason of an obligation remains the same, the obligation must remain the same. Now the reason why men | |
| 10870 were bound to marry in olden times was lest the human race should cease to multiply. Since then the result would be the same, | |
| 10871 if each one were free to abstain from marriage, it would seem that matrimony comes under a precept. | |
| 10872 </p> | |
| 10873 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p6"> | |
| 10874 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 10875 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.38" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:38</a>): "He that giveth not his virgin in marriage doth better [*Vulg.: 'He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well, and he | |
| 10876 that giveth her not doth better']," namely than he that giveth her in marriage. Therefore the contract of marriage is not | |
| 10877 now a matter of precept. | |
| 10878 </p> | |
| 10879 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p7"> Further, no one deserves a reward for breaking a precept. Now a special reward, namely the aureole, is due to virgins [*Cf. | |
| 10880 <a id="XP_Q41_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q96_A5.html"> Q[96], A[5]</a>]. Therefore matrimony does not come under a precept. | |
| 10881 </p> | |
| 10882 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p8"> | |
| 10883 <b>I answer that,</b> Nature inclines to a thing in two ways. In one way as to that which is necessary for the perfection of the individual, and | |
| 10884 such an obligation is binding on each one, since natural perfections are common to all. In another way it inclines to that | |
| 10885 which is necessary for the perfection of the community; and since there are many things of this kind, one of which hinders | |
| 10886 another, such an inclination does not bind each man by way of precept; else each man would be | |
| 10887 bound to husbandry and building and to such offices as are necessary to the human community; but the inclination of nature | |
| 10888 is satisfied by the accomplishment of those various offices by various individuals. Accordingly, since the perfection of the | |
| 10889 human community requires that some should devote themselves to the contemplative life to which marriage is a very great obstacle, | |
| 10890 the natural inclination to marriage is not binding by way of precept even according to the philosophers. Hence | |
| 10891 Theophrastus proves that it is not advisable for a wise man to marry, as Jerome relates (Contra Jovin. i). | |
| 10892 </p> | |
| 10893 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p9"> | |
| 10894 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This precept has not been recalled, and yet it is not binding on each individual, for the reason given above, except at that | |
| 10895 time when the paucity of men required each one to betake himself to the begetting of children. | |
| 10896 </p> | |
| 10897 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p10"> The Replies to objections 2 and 3 are clear from what has been said.</p> | |
| 10898 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p11"> | |
| 10899 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Human nature has a general inclination to various offices and acts, as already stated. But since it is variously in various | |
| 10900 subjects, as individualized in this or that one, it inclines one subject more to one of those offices, and another subject | |
| 10901 more to another, according to the difference of temperament of various individuals. And it is owing to this difference, as | |
| 10902 well as to Divine providence which governs all, that one person chooses one office | |
| 10903 such as husbandry, and another person another. And so it is too that some choose the married life and some the contemplative. | |
| 10904 Wherefore no danger threatens. | |
| 10905 </p> | |
| 10906 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 10907 <p id="XP_Q41_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 10908 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A1.html"></a> | |
| 10909 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A3.html"></a> | |
| 10910 </div> | |
| 10911 <div id="XP_Q41_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 10912 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A2.html"></a> | |
| 10913 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A4.html"></a> | |
| 10914 <h4 id="XP_Q41_A3-p0.1">Whether the marriage act is always sinful?</h4> | |
| 10915 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 10916 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p2"> | |
| 10917 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the marriage act is always sinful. For it is written ( | |
| 10918 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.29" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:29</a>): "That they . . . who have wives, be as if they had none." But those who are not married do not perform the marriage act. | |
| 10919 Therefore even those who are married sin in that act. | |
| 10920 </p> | |
| 10921 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p3"> | |
| 10922 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "Your iniquities have divided between you and your God." Now the marriage act divides man from God wherefore the | |
| 10923 people who were to see God ( | |
| 10924 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.19.11" target="asv">Ex. 19:11</a>) were commanded not to go near their wives ( | |
| 10925 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.19.20" target="asv">Ex. 19:20</a>); and Jerome says (Ep. ad Ageruch.: Contra Jovini, 18) that in the marriage act "the Holy Ghost touches not the hearts of | |
| 10926 the prophets." Therefore it is sinful. | |
| 10927 </p> | |
| 10928 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p4"> | |
| 10929 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which is shameful in itself can by no means be well done. Now the marriage act is always connected with concupiscence, | |
| 10930 which is always shameful. Therefore it is always sinful. | |
| 10931 </p> | |
| 10932 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p5"> | |
| 10933 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, nothing is the object of excuse save sin. Now the marriage act needs to be excused by the marriage blessings, as | |
| 10934 the Master says (Sent. iv, D, 26). Therefore it is a sin. | |
| 10935 </p> | |
| 10936 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p6"> | |
| 10937 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, things alike in species are judged alike. But marriage intercourse is of the same species as the act of adultery, | |
| 10938 since its end is the same, namely the human species. Therefore since the act of adultery is a sin, the marriage act is likewise. | |
| 10939 </p> | |
| 10940 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p7"> | |
| 10941 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, excess in the passions corrupts virtue. Now there is always excess of pleasure in the marriage act, so much so that | |
| 10942 it absorbs the reason which is man's principal good, wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 11) that "in that act it | |
| 10943 is impossible to understand anything." Therefore the marriage act is always a sin. | |
| 10944 </p> | |
| 10945 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p8"> | |
| 10946 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 10947 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.28" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:28</a>): "If a virgin marry she hath not sinned," and ( | |
| 10948 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.14" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:14</a>): "I will . . . that the younger should marry," and "bear children." But there can be no bearing of children without carnal | |
| 10949 union. Therefore the marriage act is not a sin; else the Apostle would not have approved of it. | |
| 10950 </p> | |
| 10951 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p9"> Further, no sin is a matter of precept. But the marriage act is a matter of precept ( | |
| 10952 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:3</a>): "Let the husband render the debt to his life." Therefore it is not a sin. | |
| 10953 </p> | |
| 10954 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p10"> | |
| 10955 <b>I answer that,</b> If we suppose the corporeal nature to be created by the good God we cannot hold that those things which pertain to the preservation | |
| 10956 of the corporeal nature and to which nature inclines, are altogether evil; wherefore, since the inclination to beget an offspring | |
| 10957 whereby the specific nature is preserved is from nature, it is impossible to maintain that the act of begetting children is | |
| 10958 altogether unlawful, so that it be impossible to find the mean of virtue | |
| 10959 therein; unless we suppose, as some are mad enough to assert, that corruptible things were created by an evil god, whence | |
| 10960 perhaps the opinion mentioned in the text is derived (Sent. iv, D, 26); wherefore this is a most wicked heresy. | |
| 10961 </p> | |
| 10962 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p11"> | |
| 10963 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By these words the Apostle did not forbid the marriage act, as neither did he forbid the possession of things when he said | |
| 10964 ( | |
| 10965 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.31" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:31</a>): "They that use this world" (let them be) "as if they used it not." In each case he forbade enjoyment [*"Fruitionem," i.e. | |
| 10966 enjoyment of a thing sought as one's last end]; which is clear from the way in which he expresses himself; for he did not | |
| 10967 say "let them not use it," or "let them not have them," but let them be | |
| 10968 "as if they used it not" and "as if they had none." | |
| 10969 </p> | |
| 10970 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p12"> | |
| 10971 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> We are united to God by the habit of grace and by the act of contemplation and love. Therefore whatever severs the former | |
| 10972 of these unions is always a sin, but not always that which severs the latter, since a lawful occupation about lower things | |
| 10973 distracts the mind so that it is not fit for actual union with God; and this is especially the case in carnal intercourse | |
| 10974 wherein the mind is withheld by the intensity of pleasure. For this reason those who | |
| 10975 have to contemplate Divine things or handle sacred things are enjoined not to have to do with their wives for that particular | |
| 10976 time; and it is in this sense that the Holy Ghost, as regards the actual revelation of hidden things, did not touch the hearts | |
| 10977 of the prophets at the time of the marriage act. | |
| 10978 </p> | |
| 10979 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p13"> | |
| 10980 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The shamefulness of concupiscence that always accompanies the marriage act is a shamefulness not of guilt, but of punishment | |
| 10981 inflicted for the first sin, inasmuch as the lower powers and the members do not obey reason. Hence the argument does not | |
| 10982 prove. | |
| 10983 </p> | |
| 10984 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p14"> | |
| 10985 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Properly speaking, a thing is said to be excused when it has some appearance of evil, and yet is not evil, or not as evil | |
| 10986 as it seems, because some things excuse wholly, others in part. And since the marriage act, by reason of the corruption of | |
| 10987 concupiscence, has the appearance of an inordinate act, it is wholly excused by the marriage blessing, so as not to be a sin. | |
| 10988 </p> | |
| 10989 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p15"> | |
| 10990 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Although they are the same as to their natural species, they differ as to their moral species, which differs in respect of | |
| 10991 one circumstance, namely intercourse with one's wife and with another than one's wife; just as to kill a man by assault or | |
| 10992 by justice differentiates the moral species, although the natural species is the same; and yet the one is lawful and the other | |
| 10993 unlawful. | |
| 10994 </p> | |
| 10995 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p16"> | |
| 10996 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The excess of passions that corrupts virtue not only hinders the act of reason, but also destroys the order of reason. The | |
| 10997 intensity of pleasure in the marriage act does not do this, since, although for the moment man is not being directed, he was | |
| 10998 previously directed by his reason. | |
| 10999 </p> | |
| 11000 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p17"></p> | |
| 11001 <p id="XP_Q41_A3-p18"></p> | |
| 11002 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11003 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A4.html"></a> | |
| 11004 </div> | |
| 11005 <div id="XP_Q41_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 11006 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11007 <a href="summa.XP_Q42.html"></a> | |
| 11008 <h4 id="XP_Q41_A4-p0.1">Whether the marriage act is meritorious?</h4> | |
| 11009 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 11010 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p2"> | |
| 11011 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the marriage act is not meritorious. For Chrysostom [*Hom. i in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed | |
| 11012 to St. John Chrysostom] says in his commentary on Matthew: "Although marriage brings no punishment to those who use it, it | |
| 11013 affords them no meed." Now merit bears a relation to meed. Therefore the marriage act is not meritorious. | |
| 11014 </p> | |
| 11015 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p3"> | |
| 11016 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to refrain from what is meritorious deserves not praise. Yet virginity whereby one refrains from marriage is praiseworthy. | |
| 11017 Therefore the marriage act is not meritorious. | |
| 11018 </p> | |
| 11019 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p4"> | |
| 11020 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, he who avails himself of an indulgence granted him, avails himself of a favor received. But a man does not merit | |
| 11021 by receiving a favor. Therefore the marriage act is not meritorious. | |
| 11022 </p> | |
| 11023 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p5"> | |
| 11024 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, merit like virtue, consists in difficulty. But the marriage act affords not difficulty but pleasure. Therefore it | |
| 11025 is not meritorious. | |
| 11026 </p> | |
| 11027 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p6"> | |
| 11028 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, that which cannot be done without venial sin is never meritorious, for a man cannot both merit and demerit at the | |
| 11029 same time. Now there is always a venial sin in the marriage act, since even the first movement in such like pleasures is a | |
| 11030 venial sin. Therefore the aforesaid act cannot be meritorious. | |
| 11031 </p> | |
| 11032 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p7"> | |
| 11033 <b>On the contrary,</b> Every act whereby a precept is fulfilled is meritorious if it be done from charity. Now such is the marriage act, for it | |
| 11034 is said ( | |
| 11035 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q41_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:3</a>): "Let the husband render the debt to his wife." Therefore, etc. | |
| 11036 </p> | |
| 11037 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p8"> Further, every act of virtue is meritorious. Now the aforesaid act is an act of justice, for it is called the rendering of | |
| 11038 a debt. Therefore it is meritorious. | |
| 11039 </p> | |
| 11040 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p9"> | |
| 11041 <b>I answer that,</b> Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, Q[1], A[3]; | |
| 11042 | |
| 11043 <a id="XP_Q41_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q18_A9.html">FS, Q[18], A[9]</a>), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage | |
| 11044 act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship | |
| 11045 of God, it is meritorious. But if the | |
| 11046 motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, | |
| 11047 it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, | |
| 11048 it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, | |
| 11049 or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust. | |
| 11050 </p> | |
| 11051 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p10"> | |
| 11052 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The root of merit, as regards the essential reward, is charity itself; but as regards an accidental reward, the reason for | |
| 11053 merit consists in the difficulty of an act; and thus the marriage act is not meritorious except in the first way. | |
| 11054 </p> | |
| 11055 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p11"> | |
| 11056 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The difficulty required for merit of the accidental reward is a difficulty of labor, but the difficulty required for the | |
| 11057 essential reward is the difficulty of observing the mean, and this is the difficulty in the marriage act. | |
| 11058 </p> | |
| 11059 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p12"> | |
| 11060 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> First movements in so far as they are venial sins are movements of the appetite to some inordinate object of pleasure. This | |
| 11061 is not the case in the marriage act, and consequently the argument does not prove. | |
| 11062 </p> | |
| 11063 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p13"></p> | |
| 11064 <p id="XP_Q41_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 11065 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11066 <a href="summa.XP_Q42.html"></a> | |
| 11067 </div> | |
| 11068 <a href="summa.XP_Q40_A7.html"></a> | |
| 11069 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11070 </div> | |
| 11071 <div id="XP_Q42" class="div3"> | |
| 11072 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A4.html"></a> | |
| 11073 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11074 <h3 id="XP_Q42-p0.1">OF MATRIMONY AS A SACRAMENT (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 11075 <p id="XP_Q42-p1"></p> | |
| 11076 <p id="XP_Q42-p2"> We must next consider matrimony as a sacrament. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 11077 <p id="XP_Q42-p3"> (1) Whether matrimony is a sacrament?</p> | |
| 11078 <p id="XP_Q42-p4"> (2) Whether it ought to have been instituted before sin was committed?</p> | |
| 11079 <p id="XP_Q42-p5"> (3) Whether it confers grace?</p> | |
| 11080 <p id="XP_Q42-p6"> (4) Whether carnal intercourse belongs to the integrity of matrimony?</p> | |
| 11081 <div id="XP_Q42_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 11082 <a href="summa.XP_Q42.html"></a> | |
| 11083 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11084 <h4 id="XP_Q42_A1-p0.1">Whether matrimony is a sacrament?</h4> | |
| 11085 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 11086 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p2"> | |
| 11087 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that matrimony is not a sacrament. For every sacrament of the New Law has a form that is essential to the sacrament. | |
| 11088 But the blessing given by the priest at a wedding is not essential to matrimony. Therefore it is not a sacrament. | |
| 11089 </p> | |
| 11090 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p3"> | |
| 11091 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a sacrament according to Hugh (De Sacram. i) is "a material element." But matrimony has not a material element for | |
| 11092 its matter. Therefore it is not a sacrament. | |
| 11093 </p> | |
| 11094 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p4"> | |
| 11095 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's Passion. But matrimony, since it has pleasure annexed to it, | |
| 11096 does not conform man to Christ's Passion, which was painful. Therefore it is not a sacrament. | |
| 11097 </p> | |
| 11098 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p5"> | |
| 11099 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, every sacrament of the New Law causes that which it signifies. Yet matrimony does not cause the union of Christ | |
| 11100 with the Church, which union it signifies. Therefore matrimony is not a sacrament. | |
| 11101 </p> | |
| 11102 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p6"> | |
| 11103 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, in the other sacraments there is something which is reality and sacrament. But this is not to be found in matrimony, | |
| 11104 since it does not imprint a character, else it would not be repeated. Therefore it is not a sacrament. | |
| 11105 </p> | |
| 11106 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p7"> | |
| 11107 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 11108 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q42_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.32" target="asv">Eph. 5:32</a>): "This is a great sacrament." Therefore, etc. | |
| 11109 </p> | |
| 11110 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p8"> Further, a sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing. But such is Matrimony. Therefore, etc.</p> | |
| 11111 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p9"> | |
| 11112 <b>I answer that,</b> A sacrament denotes a sanctifying remedy against sin offered to man under sensible signs [*Cf. | |
| 11113 <a id="XP_Q42_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html">TP, Q[61], A[1]</a>; | |
| 11114 <a id="XP_Q42_A1-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html">TP, Q[65], A[1]</a>]. Wherefore since this is the case in matrimony, it is reckoned among the sacraments. | |
| 11115 </p> | |
| 11116 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p10"> | |
| 11117 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words whereby the marriage consent is expressed are the form of this sacrament, and not the priest's blessing, which | |
| 11118 is a sacramental. | |
| 11119 </p> | |
| 11120 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p11"> | |
| 11121 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sacrament of Matrimony, like that of Penance, is perfected by the act of the recipient. Wherefore just as Penance has | |
| 11122 no other matter than the sensible acts themselves, which take the place of the material element, so it is in Matrimony. | |
| 11123 </p> | |
| 11124 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p12"> | |
| 11125 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although Matrimony is not conformed to Christ's Passion as regards pain, it is as regards charity, whereby He suffered for | |
| 11126 the Church who was to be united to Him as His spouse. | |
| 11127 </p> | |
| 11128 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p13"> | |
| 11129 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The union of Christ with the Church is not the reality contained in this sacrament, but is the reality signified and not | |
| 11130 contained---and no sacrament causes a reality of that kind---but it has another both contained and signified which it causes, | |
| 11131 as we shall state further on (ad 5). The Master, however (Sent. iv, D, 26), asserts that it is a non-contained reality, because | |
| 11132 he was of opinion that Matrimony has no reality contained therein. | |
| 11133 </p> | |
| 11134 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p14"> | |
| 11135 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> In this sacrament also those three things [*Cf. | |
| 11136 <a id="XP_Q42_A1-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html">TP, Q[66], A[1]</a>] are to be found, for the acts externally apparent are the sacrament only; the bond between husband and wife resulting from | |
| 11137 those acts is reality and sacrament; and the ultimate reality contained is the effect of this sacrament, while the non-contained | |
| 11138 reality is that which the Master assigns (Sent. iv, D, 26). | |
| 11139 </p> | |
| 11140 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p15"></p> | |
| 11141 <p id="XP_Q42_A1-p16"></p> | |
| 11142 <a href="summa.XP_Q42.html"></a> | |
| 11143 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11144 </div> | |
| 11145 <div id="XP_Q42_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 11146 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11147 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11148 <h4 id="XP_Q42_A2-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to have been instituted before sin was committed?</h4> | |
| 11149 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 11150 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p2"> | |
| 11151 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Matrimony ought not to have been instituted before sin. Because that which is of natural law needs not | |
| 11152 to be instituted. Now such is Matrimony, as stated above ( | |
| 11153 <a id="XP_Q42_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q41_A1.html">Q[41], A[1]</a>). Therefore it ought not to have been instituted. | |
| 11154 </p> | |
| 11155 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p3"> | |
| 11156 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacraments are medicines against the disease of sin. But a medicine is not made ready except for an actual disease. | |
| 11157 Therefore it should not have been instituted before sin. | |
| 11158 </p> | |
| 11159 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p4"> | |
| 11160 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, one institution suffices for one thing. Now Matrimony was instituted also after sin, as stated in the text (Sent. | |
| 11161 iv, D, 26). Therefore it was not instituted before sin. | |
| 11162 </p> | |
| 11163 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p5"> | |
| 11164 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the institution of a sacrament must come from God. Now before sin, the words relating to Matrimony were not definitely | |
| 11165 said by God but by Adam; the words which God uttered ( | |
| 11166 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q42_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.22" target="asv">Gn. 1:22</a>), "Increase and multiply," were addressed also to the brute creation where there is no marriage. Therefore Matrimony was | |
| 11167 not instituted before sin. | |
| 11168 </p> | |
| 11169 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p6"> | |
| 11170 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Matrimony is a sacrament of the New Law. But the sacraments of the New Law took their origin from Christ. Therefore | |
| 11171 it ought not to have been instituted before sin. | |
| 11172 </p> | |
| 11173 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p7"> | |
| 11174 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( | |
| 11175 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q42_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.4" target="asv">Mat. 19:4</a>): "Have ye not read that He Who made man from the beginning 'made them male and female'"? | |
| 11176 </p> | |
| 11177 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p8"> Further, Matrimony was instituted for the begetting of children. But the begetting of children was necessary to man before | |
| 11178 sin. Therefore it behooved Matrimony to be instituted before sin. | |
| 11179 </p> | |
| 11180 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p9"> | |
| 11181 <b>I answer that,</b> Nature inclines to marriage with a certain good in view, which good varies according to the different states of man, wherefore | |
| 11182 it was necessary for matrimony to be variously instituted in the various states of man in reference to that good. Consequently | |
| 11183 matrimony as directed to the begetting of children, which was necessary even when there was no sin, was instituted before | |
| 11184 sin; according as it affords a remedy for the wound of sin, it was instituted after | |
| 11185 sin at the time of the natural law; its institution belongs to the Mosaic Law as regards personal disqualifications; and it | |
| 11186 was instituted in the New Law in so far as it represents the mystery of Christ's union with the Church, and in this respect | |
| 11187 it is a sacrament of the New Law. As regards other advantages resulting from matrimony, such as the friendship and mutual | |
| 11188 services which husband and wife render one another, its institution belongs to the civil law. Since, however, a sacrament | |
| 11189 is | |
| 11190 essentially a sign and a remedy, it follows that the nature of sacrament applies to matrimony as regards the intermediate | |
| 11191 institution; that it is fittingly intended to fulfill an office of nature as regards the first institution; and. as regards | |
| 11192 the last-mentioned institution, that it is directed to fulfill an office of society. | |
| 11193 </p> | |
| 11194 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p10"> | |
| 11195 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Things which are of natural law in a general way, need to be instituted as regards their determination which is subject to | |
| 11196 variation according to various states; just as it is of natural law that evil-doers be punished, but that such and such a | |
| 11197 punishment be appointed for such and such a crime is determined by positive law. | |
| 11198 </p> | |
| 11199 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p11"> | |
| 11200 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Matrimony is not only for a remedy against sin, but is chiefly for an office of nature; and thus it was instituted before | |
| 11201 sin, not as intended for a remedy. | |
| 11202 </p> | |
| 11203 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p12"> | |
| 11204 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There is no reason why matrimony should not have had several institutions corresponding to the various things that had to | |
| 11205 be determined in connection with marriage. Hence these various institutions are not of the same thing in the same respect. | |
| 11206 </p> | |
| 11207 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p13"> | |
| 11208 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Before sin matrimony was instituted by God, when He fashioned a helpmate for man out of his rib, and said to them: "Increase | |
| 11209 and multiply." And although this was said also to the other animals, it was not to be fulfilled by them in the same way as | |
| 11210 by men. As to Adam's words, he uttered them inspired by God to understand that the institution of marriage was from God. | |
| 11211 </p> | |
| 11212 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p14"> | |
| 11213 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As was clearly stated, matrimony was not instituted before Christ as a sacrament of the New Law. | |
| 11214 </p> | |
| 11215 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p15"></p> | |
| 11216 <p id="XP_Q42_A2-p16"></p> | |
| 11217 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11218 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11219 </div> | |
| 11220 <div id="XP_Q42_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 11221 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11222 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A4.html"></a> | |
| 11223 <h4 id="XP_Q42_A3-p0.1">Whether matrimony confers grace?</h4> | |
| 11224 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 11225 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p2"> | |
| 11226 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that matrimony does not confer grace. For, according to Hugh (De Sacram. i) "the sacraments, by virtue of their | |
| 11227 sanctification, confer an invisible grace." But matrimony has no sanctification essential to it. Therefore grace is not conferred | |
| 11228 therein. | |
| 11229 </p> | |
| 11230 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p3"> | |
| 11231 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every sacrament that confers grace confers it by virtue of its matter and form. Now the acts which are the matter | |
| 11232 in this sacrament are not the cause of grace (for it would be the heresy of Pelagius to assert that our acts cause grace); | |
| 11233 and the words expressive of consent are not the cause of grace, since no sanctification results from them. Therefore grace | |
| 11234 is by no means given in matrimony. | |
| 11235 </p> | |
| 11236 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p4"> | |
| 11237 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the grace that is directed against the wound of sin is necessary to all who have that wound. Now the wound of concupiscence | |
| 11238 is to be found in all. Therefore if grace were given in matrimony against the wound of concupiscence, all men ought to contract | |
| 11239 marriage, and it would be very stupid to refrain from matrimony. | |
| 11240 </p> | |
| 11241 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p5"> | |
| 11242 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, sickness does not seek a remedy where it finds aggravation. Now concupiscence is aggravated by concupiscence, because, | |
| 11243 according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 12), "the desire of concupiscence is insatiable, and is increased by congenial actions." | |
| 11244 Therefore it would seem that grace is not conferred in matrimony, as a remedy for concupiscence. | |
| 11245 </p> | |
| 11246 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p6"> | |
| 11247 <b>On the contrary,</b> Definition and thing defined should be convertible. Now causality of grace is included in the definition of a sacrament. | |
| 11248 Since, then, matrimony is a sacrament, it is a cause of grace. | |
| 11249 </p> | |
| 11250 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p7"> Further, Augustine says (De Bono Viduit. viii; Gen. ad lit. ix, 7) that "matrimony affords a remedy to the sick." But it | |
| 11251 is not a remedy except in so far as it has some efficacy. Therefore it has some efficacy for the repression of concupiscence. | |
| 11252 Now concupiscence is not repressed except by grace. Therefore grace is conferred therein. | |
| 11253 </p> | |
| 11254 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p8"> | |
| 11255 <b>I answer that,</b> There have been three opinions on this point. For some [*Peter Lombard, Sent. iv, D, 2] said that matrimony is nowise the | |
| 11256 cause of grace, but only a sign thereof. But this cannot be maintained, for in that case it would in no respect surpass the | |
| 11257 sacraments of the Old Law. Wherefore there would be no reason for reckoning it among the sacraments of the New Law; since | |
| 11258 even in the Old Law by the very nature of the act it was able to afford a remedy to | |
| 11259 concupiscence lest the latter run riot when held in too strict restraint. | |
| 11260 </p> | |
| 11261 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p9"> Hence others [*St. Albert Magnus, Sent. iv, D, 26] said that grace is conferred therein as regards the withdrawal from evil, | |
| 11262 because the act is excused from sin, for it would be a sin apart from matrimony. But this would be too little, since it had | |
| 11263 this also in the Old Law. And so they say that it makes man withdraw from evil, by restraining the concupiscence lest it tend | |
| 11264 to something outside the marriage blessings, but that this grace does not enable a man to do good works. But | |
| 11265 this cannot be maintained, since the same grace hinders sin and inclines to good, just as the same heat expels cold and gives | |
| 11266 heat. | |
| 11267 </p> | |
| 11268 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p10"> Hence others [*St. Bonaventure, Sent. iv, D, 26] say that matrimony, inasmuch as it is contracted in the faith of Christ, | |
| 11269 is able to confer the grace which enables us to do those works which are required in matrimony. and this is more probable, | |
| 11270 since wherever God gives the faculty to do a thing, He gives also the helps whereby man is enabled to make becoming use of | |
| 11271 that faculty; thus it is clear that to all the soul's powers there correspond bodily members by which they can | |
| 11272 proceed to act. Therefore, since in matrimony man receives by Divine institution the faculty to use his wife for the begetting | |
| 11273 of children, he also receives the grace without which he cannot becomingly do so; just as we have said of the sacrament of | |
| 11274 orders ( | |
| 11275 <a id="XP_Q42_A3-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q35_A1.html">Q[35], A[1]</a>). And thus this grace which is given is the last thing contained in this sacrament. | |
| 11276 </p> | |
| 11277 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p11"> | |
| 11278 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as the baptismal water by virtue of its contact with Christ's body [*Cf. | |
| 11279 <a id="XP_Q42_A3-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html">TP, Q[66], A[3]</a>, ad 4] is able to "touch the body and cleanse the heart" [*St. Augustine, Tract. lxxx in Joan.], so is matrimony able to | |
| 11280 do so through Christ having represented it by His Passion, and not principally through any blessing of the priest. | |
| 11281 </p> | |
| 11282 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p12"> | |
| 11283 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as the water of Baptism together with the form of words results immediately not in the infusion of grace, but in the | |
| 11284 imprinting of the character, so the outward acts and the words expressive of consent directly effect a certain tie which is | |
| 11285 the sacrament of matrimony; and this tie by virtue of its Divine institution works dispositively [*Cf. | |
| 11286 <a id="XP_Q42_A3-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q18_A1.html"> Q[18], A[1]</a>, where St. Thomas uses the same expression; and Editor's notes at the | |
| 11287 beginning of the Supplement and on that Article] to the infusion of grace. | |
| 11288 </p> | |
| 11289 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p13"> | |
| 11290 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument would hold if no more efficacious remedy could be employed against the disease of concupiscence; but a yet | |
| 11291 more powerful remedy is found in spiritual works and mortification of the flesh by those who make no use of matrimony. | |
| 11292 </p> | |
| 11293 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p14"> | |
| 11294 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A remedy can be employed against concupiscence in two ways. First, on the part of concupiscence by repressing it in its root, | |
| 11295 and thus matrimony affords a remedy by the grace given therein. Secondly, on the part of its act, and this in two ways: first, | |
| 11296 by depriving the act to which concupiscence inclines of its outward shamefulness, and this is done by the marriage blessings | |
| 11297 which justify carnal concupiscence; secondly, by hindering the shameful act, | |
| 11298 which is done by the very nature of the act. because concupiscence, being satisfied by the conjugal act, does not incline | |
| 11299 so much to other wickedness. For this reason the Apostle says ( | |
| 11300 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q42_A3-p14.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:9</a>): "It is better to marry than to burn." For though the works congenial to concupiscence are in themselves of a nature to | |
| 11301 increase concupiscence, yet in so far as they are directed according to reason they repress concupiscence, because like acts | |
| 11302 result in like dispositions and | |
| 11303 habits. | |
| 11304 </p> | |
| 11305 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p15"></p> | |
| 11306 <p id="XP_Q42_A3-p16"></p> | |
| 11307 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11308 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A4.html"></a> | |
| 11309 </div> | |
| 11310 <div id="XP_Q42_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 11311 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11312 <a href="summa.XP_Q43.html"></a> | |
| 11313 <h4 id="XP_Q42_A4-p0.1">Whether carnal intercourse is an integral part of this sacrament?</h4> | |
| 11314 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 11315 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p2"> | |
| 11316 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that carnal intercourse is an integral part of marriage. For at the very institution of marriage it was declared | |
| 11317 ( | |
| 11318 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q42_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.24" target="asv">Gn. 2:24</a>): "They shall be two in one flesh." Now this is not brought about save by carnal intercourse. Therefore it is an integral | |
| 11319 part of marriage. | |
| 11320 </p> | |
| 11321 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p3"> | |
| 11322 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which belongs to the signification of a sacrament is necessary for the sacrament, as we have stated above | |
| 11323 <a id="XP_Q42_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q42_A2.html">(A[2];</a> Q[9], A[1] ). Now carnal intercourse belongs to the signification of matrimony, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 26). | |
| 11324 Therefore it is an integral part of the sacrament. | |
| 11325 </p> | |
| 11326 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p4"> | |
| 11327 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is directed to the preservation of the species. But the species cannot be preserved without carnal | |
| 11328 intercourse. Therefore it is an integral part of the sacrament. | |
| 11329 </p> | |
| 11330 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p5"> | |
| 11331 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Matrimony is a sacrament inasmuch as it affords a remedy against concupiscence; according to the Apostle's saying | |
| 11332 ( | |
| 11333 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q42_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:9</a>): "It is better to marry than to burn." But it does not afford this remedy to those who have no carnal intercourse. Therefore | |
| 11334 the same conclusion follows as before. | |
| 11335 </p> | |
| 11336 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p6"> | |
| 11337 <b>On the contrary,</b> There was matrimony in Paradise, and yet there was no carnal intercourse. Therefore carnal intercourse is not an integral | |
| 11338 part of matrimony. | |
| 11339 </p> | |
| 11340 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p7"> Further, a sacrament by its very name denotes a sanctification. But matrimony is holier without carnal intercourse, according | |
| 11341 to the text (Sent. D, 26). Therefore carnal intercourse is not necessary for the sacrament. | |
| 11342 </p> | |
| 11343 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p8"> | |
| 11344 <b>I answer that,</b> Integrity is twofold. One regards the primal perfection consisting in the very essence of a thing; the other regards the | |
| 11345 secondary perfection consisting in operation. Since then carnal intercourse is an operation or use of marriage which gives | |
| 11346 the faculty for that intercourse, it follows, that carnal intercourse belongs to the latter, and not to the former integrity | |
| 11347 of marriage [*Cf. | |
| 11348 <a id="XP_Q42_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q29_A2.html">TP, Q[29], A[2]</a> ]. | |
| 11349 </p> | |
| 11350 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p9"> | |
| 11351 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Adam expressed the integrity of marriage in regard to both perfections, because a thing is known by its operation. | |
| 11352 </p> | |
| 11353 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p10"> | |
| 11354 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Signification of the thing contained is necessary for the sacrament. Carnal intercourse belongs not to this signification, | |
| 11355 but to the thing not contained, as appears from what was said above (A[1], ad 4,5). | |
| 11356 </p> | |
| 11357 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p11"> | |
| 11358 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A thing does not reach its end except by its own act. Wherefore, from the fact that the end of matrimony is not attained | |
| 11359 without carnal intercourse, it follows that it belongs to the second and not to the first integrity. | |
| 11360 </p> | |
| 11361 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p12"> | |
| 11362 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Before carnal intercourse marriage is a remedy by virtue of the grace given therein, although not by virtue of the act, which | |
| 11363 belongs to the second integrity. | |
| 11364 </p> | |
| 11365 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p13"></p> | |
| 11366 <p id="XP_Q42_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 11367 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11368 <a href="summa.XP_Q43.html"></a> | |
| 11369 </div> | |
| 11370 <a href="summa.XP_Q41_A4.html"></a> | |
| 11371 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11372 </div> | |
| 11373 <div id="XP_Q43" class="div3"> | |
| 11374 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A4.html"></a> | |
| 11375 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11376 <h3 id="XP_Q43-p0.1">OF MATRIMONY WITH REGARD TO THE BETROTHAL (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 11377 <p id="XP_Q43-p1"></p> | |
| 11378 <p id="XP_Q43-p2"> In the next place we must consider matrimony absolutely; and here we must treat (1) of the betrothal; (2) of the nature of | |
| 11379 matrimony; (3) of its efficient cause, namely the consent; (4) of its blessings; (5) of the impediments thereto; (6) of second | |
| 11380 marriages; (7) of certain things annexed to marriage. | |
| 11381 </p> | |
| 11382 <p id="XP_Q43-p3"> Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 11383 <p id="XP_Q43-p4"> (1) What is the betrothal?</p> | |
| 11384 <p id="XP_Q43-p5"> (2) Who can contract a betrothal?</p> | |
| 11385 <p id="XP_Q43-p6"> (3) Whether a betrothal can be canceled?</p> | |
| 11386 <div id="XP_Q43_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 11387 <a href="summa.XP_Q43.html"></a> | |
| 11388 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11389 <h4 id="XP_Q43_A1-p0.1">Whether a betrothal is a promise of future marriage?</h4> | |
| 11390 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 11391 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p2"> | |
| 11392 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a betrothal is not rightly defined "a promise of future marriage," as expressed in the words of Pope Nicholas | |
| 11393 I (Resp. ad Consul. Bulgar., iii). For as Isidore says (Etym. iv), "a man is betrothed not by a mere promise, but by giving | |
| 11394 his troth [spondet] and providing sureties [sponsores]". Now a person is said to be betrothed by reason of his betrothal. | |
| 11395 Therefore it is wrongly described as a promise. | |
| 11396 </p> | |
| 11397 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p3"> | |
| 11398 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever promises a thing must be compelled to fulfill his promise. But those who have contracted a betrothal are | |
| 11399 not compelled by the Church to fulfill the marriage. Therefore a betrothal is not a promise. | |
| 11400 </p> | |
| 11401 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p4"> | |
| 11402 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sometimes a betrothal does not consist of a mere promise, but an oath is added, as also certain pledges. Therefore | |
| 11403 seemingly it should not be defined as a mere promise. | |
| 11404 </p> | |
| 11405 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p5"> | |
| 11406 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, marriage should be free and absolute. But a betrothal is sometimes expressed under a condition even of money to | |
| 11407 be received. Therefore it is not fittingly described as a promise of marriage. | |
| 11408 </p> | |
| 11409 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p6"> | |
| 11410 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, promising about the future is blamed in | |
| 11411 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q43_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.4.13" target="asv"> James 4:13, </a> seqq. But there should be nothing blameworthy about the sacraments. Therefore one ought not to make a promise of future marriage. | |
| 11412 </p> | |
| 11413 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p7"> | |
| 11414 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, no man is called a spouse except on account of his espousals. But a man is said to be a spouse on account of actual | |
| 11415 marriage, according to the text (Sent. iv, D, 27). Therefore espousals are not always a promise of future marriage. | |
| 11416 </p> | |
| 11417 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p8"> | |
| 11418 <b>I answer that,</b> Consent to conjugal union if expressed in words of the future does not make a marriage, but a promise of marriage; and this | |
| 11419 promise is called "a betrothal from plighting one's troth," as Isidore says (Etym. iv). For before the use of writing-tablets, | |
| 11420 they used to give pledges of marriage, by which they plighted their mutual consent under the marriage code, and they provided | |
| 11421 guarantors. This promise is made in two ways, namely absolutely, or conditionally. | |
| 11422 Absolutely, in four ways: firstly, a mere promise, by saying: "I will take thee for my wife," and conversely; secondly, by | |
| 11423 giving betrothal pledges, such as money and the like; thirdly, by giving an engagement ring; fourthly, by the addition of | |
| 11424 an oath. If, however, this promise be made conditionally, we must draw a distinction; for it is either an honorable condition, | |
| 11425 for instance if we say: "I will take thee, if thy parents consent," and then the promise holds if the condition is fulfilled, | |
| 11426 and does not hold if the condition is not fulfilled; or else the condition is dishonorable, and this in two ways: for either | |
| 11427 it is contrary to the marriage blessings, as if we were to say: "I will take thee if thou promise means of sterility," and | |
| 11428 then no betrothal is contracted; or else it is not contrary to the marriage blessings, as were one to say: "I will take thee | |
| 11429 if thou consent to my thefts," and then the promise holds, but the condition should be removed. | |
| 11430 </p> | |
| 11431 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p9"> | |
| 11432 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The betrothal itself and giving of sureties are a ratification of the promise, wherefore it is denominated from these as | |
| 11433 from that which is more perfect. | |
| 11434 </p> | |
| 11435 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p10"> | |
| 11436 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By this promise one party is bound to the other in respect of contracting marriage; and he who fulfills not his promise sins | |
| 11437 mortally, unless a lawful impediment arise; and the Church uses compulsion in the sense that she enjoins a penance for the | |
| 11438 sin. But he is not compelled by sentence of the court, because compulsory marriages are wont to have evil results; unless | |
| 11439 the parties be bound by oath, for then he ought to be compelled, in the opinion of | |
| 11440 some, although others think differently on account of the reason given above, especially if there be fear of one taking the | |
| 11441 other's life. | |
| 11442 </p> | |
| 11443 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p11"> | |
| 11444 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Such things are added only in confirmation of the promise, and consequently they are not distinct from it. | |
| 11445 </p> | |
| 11446 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p12"> | |
| 11447 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The condition that is appended does not destroy the liberty of marriage; for if it be unlawful, it should be renounced; and | |
| 11448 if it be lawful, it is either about things that are good simply, as were one to say, "I will take thee, if thy parents consent," | |
| 11449 and such a condition does not destroy the liberty of the betrothal, but gives it an increase of rectitude. or else it is about | |
| 11450 things that are useful, as were one to say: "I will marry thee if thou pay | |
| 11451 me a hundred pounds," and then this condition is appended, not as asking a price for the consent of marriage, but as referring | |
| 11452 to the promise of a dowry; so that the marriage does not lose its liberty. Sometimes, however, the condition appended is the | |
| 11453 payment of a sum of money by way of penalty, and then, since marriage should be free, such a condition does not hold, nor | |
| 11454 can such a penalty be exacted from a person who is unwilling to fulfill the promise of marriage. | |
| 11455 </p> | |
| 11456 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p13"> | |
| 11457 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> James does not intend to forbid altogether the making of promises about the future, but the making of promises as though | |
| 11458 one were certain of one's life; hence he teaches that we ought to add the condition. "If the Lord will," which, though it | |
| 11459 be not expressed in words, ought nevertheless to be impressed on the heart. | |
| 11460 </p> | |
| 11461 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p14"> | |
| 11462 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> In marriage we may consider both the marriage union and the marriage act; and on account of his promise of the first as future | |
| 11463 a man is called a "spouse" from his having contracted his espousals by words expressive of the future; but from the promise | |
| 11464 of the second a man is called a "spouse," even when the marriage has been contracted by words expressive of the present, because | |
| 11465 by this very fact he promises [spondet] the marriage act. However, properly | |
| 11466 speaking, espousals are so called from the promise [sponsione] in the first sense, because espousals are a kind of sacramental | |
| 11467 annexed to matrimony, as exorcism to baptism. | |
| 11468 </p> | |
| 11469 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p15"></p> | |
| 11470 <p id="XP_Q43_A1-p16"></p> | |
| 11471 <a href="summa.XP_Q43.html"></a> | |
| 11472 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11473 </div> | |
| 11474 <div id="XP_Q43_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 11475 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11476 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11477 <h4 id="XP_Q43_A2-p0.1">Whether seven years is fittingly assigned as the age for betrothal?</h4> | |
| 11478 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 11479 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p2"> | |
| 11480 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that seven years is not fittingly assigned as the age for betrothal. For a contract that can be formed by others | |
| 11481 does not require discretion in those whom it concerns. Now a betrothal can be arranged by the parents without the knowledge | |
| 11482 of either of the persons betrothed. Therefore a betrothal can be arranged before the age of seven years as well as after. | |
| 11483 </p> | |
| 11484 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p3"> | |
| 11485 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as some use of reason is necessary for the contract of betrothal, so is there for the consent to mortal sin. | |
| 11486 Now, as Gregory says (Dial. iv), a boy of five years of age was carried off by the devil on account of the sin of blasphemy. | |
| 11487 Therefore a betrothal can take place before the age of seven years. | |
| 11488 </p> | |
| 11489 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p4"> | |
| 11490 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a betrothal is directed to marriage. But for marriage the same age is not assigned to boy and girl. | |
| 11491 </p> | |
| 11492 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p5"> | |
| 11493 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, one can become betrothed as soon as future marriage can be agreeable to one. Now signs of this agreeableness are | |
| 11494 often apparent in boys before the age of seven. Therefore they can become betrothed before that age. | |
| 11495 </p> | |
| 11496 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p6"> | |
| 11497 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, if persons become betrothed before they are seven years old, and subsequently after the age of seven and before | |
| 11498 the age of maturity renew their promise in words expressive of the present, they are reckoned to be betrothed. Now this is | |
| 11499 not by virtue of the second contract, since they intend to contract not betrothal but marriage. Therefore it is by the virtue | |
| 11500 of the first; and thus espousals can be contracted before the age of seven. | |
| 11501 </p> | |
| 11502 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p7"> | |
| 11503 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, when a thing is done by many persons in common, if one fails he is supplied by another, as in the case of those | |
| 11504 who row a boat. Now the contract of betrothal is an action common to the contracting parties. Therefore if one be of mature | |
| 11505 age, he can contract a betrothal with a girl who is not seven years old, since the lack of age in one is more than counterbalanced | |
| 11506 in the other. | |
| 11507 </p> | |
| 11508 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p8"> | |
| 11509 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, those who at about the age of puberty, but before it, enter into the marriage contract by words expressive of the | |
| 11510 present are reputed to be married. Therefore in like manner if they contract marriage by words expressive of the future, before | |
| 11511 yet close on the age of puberty, they are to be reputed as betrothed. | |
| 11512 </p> | |
| 11513 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p9"> | |
| 11514 <b>I answer that,</b> The age of seven years is fixed reasonably enough by law for the contracting of betrothals, for since a betrothal is a promise | |
| 11515 of the future, as already stated | |
| 11516 <a id="XP_Q43_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q43_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, it follows that they are within the competency of those who can make a promise in some way, and this is only for those who | |
| 11517 can have some foresight of the future, and this requires the use of reason, of which three degrees are to be observed, according | |
| 11518 to the | |
| 11519 Philosopher (Ethic. i, 4). The first is when a person neither understands by himself nor is able to learn from another; the | |
| 11520 second stage is when a man can learn from another but is incapable by himself of consideration and understanding; the third | |
| 11521 degree is when a man is both able to learn from another and to consider by himself. And since reason develops in man by little | |
| 11522 and little, in proportion as the movement and fluctuation of the humors is calmed, man reaches the first stage of reason | |
| 11523 before his seventh year; and consequently during that period he is unfit for any contract, and therefore for betrothal. But | |
| 11524 he begins to reach the second stage at the end of his first seven years, wherefore children at that age are sent to school. | |
| 11525 But man begins to reach the third stage at the end of his second seven years, as regards things concerning his person, when | |
| 11526 his natural reason develops; but as regards things outside his person, at the end of his third seven years. Hence before his | |
| 11527 first seven years a man is not fit to make any contract, but at the end of that period he begins to be fit to make certain | |
| 11528 promises for the future, especially about those things to which natural reason inclines us more, though he is not fit to bind | |
| 11529 himself by a perpetual obligation, because as yet he has not a firm will. Hence at that age betrothals can be contracted. | |
| 11530 But at the end of the second seven years he can already bind himself in matters concerning his person, either to religion | |
| 11531 or to | |
| 11532 wedlock. And after the third seven years he can bind himself in other matters also; and according to the laws he is given | |
| 11533 the power of disposing of his property after his twenty-second year. | |
| 11534 </p> | |
| 11535 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p10"> | |
| 11536 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> If the parties are betrothed by another person before they reach the age of puberty, either of them or both can demur; wherefore | |
| 11537 in that case the betrothal does not take effect, so that neither does any affinity result therefrom. Hence a betrothal made | |
| 11538 between certain persons by some other takes effect, in so far as those between whom the betrothal is arranged do not demur | |
| 11539 when they reach the proper age, whence they are understood to consent to what | |
| 11540 others have done. | |
| 11541 </p> | |
| 11542 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p11"> | |
| 11543 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Some say that the boy of whom Gregory tells this story was not lost, and that he did not sin mortally; and that this vision | |
| 11544 was for the purpose of making the father sorrowful, for he had sinned in the boy through failing to correct him. But this | |
| 11545 is contrary to the express intention of Gregory, who says (Dial. iv) that "the boy's father having neglected the soul of his | |
| 11546 little son, fostered no little sinner for the flames of hell." Consequently it must | |
| 11547 be said that for a mortal sin it is sufficient to give consent to something present, whereas in a betrothal the consent is | |
| 11548 to something future; and greater discretion of reason is required for looking to the future than for consenting to one present | |
| 11549 act. Wherefore a man can sin mortally before he can bind himself to a future obligation. | |
| 11550 </p> | |
| 11551 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p12"> | |
| 11552 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Regarding the age for the marriage contract a disposition is required not only on the part of the use of reason, but also | |
| 11553 on the part of the body, in that it is necessary to be of an age adapted to procreation. And since a girl becomes apt for | |
| 11554 the act of procreation in her twelfth year, and a boy at the end of his second seven years, as the Philosopher says (De Hist. | |
| 11555 Anim. vii), whereas the age is the same in both for attaining the use of reason which | |
| 11556 is the sole condition for betrothal, hence it is that the one age is assigned for both as regards betrothal, but not as regards | |
| 11557 marriage. | |
| 11558 </p> | |
| 11559 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p13"> | |
| 11560 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This agreeableness in regard to boys under the age of seven does not result from the perfect use of reason, since they are | |
| 11561 not as yet possessed of complete self-control; it results rather from the movement of nature than from any process of reason. | |
| 11562 Consequently, this agreeableness does not suffice for contracting a betrothal. | |
| 11563 </p> | |
| 11564 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p14"> | |
| 11565 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> In this case, although the second contract does not amount to marriage, nevertheless the parties show that they ratify their | |
| 11566 former promise; wherefore the first contract is confirmed by the second. | |
| 11567 </p> | |
| 11568 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p15"> | |
| 11569 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Those who row a boat act by way of one cause, and consequently what is lacking in one can be supplied by another. But those | |
| 11570 who make a contract of betrothal act as distinct persons, since a betrothal can only be between two parties; wherefore it | |
| 11571 is necessary for each to be qualified to contract, and thus the defect of one is an obstacle to their betrothal, nor can it | |
| 11572 be supplied by the other. | |
| 11573 </p> | |
| 11574 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p16"> | |
| 11575 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> It is true that in the matter of betrothal if the contracting parties are close upon the age of seven, the contract of betrothal | |
| 11576 is valid, since, according to the Philosopher (Phys. ii, 56), "when little is lacking it seems as though nothing were lacking." | |
| 11577 Some fix the margin at six months. but it is better to determine it according to the condition of the contracting parties, | |
| 11578 since the use of reason comes sooner to some than to others. | |
| 11579 </p> | |
| 11580 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p17"></p> | |
| 11581 <p id="XP_Q43_A2-p18"></p> | |
| 11582 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11583 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11584 </div> | |
| 11585 <div id="XP_Q43_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 11586 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11587 <a href="summa.XP_Q44.html"></a> | |
| 11588 <h4 id="XP_Q43_A3-p0.1">Whether a betrothal can be dissolved?</h4> | |
| 11589 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 11590 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p2"> | |
| 11591 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a betrothal cannot be dissolved if one of the parties enter religion. For if I have promised a thing to | |
| 11592 someone I cannot lawfully pledge it to someone else. Now he who betroths himself promises his body to the woman. Therefore | |
| 11593 he cannot make a further offering of himself to God in religion. | |
| 11594 </p> | |
| 11595 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p3"> | |
| 11596 <b>Objection 2:</b> Again, seemingly it should not be dissolved when one of the parties leaves for a distant country, because in doubtful matters | |
| 11597 one should always choose the safer course. Now the safer course would be to wait for him. Therefore she is bound to wait for | |
| 11598 him. | |
| 11599 </p> | |
| 11600 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p4"> | |
| 11601 <b>Objection 3:</b> Again, neither seemingly is it dissolved by sickness contracted after betrothal, for no man should be punished for being | |
| 11602 under a penalty. Now the man who contracts an infirmity would be punished if he were to lose his right to the woman betrothed | |
| 11603 to him. Therefore a betrothal should not be dissolved on account of a bodily infirmity. | |
| 11604 </p> | |
| 11605 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p5"> | |
| 11606 <b>Objection 4:</b> Again, neither seemingly should a betrothal be dissolved on account of a supervening affinity, for instance if the spouse | |
| 11607 were to commit fornication with a kinswoman of his betrothed; for in that case the affianced bride would be penalized for | |
| 11608 the sin of her affianced spouse, which is unreasonable. | |
| 11609 </p> | |
| 11610 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p6"> | |
| 11611 <b>Objection 5:</b> Again, seemingly they cannot set one another free; for it would be a proof of greatest fickleness if they contracted together | |
| 11612 and then set one another free; and such conduct ought not to be tolerated by the Church. Therefore, etc. | |
| 11613 </p> | |
| 11614 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p7"> | |
| 11615 <b>Objection 6:</b> Again, neither seemingly ought a betrothal to be dissolved on account of the fornication of one of the parties. For a betrothal | |
| 11616 does not yet give the one power over the body of the other; wherefore it would seem that they nowise sin against one another | |
| 11617 if meanwhile they commit fornication. Consequently a betrothal should not be dissolved on that account. | |
| 11618 </p> | |
| 11619 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p8"> | |
| 11620 <b>Objection 7:</b> Again, neither seemingly on account of his contracting with another woman by words expressive of the present. For a subsequent | |
| 11621 sale does not void a previous sale. Therefore neither should a second contract void a previous one. | |
| 11622 </p> | |
| 11623 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p9"> | |
| 11624 <b>Objection 8:</b> Again, neither seemingly should it be dissolved on account of deficient age; since what is not cannot be dissolved. Now a | |
| 11625 betrothal is null before the requisite age. Therefore it cannot be dissolved. | |
| 11626 </p> | |
| 11627 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p10"> | |
| 11628 <b>I answer that,</b> In all the cases mentioned above the betrothal that has been contracted is dissolved, but in different ways. For in two of | |
| 11629 them---namely when a party enters religion, and when either of the affianced spouses contracts with another party by words | |
| 11630 expressive of the present---the betrothal is dissolved by law, whereas in the other cases it has to be dissolved according | |
| 11631 to the judgment of the Church. | |
| 11632 </p> | |
| 11633 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p11"> | |
| 11634 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The like promise is dissolved by spiritual death, for that promise is purely spiritual, as we shall state further on ( | |
| 11635 <a id="XP_Q43_A3-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q61_A2.html">Q[61], A[2]</a>). | |
| 11636 </p> | |
| 11637 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p12"> | |
| 11638 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This doubt is solved by either party not putting in an appearance at the time fixed for completing the marriage. Wherefore | |
| 11639 if it was no fault of that party that the marriage was not completed, he or she can lawfully marry without any sin. But if | |
| 11640 he or she was responsible for the non-completion of the marriage, this responsibility involves the obligation of doing penance | |
| 11641 for the broken promise---or oath if the promise was confirmed by oath---and he or | |
| 11642 she can contract with another if they wish it, subject to the judgment of the Church. | |
| 11643 </p> | |
| 11644 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p13"> | |
| 11645 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If either of the betrothed parties incur an infirmity which notably weakens the subject (as epilepsy or paralysis), or causes | |
| 11646 a deformity (as loss of the nose or eyes, and the like), or is contrary to the good of the offspring (as leprosy, which is | |
| 11647 wont to be transmitted to the children), the betrothal can be dissolved, lest the betrothed be displeasing to one another, | |
| 11648 and the marriage thus contracted have an evil result. Nor is one punished for being | |
| 11649 under a penalty, although one incurs a loss from one's penalty, and this is not unreasonable. | |
| 11650 </p> | |
| 11651 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p14"> | |
| 11652 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> If the affianced bridegroom has carnal knowledge of a kinswoman of his spouse, or "vice versa," the betrothal must be dissolved; | |
| 11653 and for proof it is sufficient that the fact be the common talk, in order to avoid scandal; for causes whose effects mature | |
| 11654 in the future are voided of their effects, not only by what actually is, but also by what happens subsequently. Hence just | |
| 11655 as affinity, had it existed at the time of the betrothal, would have prevented | |
| 11656 that contract, so, if it supervene before marriage, which is an effect of the betrothal, the previous contract is voided of | |
| 11657 its effect. Nor does the other party suffer in consequence, indeed he or she gains, being set free from one who has become | |
| 11658 hateful to God by committing fornication. | |
| 11659 </p> | |
| 11660 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p15"> | |
| 11661 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Some do not admit this case. Yet they have against them the Decretal (cap. Praeterea, De spons. et matr.) which says expressly: | |
| 11662 "Just as those who enter into a contract of fellowship by pledging their faith to one another and afterwards give it back, | |
| 11663 so it may be patiently tolerated that those who are betrothed to one another should set one another free." Yet to this they | |
| 11664 say that the Church allows this lest worse happen rather than because it is | |
| 11665 according to strict law. But this does not seem to agree with the example quoted by the Decretal. | |
| 11666 </p> | |
| 11667 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p16"> Accordingly we must reply that it is not always a proof of fickleness to rescind an agreement, since "our counsels are uncertain" | |
| 11668 ( | |
| 11669 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q43_A3-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.9.14" target="asv">Wis. 9:14</a>). | |
| 11670 </p> | |
| 11671 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p17"> | |
| 11672 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Although when they become betrothed they have not yet given one another power over one another's body, yet if this [*Referring | |
| 11673 to the contention of the Objection] were to happen it would make them suspicious of one another's fidelity; and so one can | |
| 11674 ensure himself against the other by breaking off the engagement. | |
| 11675 </p> | |
| 11676 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p18"> | |
| 11677 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> This argument would hold if each contract were of the same kind; whereas the second contract of marriage has greater force | |
| 11678 than the first, and consequently dissolves it. | |
| 11679 </p> | |
| 11680 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p19"> | |
| 11681 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> Although it was not a true betrothal, there was a betrothal of a kind; and consequently, lest approval should seem to be | |
| 11682 given when they come to the lawful age, they should seek a dissolution of the betrothal by the judgment of the Church, for | |
| 11683 the sake of a good example. | |
| 11684 </p> | |
| 11685 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p20"></p> | |
| 11686 <p id="XP_Q43_A3-p21"></p> | |
| 11687 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11688 <a href="summa.XP_Q44.html"></a> | |
| 11689 </div> | |
| 11690 <a href="summa.XP_Q42_A4.html"></a> | |
| 11691 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11692 </div> | |
| 11693 <div id="XP_Q44" class="div3"> | |
| 11694 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11695 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11696 <h3 id="XP_Q44-p0.1">OF THE DEFINITION OF MATRIMONY (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 11697 <p id="XP_Q44-p1"></p> | |
| 11698 <p id="XP_Q44-p2"> We must now consider the nature of matrimony. Under this head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 11699 <p id="XP_Q44-p3"> (1) Whether matrimony is a kind of joining?</p> | |
| 11700 <p id="XP_Q44-p4"> (2) Whether it is fittingly named?</p> | |
| 11701 <p id="XP_Q44-p5"> (3) Whether it is fittingly defined?</p> | |
| 11702 <div id="XP_Q44_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 11703 <a href="summa.XP_Q44.html"></a> | |
| 11704 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11705 <h4 id="XP_Q44_A1-p0.1">Whether matrimony is a kind of joining?</h4> | |
| 11706 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 11707 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p2"> | |
| 11708 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that matrimony is not a kind of joining. Because the bond whereby things are tied together differs from their | |
| 11709 joining, as cause from effect. Now matrimony is the bond whereby those who are joined in matrimony are tied together. Therefore | |
| 11710 it is not a kind of joining. | |
| 11711 </p> | |
| 11712 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p3"> | |
| 11713 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every sacrament is a sensible sign. But no relation is a sensible accident. Therefore since matrimony is a sacrament, | |
| 11714 it is not a kind of relation, and consequently neither is it a kind of joining. | |
| 11715 </p> | |
| 11716 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p4"> | |
| 11717 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a joining is a relation of equiparance as well as of equality. Now according to Avicenna the relation of equality | |
| 11718 is not identically the same in each extreme. Neither therefore is there an identically same joining; and consequently if matrimony | |
| 11719 is a kind of joining, there is not only one matrimony between man and wife. | |
| 11720 </p> | |
| 11721 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p5"> | |
| 11722 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is by relation that things are related to one another. Now by matrimony certain things are related to one another; for | |
| 11723 the husband is the wife's husband, and the wife is the husband's wife. Therefore matrimony is a kind of relation, nor is it | |
| 11724 other than a joining. | |
| 11725 </p> | |
| 11726 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p6"> Further, the union of two things into one can result only from their being joined. Now such is the effect of matrimony ( | |
| 11727 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q44_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.24" target="asv">Gn. 2:24</a>): "They shall be two in one flesh." Therefore matrimony is a kind of joining. | |
| 11728 </p> | |
| 11729 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p7"> | |
| 11730 <b>I answer that,</b> A joining denotes a kind of uniting, and so wherever things are united there must be a joining. Now things directed to one | |
| 11731 purpose are said to be united in their direction thereto, thus many men are united in following one military calling or in | |
| 11732 pursuing one business, in relation to which they are called fellow-soldiers or business partners. Hence, since by marriage | |
| 11733 certain persons are directed to one begetting and upbringing of children, and again to one | |
| 11734 family life, it is clear that in matrimony there is a joining in respect of which we speak of husband and wife; and this joining, | |
| 11735 through being directed to some one thing, is matrimony; while the joining together of bodies and minds is a result of matrimony. | |
| 11736 </p> | |
| 11737 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p8"> | |
| 11738 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Matrimony is the bond by which they are tied formally, not effectively, and so it need not be distinct from the joining. | |
| 11739 </p> | |
| 11740 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p9"> | |
| 11741 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although relation is not itself a sensible accident, its causes may be sensible. Nor is it necessary in a sacrament for that | |
| 11742 which is both reality and sacrament [*Cf. | |
| 11743 <a id="XP_Q44_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html">TP, Q[66], A[1]</a>] to be sensible (for such is the relation of the aforesaid joining to this sacrament), whereas the words expressive of consent, | |
| 11744 which are sacrament only and are the cause of that same joining, are sensible. | |
| 11745 </p> | |
| 11746 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p10"> | |
| 11747 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A relation is founded on something as its cause---for instance likeness is founded on quality---and on something as its subject---for | |
| 11748 instance in the things themselves that are like; and on either hand we may find unity and diversity of relation. Since then | |
| 11749 it is not the same identical quality that conduces to likeness, but the same specific quality in each of the like subjects, | |
| 11750 and since, moreover, the subjects of likeness are two in number, and the | |
| 11751 same applies to equality, it follows that both equality and likeness are in every way numerically distinct in either of the | |
| 11752 like or equal subjects. But the relations of matrimony, on the one hand, have unity in both extremes, namely on the part of | |
| 11753 the cause, since it is directed to the one identical begetting; whereas on the part of the subject there is numerical diversity. | |
| 11754 The fact of this relation having a diversity of subjects is signified by the terms "husband" and "wife," while its unity | |
| 11755 is denoted by its being called matrimony. | |
| 11756 </p> | |
| 11757 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 11758 <p id="XP_Q44_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 11759 <a href="summa.XP_Q44.html"></a> | |
| 11760 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11761 </div> | |
| 11762 <div id="XP_Q44_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 11763 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11764 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11765 <h4 id="XP_Q44_A2-p0.1">Whether matrimony is fittingly named?</h4> | |
| 11766 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 11767 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p2"> | |
| 11768 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that matrimony is unfittingly named. Because a thing should be named after that which ranks higher. But the | |
| 11769 father ranks above the mother. Therefore the union of father and mother should rather be named after the father. | |
| 11770 </p> | |
| 11771 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p3"> | |
| 11772 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a thing should be named from that which is essential to it, since a "definition expresses the nature signified by | |
| 11773 a name" (Metaph. iv, 28). Now nuptials are not essential to matrimony. Therefore matrimony should not be called nuptials. | |
| 11774 </p> | |
| 11775 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p4"> | |
| 11776 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a species cannot take its proper name from that which belongs to the genus. Now a joining [conjunctio] is the genus | |
| 11777 of matrimony. Therefore it should not be called a conjugal union. | |
| 11778 </p> | |
| 11779 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p5"> | |
| 11780 <b>On the contrary,</b> stands the common use of speech. | |
| 11781 </p> | |
| 11782 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p6"> | |
| 11783 <b>I answer that,</b> Three things may be considered in matrimony. First, its essence, which is a joining together, and in reference to this it | |
| 11784 is called the "conjugal union"; secondly, its cause, which is the wedding, and in reference to this it is called the "nuptial | |
| 11785 union" from "nubo" [*The original meaning of 'nubo' is 'to veil'], because at the wedding ceremony, whereby the marriage is | |
| 11786 completed, the heads of those who are wedded are covered with a veil [*This is still done | |
| 11787 in some countries]; thirdly, the effect, which is the offspring, and in reference to this it is called "matrimony," as Augustine | |
| 11788 says (Contra Faust. xix, 26), because "a woman's sole purpose in marrying should be motherhood." Matrimony may also be resolved | |
| 11789 into "matris munium" [*i.e. munus], i.e. a mother's duty, since the duty of bringing up the children chiefly devolves on the | |
| 11790 women; or into "matrem muniens," because it provides the mother with a protector and support in the person of her | |
| 11791 husband; or into "matrem monens," as admonishing her not to leave her husband and take up with another man; or into "materia | |
| 11792 unius," because it is a joining together for the purpose of providing the matter of one offspring as though it were derived | |
| 11793 from {monos} and "materia"; or into "matre" and "nato," as Isidore says (Etym. ix), because it makes a woman the mother of | |
| 11794 a child. | |
| 11795 </p> | |
| 11796 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p7"> | |
| 11797 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the father ranks above the mother, the mother has more to do with the offspring than the father has. or we may say | |
| 11798 that woman was made chiefly in order to be man's helpmate in relation to the offspring, whereas the man was not made for this | |
| 11799 purpose. Wherefore the mother has a closer relation to the nature of marriage than the father has. | |
| 11800 </p> | |
| 11801 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p8"> | |
| 11802 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sometimes essentials are known by accidentals, wherefore some things can be named even after their accidentals, since a name | |
| 11803 is given to a thing for the purpose that it may become known. | |
| 11804 </p> | |
| 11805 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p9"> | |
| 11806 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Sometimes a species is named after something pertaining to the genus on account of an imperfection in the species, when namely | |
| 11807 it has the generic nature completely, yet adds nothing pertaining to dignity; thus the accidental property retains the name | |
| 11808 of property, which is common to it and to the definition. Sometimes, however, it is on account of a perfection, when we find | |
| 11809 the generic nature completely in one species and not in another; thus animal is | |
| 11810 named from soul [anima], and this belongs to an animate body, which is the genus of animal; yet animation is not found perfectly | |
| 11811 in those animate beings that are not animals. It is thus with the case in point. for the joining of husband and wife by matrimony | |
| 11812 is the greatest of all joinings, since it is a joining of soul and body, wherefore it is called a "conjugal" union. | |
| 11813 </p> | |
| 11814 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p10"></p> | |
| 11815 <p id="XP_Q44_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 11816 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11817 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11818 </div> | |
| 11819 <div id="XP_Q44_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 11820 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11821 <a href="summa.XP_Q45.html"></a> | |
| 11822 <h4 id="XP_Q44_A3-p0.1">Whether matrimony is fittingly defined in the text?</h4> | |
| 11823 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 11824 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p2"> | |
| 11825 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that matrimony is unfittingly defined in the text* (Sent. iv, D, 27). [*The definition alluded to is as follows: | |
| 11826 "Marriage is the marital union of man and woman involving living together in undivided partnership."] For it is necessary | |
| 11827 to mention matrimony in defining a husband, since it is the husband who is joined to the woman in matrimony. Now "marital | |
| 11828 union" is put in the definition of matrimony. Therefore in these definitions there would seem | |
| 11829 to be a vicious circle. | |
| 11830 </p> | |
| 11831 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p3"> | |
| 11832 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, matrimony makes the woman the man's wife no less than it makes the man the woman's husband. Therefore it should | |
| 11833 not be described as a "marital union" rather than an uxorial union. | |
| 11834 </p> | |
| 11835 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p4"> | |
| 11836 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, habit [consuetudo] pertains to morals. Yet it often happens that married persons differ very much in habit. Therefore | |
| 11837 the words "involving their living together [consuetudinem] in undivided partnership" should have no place in the definition | |
| 11838 of matrimony. | |
| 11839 </p> | |
| 11840 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p5"> | |
| 11841 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, we find other definitions given of matrimony, for according to Hugh (Sum. Sent. vii, 6), "matrimony is the lawful | |
| 11842 consent of two apt persons to be joined together." Also, according to some, "matrimony is the fellowship of a common life | |
| 11843 and a community regulated by Divine and human law"; and we ask how these definitions differ. | |
| 11844 </p> | |
| 11845 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p6"> | |
| 11846 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above | |
| 11847 <a id="XP_Q44_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q44_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, three things are to be considered in matrimony, namely its cause, its essence, and its effect; and accordingly we find three | |
| 11848 definitions given of matrimony. For the definition of Hugh indicates the cause, namely the consent, and this definition is | |
| 11849 self-evident. The definition given in the text indicates the essence of matrimony, namely the "union," and adds determinate | |
| 11850 subjects by the words "between lawful | |
| 11851 persons." It also points to the difference of the contracting parties in reference to the species, by the word "marital," | |
| 11852 for since matrimony is a joining together for the purpose of some one thing, this joining together is specified by the purpose | |
| 11853 to which it is directed, and this is what pertains to the husband [maritum]. It also indicates the force of this joining---for | |
| 11854 it is indissoluble---by the words "involving," etc. | |
| 11855 </p> | |
| 11856 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p7"> The remaining definition indicates the effect to which matrimony is directed, namely the common life in family matters. And | |
| 11857 since every community is regulated by some law, the code according to which this community is directed, namely Divine and | |
| 11858 human law, finds a place in this definition. while other communities, such as those of traders or soldiers, are established | |
| 11859 by human law alone. | |
| 11860 </p> | |
| 11861 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p8"> | |
| 11862 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sometimes the prior things from which a definition ought to be given are not known to us, and consequently certain things | |
| 11863 are defined from things that are posterior simply, but prior to us; thus in the definition of quality the Philosopher employs | |
| 11864 the word "such" [quale] when he says (Cap. De Qualitate) that "quality is that whereby we are said to be such." Thus, too, | |
| 11865 in defining matrimony we say that it is a "marital union," by which we mean that | |
| 11866 matrimony is a union for the purpose of those things required by the marital office, all of which could not be expressed in | |
| 11867 one word. | |
| 11868 </p> | |
| 11869 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p9"> | |
| 11870 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated | |
| 11871 <a id="XP_Q44_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q44_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, this difference indicates the end of the union. And since, according to the Apostle ( | |
| 11872 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q44_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:9</a>), the "man is not [Vulg.: 'was not created'] for the woman, but the woman for the man," it follows that this difference should | |
| 11873 be indicated in reference to the man rather than the woman. | |
| 11874 </p> | |
| 11875 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p10"> | |
| 11876 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as the civic life denotes not the individual act of this or that one, but the things that concern the common action | |
| 11877 of the citizens, so the conjugal life is nothing else than a particular kind of companionship pertaining to that common action. | |
| 11878 wherefore as regards this same life the partnership of married persons is always indivisible, although it is divisible as | |
| 11879 regards the act belonging to each party. | |
| 11880 </p> | |
| 11881 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p11"> The Reply to the Fourth Objection is clear from what has been said above.</p> | |
| 11882 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 11883 <p id="XP_Q44_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 11884 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11885 <a href="summa.XP_Q45.html"></a> | |
| 11886 </div> | |
| 11887 <a href="summa.XP_Q43_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11888 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11889 </div> | |
| 11890 <div id="XP_Q45" class="div3"> | |
| 11891 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11892 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11893 <h3 id="XP_Q45-p0.1">OF THE MARRIAGE CONSENT CONSIDERED IN ITSELF (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 11894 <p id="XP_Q45-p1"></p> | |
| 11895 <p id="XP_Q45-p2"> In the next place we have to consider the consent; and the first point to discuss is the consent considered in itself; the | |
| 11896 second is the consent confirmed by oath or by carnal intercourse; the third is compulsory consent and conditional consent; | |
| 11897 and the fourth is the object of the consent. | |
| 11898 </p> | |
| 11899 <p id="XP_Q45-p3"> Under the first head there are five points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 11900 <p id="XP_Q45-p4"> (1) Whether the consent is the efficient cause of matrimony?</p> | |
| 11901 <p id="XP_Q45-p5"> (2) Whether the consent needs to be expressed in words?</p> | |
| 11902 <p id="XP_Q45-p6"> (3) Whether consent given in words expressive of the future makes a marriage?</p> | |
| 11903 <p id="XP_Q45-p7"> (4) Whether consent given in words expressive of the present, without inward consent, makes a true marriage outwardly?</p> | |
| 11904 <p id="XP_Q45-p8"> (5) Whether consent given secretly in words expressive of the present makes a marriage?</p> | |
| 11905 <div id="XP_Q45_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 11906 <a href="summa.XP_Q45.html"></a> | |
| 11907 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11908 <h4 id="XP_Q45_A1-p0.1">Whether consent is the efficient cause of matrimony?</h4> | |
| 11909 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 11910 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p2"> | |
| 11911 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that consent is not the efficient cause of matrimony. For the sacraments depend not on the human will but on | |
| 11912 the Divine institution, as shown above (Sent. iv, D, 2; | |
| 11913 <a id="XP_Q45_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html">TP, Q[64], A[2]</a>). But consent belongs to the human will. Therefore it is no more the cause of matrimony than of the other sacraments. | |
| 11914 </p> | |
| 11915 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p3"> | |
| 11916 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing is its own cause. But seemingly matrimony is nothing else than the consent, since it is the consent which | |
| 11917 signifies the union of Christ with the Church. | |
| 11918 </p> | |
| 11919 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p4"> | |
| 11920 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, of one thing there should be one cause. Now there is one marriage between two persons, as stated above ( | |
| 11921 <a id="XP_Q45_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q44_A1.html">Q[44], A[1]</a>); whereas the consents of the two parties are distinct, for they are given by different persons and to different things, | |
| 11922 since on the one hand there is consent to take a husband, and on the other hand consent to take a wife. Therefore mutual consent | |
| 11923 is not the cause of matrimony. | |
| 11924 </p> | |
| 11925 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p5"> | |
| 11926 <b>On the contrary,</b> Chrysostom [*Hom. xxxii in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says: "It is not coition but consent | |
| 11927 that makes a marriage." | |
| 11928 </p> | |
| 11929 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p6"> Further, one person does not receive power over that which is at the free disposal of another, without the latter's consent. | |
| 11930 Now by marriage each of the married parties receives power over the other's body ( | |
| 11931 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q45_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:4</a>), whereas hitherto each had free power over his own body. Therefore consent makes a marriage. | |
| 11932 </p> | |
| 11933 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p7"> | |
| 11934 <b>I answer that,</b> In every sacrament there is a spiritual operation by means of a material operation which signifies it; thus in Baptism the | |
| 11935 inward spiritual cleansing is effected by a bodily cleansing. Wherefore, since in matrimony there is a kind of spiritual joining | |
| 11936 together, in so far as matrimony is a sacrament, and a certain material joining together, in so far as it is directed to an | |
| 11937 office of nature and of civil life, it follows that the spiritual joining is the | |
| 11938 effect of the Divine power by means of the material joining. Therefore seeing that the joinings of material contracts are | |
| 11939 effected by mutual consent, it follows that the joining together of marriage is effected in the same way. | |
| 11940 </p> | |
| 11941 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p8"> | |
| 11942 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The first cause of the sacraments is the Divine power which works in them the welfare of the soul; but the second or instrumental | |
| 11943 causes are material operations deriving their efficacy from the Divine institution, and thus consent is the cause in matrimony. | |
| 11944 </p> | |
| 11945 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p9"> | |
| 11946 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Matrimony is not the consent itself, but the union of persons directed to one purpose, as stated above ( | |
| 11947 <a id="XP_Q45_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q44_A1.html">Q[44], A[1]</a>), and this union is the effect of the consent. Moreover, the consent, properly speaking, signifies not the union of Christ | |
| 11948 with the Church, but His will whereby His union with the Church was brought about. | |
| 11949 </p> | |
| 11950 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p10"> | |
| 11951 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as marriage is one on the part of the object to which the union is directed, whereas it is more than one on the part | |
| 11952 of the persons united, so too the consent is one on the part of the thing consented to, namely the aforesaid union, whereas | |
| 11953 it is more than one on the part of the persons consenting. Nor is the direct object of consent a husband but union with a | |
| 11954 husband on the part of the wife, even as it is union with a wife on the part of the | |
| 11955 husband. | |
| 11956 </p> | |
| 11957 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 11958 <p id="XP_Q45_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 11959 <a href="summa.XP_Q45.html"></a> | |
| 11960 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A2.html"></a> | |
| 11961 </div> | |
| 11962 <div id="XP_Q45_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 11963 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A1.html"></a> | |
| 11964 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A3.html"></a> | |
| 11965 <h4 id="XP_Q45_A2-p0.1">Whether the consent needs to be expressed in words?</h4> | |
| 11966 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 11967 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p2"> | |
| 11968 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there is no need for the consent to be expressed in words. For a man is brought under another's power | |
| 11969 by a vow just as he is by matrimony. Now a vow is binding in God's sight, even though it be not expressed in words. Therefore | |
| 11970 consent also makes a marriage binding even without being expressed in words. | |
| 11971 </p> | |
| 11972 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p3"> | |
| 11973 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there can be marriage between persons who are unable to express their mutual consent in words, through being dumb | |
| 11974 or of different languages. Therefore expression of the consent by words is not required for matrimony. | |
| 11975 </p> | |
| 11976 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p4"> | |
| 11977 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if that which is essential to a sacrament be omitted for any reason whatever, there is no sacrament. Now there is | |
| 11978 a case of marriage without the expression of words if the maid is silent through bashfulness when her parents give her away | |
| 11979 to the bridegroom. Therefore the expression of words is not essential to matrimony. | |
| 11980 </p> | |
| 11981 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p5"> | |
| 11982 <b>On the contrary,</b> Matrimony is a sacrament. Now a sensible sign is required in every sacrament. Therefore it is also required in matrimony, | |
| 11983 and consequently there must needs be at least words by which the consent is made perceptible to the senses. | |
| 11984 </p> | |
| 11985 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p6"> Further, in matrimony there is a contract between husband and wife. Now in every contract there must be expression of the | |
| 11986 words by which men bind themselves mutually to one another. Therefore in matrimony also the consent must be expressed in words. | |
| 11987 </p> | |
| 11988 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p7"> | |
| 11989 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above | |
| 11990 <a id="XP_Q45_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q45_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the marriage union is effected in the same way as the bond in material contracts. And since material contracts are not feasible | |
| 11991 unless the contracting parties express their will to one another in words, it follows that the consent which makes a marriage | |
| 11992 must also be expressed in words, so that the expression of words is to marriage what the outward washing is to Baptism. | |
| 11993 </p> | |
| 11994 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p8"> | |
| 11995 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In a vow there is not a sacramental but only a spiritual bond, wherefore there is no need for it to be done in the same way | |
| 11996 as material contracts, in order that it be binding, as in the case of matrimony. | |
| 11997 </p> | |
| 11998 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p9"> | |
| 11999 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the like cannot plight themselves to one another in words, they can do so by signs, and such signs count for words. | |
| 12000 </p> | |
| 12001 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p10"> | |
| 12002 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to Hugh of S. Victor (Tract. vii, Sum. Sent.), persons who are being married should give their consent by accepting | |
| 12003 one another freely. and this is judged to be the case if they show no dissent when they are being wedded. Wherefore in such | |
| 12004 a case the words of the parents are taken as being the maid's, for the fact that she does not contradict them is a sign that | |
| 12005 they are her words. | |
| 12006 </p> | |
| 12007 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 12008 <p id="XP_Q45_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 12009 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12010 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A3.html"></a> | |
| 12011 </div> | |
| 12012 <div id="XP_Q45_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 12013 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12014 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A4.html"></a> | |
| 12015 <h4 id="XP_Q45_A3-p0.1">Whether consent given in words expressive of the future makes a marriage?</h4> | |
| 12016 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 12017 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p2"> | |
| 12018 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that consent given in words expressive of the future makes a marriage. For as present is to present, so is | |
| 12019 future to future. But consent given in words expressive of the present makes a marriage in the present. Therefore consent | |
| 12020 given in words expressive of the future makes a marriage in the future. | |
| 12021 </p> | |
| 12022 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p3"> | |
| 12023 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in other civil contracts, just as in matrimony, a certain obligation results from the words expressing consent. | |
| 12024 Now in other contracts it matters not whether the obligation is effected by words of the present or of the future tense. Therefore | |
| 12025 neither does it make any difference in matrimony. | |
| 12026 </p> | |
| 12027 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p4"> | |
| 12028 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by the religious vow man contracts a spiritual marriage with God. Now the religious vow is expressed in words of | |
| 12029 the future tense, and is binding. Therefore carnal marriage also can be effected by words of the future tense. | |
| 12030 </p> | |
| 12031 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p5"> | |
| 12032 <b>On the contrary,</b> A man who consents in words of the future tense to take a particular woman as his wife, and after, by words of the present | |
| 12033 tense, consents to take another, according to law must take the second for his wife (cap. Sicut ex Litteris, De spons. et | |
| 12034 matr.). But this would not be the case if consent given in words of the future tense made a marriage, since from the very | |
| 12035 fact that his marriage with the one is valid, he cannot, as long as she lives, marry another. | |
| 12036 Therefore consent given in words of the future tense does not make a marriage. | |
| 12037 </p> | |
| 12038 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p6"> Further, he who promises to do a certain thing does it not yet. Now he who consents in words of the future tense, promises | |
| 12039 to marry a certain woman. Therefore he does not marry her yet. | |
| 12040 </p> | |
| 12041 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p7"> | |
| 12042 <b>I answer that,</b> The sacramental causes produce their effect by signifying it; hence they effect what they signify. Since therefore when a | |
| 12043 man expresses his consent by words of the future tense, he does not signify that he is marrying, but promises that he will | |
| 12044 marry, it follows that a consent expressed in this manner does not make a marriage, but a promise [sponsionem] of marriage, | |
| 12045 and this promise is known as a betrothal [sponsalia]. | |
| 12046 </p> | |
| 12047 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p8"> | |
| 12048 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When consent is expressed in words of the present tense, not only are the words actually present, but consent is directed | |
| 12049 to the present, so that they coincide in point of time; but when consent is given in words of the future tense, although the | |
| 12050 words are actually present, the consent is directed to a future time, and hence they do not coincide in point of time. For | |
| 12051 this reason the comparison fails. | |
| 12052 </p> | |
| 12053 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p9"> | |
| 12054 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even in other contracts, a man who uses words referring to the future, does not transfer the power over his property to another | |
| 12055 person---for instance if he were to say "I will give thee"---but only when he uses words indicative of the present. | |
| 12056 </p> | |
| 12057 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p10"> | |
| 12058 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In the vow of religious profession it is not the spiritual marriage itself that is expressed in words which refer to the | |
| 12059 future, but an act of the spiritual marriage, namely obedience or observance of the rule. If, however, a man vow spiritual | |
| 12060 marriage in the future, it is not a spiritual marriage, for a man does not become a monk by taking such a vow, but promises | |
| 12061 to become one. | |
| 12062 </p> | |
| 12063 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 12064 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 12065 <p id="XP_Q45_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 12066 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12067 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A4.html"></a> | |
| 12068 </div> | |
| 12069 <div id="XP_Q45_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 12070 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A3.html"></a> | |
| 12071 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A5.html"></a> | |
| 12072 <h4 id="XP_Q45_A4-p0.1">Whether, in the absence of inward consent, a marriage is made by consent given in words of the present?</h4> | |
| 12073 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 12074 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p2"> | |
| 12075 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that even in the absence of inward consent a marriage is made by consent expressed in words of the present. | |
| 12076 For "fraud and deceit should benefit no man," according to the law (cap. Ex Tenore, De Rescrip., cap. Si Vir, De cognat. spir.). | |
| 12077 Now he who gives consent in words without consenting in heart commits a fraud. Therefore he should not benefit by it, through | |
| 12078 being released of the bond of marriage. | |
| 12079 </p> | |
| 12080 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p3"> | |
| 12081 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the mental consent of one person cannot be known to another, except in so far as it is expressed in words. If then | |
| 12082 the expression of the words is not enough, and inward consent is required in both parties, neither of them will be able to | |
| 12083 know that he is truly married to the other; and consequently whenever he uses marriage he will commit fornication. | |
| 12084 </p> | |
| 12085 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p4"> | |
| 12086 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if a man is proved to have consented to take a certain woman to wife in words of the present tense, he is compelled | |
| 12087 under pain of excommunication to take her as his wife, even though he should say that he was wanting in mental consent, notwithstanding | |
| 12088 that afterwards he may have contracted marriage with another woman by words expressive of consent in the present. But this | |
| 12089 would not be the case if mental consent were requisite for marriage. Therefore | |
| 12090 it is not required. | |
| 12091 </p> | |
| 12092 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p5"> | |
| 12093 <b>On the contrary,</b> Innocent III says in a Decretal (cap. Tua Nos, De Spons. et matr.) in reference to this case: "Other things cannot complete | |
| 12094 the marriage bond in the absence of consent." | |
| 12095 </p> | |
| 12096 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p6"> Further, intention is necessary in all the sacraments. Now he who consents not in his heart has no intention of contracting | |
| 12097 marriage; and therefore he does not contract a marriage. | |
| 12098 </p> | |
| 12099 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p7"> | |
| 12100 <b>I answer that,</b> The outward cleansing stands in the same relation to baptism as the expression of words to this sacrament, as stated above | |
| 12101 | |
| 12102 <a id="XP_Q45_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q45_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Wherefore just as were a person to receive the outward cleansing, with the intention, not of receiving the sacrament, but | |
| 12103 of acting in jest or deceit, he would not be baptized; so, too, expression of words without inward consent makes no marriage. | |
| 12104 </p> | |
| 12105 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p8"> | |
| 12106 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There are two things here, namely the lack of consent---which benefits him in the tribunal of his conscience so that he is | |
| 12107 not bound by the marriage tie, albeit not in the tribunal of the Church where judgment is pronounced according to the evidence---and | |
| 12108 the deceit in the words, which does not benefit him, neither in the tribunal of his conscience nor in the tribunal of the | |
| 12109 Church, since in both he is punished for this. | |
| 12110 </p> | |
| 12111 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p9"> | |
| 12112 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If mental consent is lacking in one of the parties, on neither side is there marriage, since marriage consists in a mutual | |
| 12113 joining together, as stated above ( | |
| 12114 <a id="XP_Q45_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q44_A1.html">Q[44], A[1]</a>). However one may believe that in all probability there is no fraud unless there be evident signs thereof; because we must | |
| 12115 presume good of everyone, unless there be proof of the contrary. Consequently the party in whom there is no fraud is excused | |
| 12116 from sin on | |
| 12117 account of ignorance. | |
| 12118 </p> | |
| 12119 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p10"> | |
| 12120 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In such a case the Church compels him to hold to his first wife, because the Church judges according to outward appearances; | |
| 12121 nor is she deceived in justice or right, although she is deceived in the facts of the case. Yet such a man ought to bear the | |
| 12122 excommunication rather than return to his first wife; or else he should go far away into another country. | |
| 12123 </p> | |
| 12124 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 12125 <p id="XP_Q45_A4-p12"></p> | |
| 12126 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A3.html"></a> | |
| 12127 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A5.html"></a> | |
| 12128 </div> | |
| 12129 <div id="XP_Q45_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 12130 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A4.html"></a> | |
| 12131 <a href="summa.XP_Q46.html"></a> | |
| 12132 <h4 id="XP_Q45_A5-p0.1">Whether consent given secretly in words of the present makes a marriage?</h4> | |
| 12133 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 12134 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p2"> | |
| 12135 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that consent given secretly in words of the present does not make a marriage. For a thing that is in one person's | |
| 12136 power is not transferred to the power of another without the consent of the person in whose power it was. Now the maid is | |
| 12137 in her father's power. Therefore she cannot by marriage be transferred to a husband's power without her father's consent. | |
| 12138 Wherefore if consent be given secretly, even though it should be expressed in words of the | |
| 12139 present, there will be no marriage. | |
| 12140 </p> | |
| 12141 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p3"> | |
| 12142 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in penance, just as in matrimony, our act is as it were essential to the sacrament. But the sacrament of penance | |
| 12143 is not made complete except by means of the ministers of the Church, who are the dispensers of the sacraments. Therefore neither | |
| 12144 can marriage be perfected without the priest's blessing. | |
| 12145 </p> | |
| 12146 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p4"> | |
| 12147 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Church does not forbid baptism to be given secretly, since one may baptize either privately or publicly. But | |
| 12148 the Church does forbid the celebration of clandestine marriages (cap. Cum inhibitio, De clandest. despons.). Therefore they | |
| 12149 cannot be done secretly. | |
| 12150 </p> | |
| 12151 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p5"> | |
| 12152 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, marriage cannot be contracted by those who are related in the second degree, because the Church has forbidden it. | |
| 12153 But the Church has also forbidden clandestine marriages. Therefore they cannot be valid marriages. | |
| 12154 </p> | |
| 12155 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p6"> | |
| 12156 <b>On the contrary,</b> Given the cause the effect follows. Now the sufficient cause of matrimony is consent expressed in words of the present. Therefore | |
| 12157 whether this be done in public or in private the result is a marriage. | |
| 12158 </p> | |
| 12159 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p7"> Further, wherever there is the due matter and the due form of a sacrament there is the sacrament. Now in a secret marriage | |
| 12160 there is the due matter, since there are persons who are able lawfully to contract---and the due form, since there are the | |
| 12161 words of the present expressive of consent. Therefore there is a true marriage. | |
| 12162 </p> | |
| 12163 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p8"> | |
| 12164 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as in the other sacraments certain things are essential to the sacrament, and if they are omitted there is no sacrament, | |
| 12165 while certain things belong to the solemnization of the sacrament, and if these be omitted the sacrament is nevertheless validly | |
| 12166 performed, although it is a sin to omit them; so, too, consent expressed in words of the present between persons lawfully | |
| 12167 qualified to contract makes a marriage, because these two conditions are essential to | |
| 12168 the sacrament; while all else belongs to the solemnization of the sacrament, as being done in order that the marriage may | |
| 12169 be more fittingly performed. Hence if these be omitted it is a true marriage, although the contracting parties sin, unless | |
| 12170 they have a lawful motive for being excused. [*Clandestine marriages have since been declared invalid by the Council of Trent | |
| 12171 (sess. xxiv). It must be borne in mind that throughout the treatise on marriage St. Thomas gives the Canon Law of his time.] | |
| 12172 </p> | |
| 12173 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p9"> | |
| 12174 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The maid is in her father's power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose | |
| 12175 of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even | |
| 12176 as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent. | |
| 12177 </p> | |
| 12178 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p10"> | |
| 12179 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In penance our act, although essential to the sacrament, does not suffice for producing the proximate effect of the sacrament, | |
| 12180 namely forgiveness of sins, and consequently it is necessary that the act of the priest intervene in order that the sacrament | |
| 12181 be perfected. But in matrimony our acts are the sufficient cause for the production of the proximate effect, which is the | |
| 12182 marriage bond, because whoever has the right to dispose of himself can bind | |
| 12183 himself to another. Consequently the priest's blessing is not required for matrimony as being essential to the sacrament. | |
| 12184 </p> | |
| 12185 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p11"> | |
| 12186 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is also forbidden to receive baptism otherwise than from a priest, except in a case of necessity. But matrimony is not | |
| 12187 a necessary sacrament: and consequently the comparison fails. However, clandestine marriages are forbidden on account of the | |
| 12188 evil results to which they are liable, since it often happens that one of the parties is guilty of fraud in such marriages; | |
| 12189 frequently, too, they have recourse to other nuptials when they repent of having | |
| 12190 married in haste; and many other evils result therefrom, besides which there is something disgraceful about them. | |
| 12191 </p> | |
| 12192 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p12"> | |
| 12193 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Clandestine marriages are not forbidden as though they were contrary to the essentials of marriage, in the same way as the | |
| 12194 marriages of unlawful persons, who are undue matter for this sacrament; and hence there is no comparison. | |
| 12195 </p> | |
| 12196 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p13"></p> | |
| 12197 <p id="XP_Q45_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 12198 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A4.html"></a> | |
| 12199 <a href="summa.XP_Q46.html"></a> | |
| 12200 </div> | |
| 12201 <a href="summa.XP_Q44_A3.html"></a> | |
| 12202 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12203 </div> | |
| 12204 <div id="XP_Q46" class="div3"> | |
| 12205 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A5.html"></a> | |
| 12206 <a href="summa.XP_Q46_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12207 <h3 id="XP_Q46-p0.1">OF THE CONSENT TO WHICH AN OATH OR CARNAL INTERCOURSE IS APPENDED (TWO ARTICLES) </h3> | |
| 12208 <p id="XP_Q46-p1"></p> | |
| 12209 <p id="XP_Q46-p2"> We must now consider the consent to which an oath or carnal intercourse is appended. Under this head there are two points | |
| 12210 of inquiry: | |
| 12211 </p> | |
| 12212 <p id="XP_Q46-p3"> (1) Whether an oath added to the consent that is expressed in words of the future tense makes a marriage?</p> | |
| 12213 <p id="XP_Q46-p4"> (2) Whether carnal intercourse supervening to such a consent makes a marriage?</p> | |
| 12214 <div id="XP_Q46_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 12215 <a href="summa.XP_Q46.html"></a> | |
| 12216 <a href="summa.XP_Q46_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12217 <h4 id="XP_Q46_A1-p0.1">Whether an oath added to the consent that is expressed in words of the future tense makes a marriage?</h4> | |
| 12218 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 12219 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p2"> | |
| 12220 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that if an oath be added to a consent that is expressed in words of the future tense it makes a marriage. For | |
| 12221 no one can bind himself to act against the Divine Law. But the fulfilling of an oath is of Divine law according to | |
| 12222 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q46_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.33" target="asv"> Mat. 5:33, </a> "Thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord." Consequently no subsequent obligation can relieve a man of the obligation to | |
| 12223 keep an oath previously taken. If, therefore, after consenting to marry a | |
| 12224 woman by words expressive of the future and confirming that consent with an oath, a man binds himself to another woman by | |
| 12225 words expressive of the present, it would seem that none the less he is bound to keep his former oath. But this would not | |
| 12226 be the case unless that oath made the marriage complete. Therefore an oath affixed to a consent expressed in words of the | |
| 12227 future tense makes a marriage. | |
| 12228 </p> | |
| 12229 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p3"> | |
| 12230 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Divine truth is stronger than human truth. Now an oath confirms a thing with the Divine truth. Since then words | |
| 12231 expressive of consent in the present in which there is mere human truth complete a marriage, it would seem that much more | |
| 12232 is this the case with words of the future confirmed by an oath. | |
| 12233 </p> | |
| 12234 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p4"> | |
| 12235 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to the Apostle ( | |
| 12236 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q46_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.16" target="asv">Heb. 6:16</a>), "An oath for confirmation is the end of all . . . controversy"; wherefore in a court of justice at any rate one must stand | |
| 12237 by an oath rather than by a mere affirmation. Therefore if a man consent to marry a woman by a simple affirmation expressed | |
| 12238 in words of the present, after having consented to marry another in words of the future confirmed by oath, it would seem that | |
| 12239 in the judgment of the | |
| 12240 Church he should be compelled to take the first and not the second as his wife. | |
| 12241 </p> | |
| 12242 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p5"> | |
| 12243 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the simple uttering of words relating to the future makes a betrothal. But the addition of an oath must have some | |
| 12244 effect. Therefore it makes something more than a betrothal. Now beyond a betrothal there is nothing but marriage. Therefore | |
| 12245 it makes a marriage. | |
| 12246 </p> | |
| 12247 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p6"> | |
| 12248 <b>On the contrary,</b> What is future is not yet. Now the addition of an oath does not make words of the future tense signify anything else than | |
| 12249 consent to something future. Therefore it is not a marriage yet. | |
| 12250 </p> | |
| 12251 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p7"> Further, after a marriage is complete, no further consent is required for the marriage. But after the oath there is yet another | |
| 12252 consent which makes the marriage, else it would be useless to swear to a future marriage. Therefore it does not make a marriage. | |
| 12253 </p> | |
| 12254 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p8"> | |
| 12255 <b>I answer that,</b> An oath is employed in confirmation of one's words; wherefore it confirms that only which is signified by the words, nor | |
| 12256 does it change their signification. Consequently, since it belongs to words of the future tense, by their very signification, | |
| 12257 not to make a marriage, since what is promised in the future is not done yet, even though an oath be added to the promise, | |
| 12258 the marriage is not made yet, as the Master says in the text (Sent. iv, D, 28). | |
| 12259 </p> | |
| 12260 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p9"> | |
| 12261 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The fulfilling of a lawful oath is of Divine law, but not the fulfilling of an unlawful oath. Wherefore if a subsequent obligation | |
| 12262 makes that oath unlawful, whereas it was lawful before, he who does not keep the oath he took previously does not disobey | |
| 12263 the Divine law. And so it is in the case in point; since he swears unlawfully who promises unlawfully; and a promise about | |
| 12264 another's property is unlawful. Consequently the subsequent consent by words of | |
| 12265 the present, whereby a man transfers the power over his body to another woman, makes the previous oath unlawful which was | |
| 12266 lawful before. | |
| 12267 </p> | |
| 12268 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p10"> | |
| 12269 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Divine truth is most efficacious in confirming that to which it is applied. Hence the Reply to the Third Objection is | |
| 12270 clear. | |
| 12271 </p> | |
| 12272 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p11"> | |
| 12273 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The oath has some effect, not by causing a new obligation, but confirming that which is already made, and thus he who violates | |
| 12274 it sins more grievously. | |
| 12275 </p> | |
| 12276 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 12277 <p id="XP_Q46_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 12278 <a href="summa.XP_Q46.html"></a> | |
| 12279 <a href="summa.XP_Q46_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12280 </div> | |
| 12281 <div id="XP_Q46_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 12282 <a href="summa.XP_Q46_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12283 <a href="summa.XP_Q47.html"></a> | |
| 12284 <h4 id="XP_Q46_A2-p0.1">Whether carnal intercourse after consent expressed in words of the future makes a marriage?</h4> | |
| 12285 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 12286 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p2"> | |
| 12287 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that carnal intercourse after consent expressed in words of the future makes a marriage. For consent by deed | |
| 12288 is greater than consent by word. But he who has carnal intercourse consents by deed to the promise he has previously made. | |
| 12289 Therefore it would seem that much more does this make a marriage than if he were to consent to mere words referring to the | |
| 12290 present. | |
| 12291 </p> | |
| 12292 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p3"> | |
| 12293 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, not only explicit but also interpretive consent makes a marriage. Now there can be no better interpretation of consent | |
| 12294 than carnal intercourse. Therefore marriage is completed thereby. | |
| 12295 </p> | |
| 12296 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p4"> | |
| 12297 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, all carnal union outside marriage is a sin. But the woman, seemingly, does not sin by admitting her betrothed to | |
| 12298 carnal intercourse. Therefore it makes a marriage. | |
| 12299 </p> | |
| 12300 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p5"> | |
| 12301 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "Sin is not forgiven unless restitution be made," as Augustine says (Ep. cliii ad Macedon.). Now a man cannot reinstate | |
| 12302 a woman whom he has violated under the pretense of marriage unless he marry her. Therefore it would seem that even if, after | |
| 12303 his carnal intercourse, he happen to contract with another by words of the present tense, he is bound to return to the first; | |
| 12304 and this would not be the case unless he were married to her. Therefore carnal | |
| 12305 intercourse after consent referring to the future makes a marriage. | |
| 12306 </p> | |
| 12307 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p6"> | |
| 12308 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Nicholas I says (Resp. ad Consult. Bulg. iii; Cap. Tuas dudum, De clandest. despons.), "Without the consent to marriage, | |
| 12309 other things, including coition, are of no effect." | |
| 12310 </p> | |
| 12311 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p7"> Further, that which follows a thing does not make it. But carnal intercourse follows the actual marriage, as effect follows | |
| 12312 cause. Therefore it cannot make a marriage. | |
| 12313 </p> | |
| 12314 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p8"> | |
| 12315 <b>I answer that,</b> We may speak of marriage in two ways. First, in reference to the tribunal of conscience, and thus in very truth carnal intercourse | |
| 12316 cannot complete a marriage the promise of which has previously been made in words expressive of the future, if inward consent | |
| 12317 is lacking, since words, even though expressive of the present, would not make a marriage in the absence of mental consent, | |
| 12318 as stated above ( | |
| 12319 <a id="XP_Q46_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q45_A4.html">Q[45], A[4]</a>). Secondly, in reference to | |
| 12320 the judgment of the Church; and since in the external tribunal judgment is given in accordance with external evidence, and | |
| 12321 since nothing is more expressly significant of consent than carnal intercourse, it follows that in the judgment of the Church | |
| 12322 carnal intercourse following on betrothal is declared to make a marriage, unless there appear clear signs of deceit or fraud | |
| 12323 [*According to the pre-Tridentine legislation] (De sponsal. et matrim., cap. Is qui fidem). | |
| 12324 </p> | |
| 12325 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p9"> | |
| 12326 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In reality he who has carnal intercourse consents by deed to the act of sexual union, and does not merely for this reason | |
| 12327 consent to marriage except according to the interpretation of the law. | |
| 12328 </p> | |
| 12329 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p10"> | |
| 12330 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This interpretation does not alter the truth of the matter, but changes the judgment which is about external things. | |
| 12331 </p> | |
| 12332 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p11"> | |
| 12333 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If the woman admit her betrothed, thinking that he wishes to consummate the marriage, she is excused from the sin, unless | |
| 12334 there be clear signs of fraud; for instance if they differ considerably in birth or fortune, or some other evident sign appear. | |
| 12335 Nevertheless the affianced husband is guilty of fornication, and should be punished for this fraud he has committed. | |
| 12336 </p> | |
| 12337 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p12"> | |
| 12338 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In a case of this kind the affianced husband, before his marriage with the other woman, is bound to marry the one to whom | |
| 12339 he was betrothed, if she be his equal or superior in rank. But if he has married another woman, he is no longer able to fulfill | |
| 12340 his obligation, wherefore it suffices if he provide for her marriage. Nor is he bound even to do this, according to some, | |
| 12341 if her affianced husband is of much higher rank than she, or if there be some | |
| 12342 evident sign of fraud, because it may be presumed that in all probability she was not deceived but pretended to be. | |
| 12343 </p> | |
| 12344 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 12345 <p id="XP_Q46_A2-p14"></p> | |
| 12346 <a href="summa.XP_Q46_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12347 <a href="summa.XP_Q47.html"></a> | |
| 12348 </div> | |
| 12349 <a href="summa.XP_Q45_A5.html"></a> | |
| 12350 <a href="summa.XP_Q46_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12351 </div> | |
| 12352 <div id="XP_Q47" class="div3"> | |
| 12353 <a href="summa.XP_Q46_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12354 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12355 <h3 id="XP_Q47-p0.1">OF COMPULSORY AND CONDITIONAL CONSENT (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 12356 <p id="XP_Q47-p1"></p> | |
| 12357 <p id="XP_Q47-p2"> We must now consider compulsory and conditional consent. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 12358 <p id="XP_Q47-p3"> (1) Whether compulsory consent is possible?</p> | |
| 12359 <p id="XP_Q47-p4"> (2) Whether a constant man can be compelled by fear?</p> | |
| 12360 <p id="XP_Q47-p5"> (3) Whether compulsory consent invalidates marriage?</p> | |
| 12361 <p id="XP_Q47-p6"> (4) Whether compulsory consent makes a marriage as regards the party using compulsion?</p> | |
| 12362 <p id="XP_Q47-p7"> (5) Whether conditional consent makes a marriage?</p> | |
| 12363 <p id="XP_Q47-p8"> (6) Whether one can be compelled by one's father to marry?</p> | |
| 12364 <div id="XP_Q47_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 12365 <a href="summa.XP_Q47.html"></a> | |
| 12366 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12367 <h4 id="XP_Q47_A1-p0.1">Whether a compulsory consent is possible?</h4> | |
| 12368 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 12369 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p2"> | |
| 12370 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no consent can be compulsory. For, as stated above (Sent. ii, D, 25 [* | |
| 12371 <a id="XP_Q47_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q6_A4.html">FS, Q[6], A[4]</a>]) the free-will cannot be compelled. Now consent is an act of the free-will. Therefore it cannot be compulsory. | |
| 12372 </p> | |
| 12373 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p3"> | |
| 12374 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, violent is the same as compulsory. Now, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1), "a violent action is one the | |
| 12375 principle of which is without, the patient concurring not at all." But the principle of consent is always within. Therefore | |
| 12376 no consent can be compulsory. | |
| 12377 </p> | |
| 12378 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p4"> | |
| 12379 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every sin is perfected by consent. But that which perfects a sin cannot be compulsory, for, according to Augustine | |
| 12380 (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18), "no one sins in what he cannot avoid." Since then violence is defined by jurists (i, ff. de eo quod | |
| 12381 vi metusve) as the "force of a stronger being that cannot be repulsed," it would seem that consent cannot be compulsory or | |
| 12382 violent. | |
| 12383 </p> | |
| 12384 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p5"> | |
| 12385 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, power is opposed to liberty. But compulsion is allied to power, as appears from a definition of Tully's in which | |
| 12386 he says that "compulsion is the force of one who exercises his power to detain a thing outside its proper bounds." Therefore | |
| 12387 the free-will cannot be compelled, and consequently neither can consent which is an act thereof. | |
| 12388 </p> | |
| 12389 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p6"> | |
| 12390 <b>On the contrary,</b> That which cannot be, cannot be an impediment. But compulsory consent is an impediment to matrimony, as stated in the text | |
| 12391 (Sent. iv, D, 29). Therefore consent can be compelled. | |
| 12392 </p> | |
| 12393 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p7"> Further, in marriage there is a contract. Now the will can be compelled in the matter of contracts; for which reason the | |
| 12394 law adjudges that restitution should be made of the whole, for it does not ratify "that which was done under compulsion or | |
| 12395 fear" (Sent. iv, D[29]). Therefore in marriage also it is possible for the consent to be compulsory. | |
| 12396 </p> | |
| 12397 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p8"> | |
| 12398 <b>I answer that,</b> Compulsion or violence is twofold. One is the cause of absolute necessity, and violence of this kind the Philosopher calls | |
| 12399 (Ethic. iii, 1) "violent simply," as when by bodily strength one forces a person to move; the other causes conditional necessity, | |
| 12400 and the Philosopher calls this a "mixed violence," as when a person throws his merchandise overboard in order to save himself. | |
| 12401 In the latter kind of violence, although the thing done is not voluntary in | |
| 12402 itself, yet taking into consideration the circumstances of place and time it is voluntary. And since actions are about particulars, | |
| 12403 it follows that it is voluntary simply, and involuntary in a certain respect (Cf. | |
| 12404 <a id="XP_Q47_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q6_A6.html">FS, Q[6], A[6]</a>). Wherefore this latter violence or compulsion is consistent with consent, but not the former. And since this compulsion | |
| 12405 results from one's fear of a threatening danger, it follows that this violence coincides with fear which, in a manner, | |
| 12406 compels the will, whereas the former violence has to do with bodily actions. Moreover, since the law considers not merely | |
| 12407 internal actions, but rather external actions, consequently it takes violence to mean absolute compulsion, for which reason | |
| 12408 it draws a distinction between violence and fear. Here, however, it is a question of internal consent which cannot be influenced | |
| 12409 by compulsion or violence as distinct from fear. Therefore as to the question at issue compulsion and fear are the same. | |
| 12410 Now, according to lawyers fear is "the agitation of the mind occasioned by danger imminent or future" (Ethic. iii, 1). | |
| 12411 </p> | |
| 12412 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p9"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections; for the first set of arguments consider the first kind of compulsion, and | |
| 12413 the second set of arguments consider the second. | |
| 12414 </p> | |
| 12415 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p10"></p> | |
| 12416 <p id="XP_Q47_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 12417 <a href="summa.XP_Q47.html"></a> | |
| 12418 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12419 </div> | |
| 12420 <div id="XP_Q47_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 12421 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12422 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A3.html"></a> | |
| 12423 <h4 id="XP_Q47_A2-p0.1">Whether a constant man can be compelled by fear?</h4> | |
| 12424 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 12425 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p2"> | |
| 12426 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that "a constant man" [*Cap. Ad audientiam, De his quae vi.] cannot be compelled by fear. Because the nature | |
| 12427 of a constant man is not to be agitated in the midst of dangers. Since then fear is "agitation of the mind occasioned by imminent | |
| 12428 danger," it would seem that he is not compelled by fear. | |
| 12429 </p> | |
| 12430 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p3"> | |
| 12431 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "Of all fearsome things death is the limit," according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 6), as though it were the | |
| 12432 most perfect of all things that inspire fear. But the constant man is not compelled by death, since the brave face even mortal | |
| 12433 dangers. Therefore no fear influences a constant man. | |
| 12434 </p> | |
| 12435 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p4"> | |
| 12436 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, of all dangers a good man fears most that which affects his good name. But the fear of disgrace is not reckoned | |
| 12437 to influence a constant man, because, according to the law (vii, ff, de eo quod metus, etc.), "fear of disgrace is not included | |
| 12438 under the ordinance, 'That which is done through fear'" [*Dig. iv, 2, Quod metus causa]. Therefore neither does any other | |
| 12439 kind of fear influence a constant man. | |
| 12440 </p> | |
| 12441 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p5"> | |
| 12442 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in him who is compelled by fear, fear leaves a sin, for it makes him promise what he is unwilling to fulfill, and | |
| 12443 thus it makes him lie. But a constant man does not commit a sin, not even a very slight one, for fear. Therefore no fear influences | |
| 12444 a constant man. | |
| 12445 </p> | |
| 12446 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p6"> | |
| 12447 <b>On the contrary,</b> Abraham and Isaac were constant. Yet they were influenced by fear, since on account of fear each said that his wife was his | |
| 12448 sister ( | |
| 12449 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q47_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.12.12" target="asv">Gn. 12:12</a>; 26:7). | |
| 12450 </p> | |
| 12451 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p7"> Further, wherever there is mixed violence, it is fear that compels. But however constant a man may be he may suffer violence | |
| 12452 of that kind, for if he be on the sea, he will throw his merchandise overboard if menaced with shipwreck. Therefore fear can | |
| 12453 influence a constant man. | |
| 12454 </p> | |
| 12455 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p8"> | |
| 12456 <b>I answer that,</b> By fear influencing a man we mean his being compelled by fear. A man is compelled by fear when he does that which otherwise | |
| 12457 he would not wish to do, in order to avoid that which he fears. Now the constant differs from the inconstant man in two respects. | |
| 12458 First, in respect of the quality of the danger feared, because the constant man follows right reason, whereby he knows whether | |
| 12459 to omit this rather than that, and whether to do this rather than that. Now the | |
| 12460 lesser evil or the greater good is always to be chosen in preference; and therefore the constant man is compelled to bear | |
| 12461 with the lesser evil through fear of the greater evil, but he is not compelled to bear with the greater evil in order to avoid | |
| 12462 the lesser. But the inconstant man is compelled to bear with the greater evil through fear of a lesser evil, namely to commit | |
| 12463 sin through fear of bodily suffering; whereas on the contrary the obstinate man cannot be compelled even to permit or to do | |
| 12464 a lesser evil, in order to avoid a greater. Hence the constant man is a mean between the inconstant and the obstinate. Secondly, | |
| 12465 they differ as to their estimate of the threatening evil, for a constant man is not compelled unless for grave and probable | |
| 12466 reasons, while the inconstant man is compelled by trifling motives: "The wicked man seeth when no man pursueth" ( | |
| 12467 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q47_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.28.1" target="asv">Prov. 28:1</a>). | |
| 12468 </p> | |
| 12469 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p9"> | |
| 12470 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The constant man, like the brave man, is fearless, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 4), not that he is altogether without | |
| 12471 fear, but because he fears not what he ought not to fear, or where, or when he ought not to fear. | |
| 12472 </p> | |
| 12473 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p10"> | |
| 12474 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sin is the greatest of evils, and consequently a constant man can nowise be compelled to sin; indeed a man should die rather | |
| 12475 than suffer the like, as again the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 6,9). Yet certain bodily injuries are less grievous than | |
| 12476 certain others; and chief among them are those which relate to the person, such as death, blows, the stain resulting from | |
| 12477 rape, and slavery. Wherefore the like compel a constant man to suffer other bodily | |
| 12478 injuries. They are contained in the verse: "Rape, status, blows, and death." Nor does it matter whether they refer to his | |
| 12479 own person, or to the person of his wife or children, or the like. | |
| 12480 </p> | |
| 12481 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p11"> | |
| 12482 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although disgrace is a greater injury it is easy to remedy it. Hence fear of disgrace is not reckoned to influence a constant | |
| 12483 man according to law. | |
| 12484 </p> | |
| 12485 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p12"> | |
| 12486 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The constant man is not compelled to lie, because at the time he wishes to give; yet afterwards he wishes to ask for restitution, | |
| 12487 or at least to appeal to the judge, if he promised not to ask for restitution. But he cannot promise not to appeal, for since | |
| 12488 this is contrary to the good of justice, he cannot be compelled thereto, namely to act against justice. | |
| 12489 </p> | |
| 12490 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 12491 <p id="XP_Q47_A2-p14"></p> | |
| 12492 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12493 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A3.html"></a> | |
| 12494 </div> | |
| 12495 <div id="XP_Q47_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 12496 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12497 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A4.html"></a> | |
| 12498 <h4 id="XP_Q47_A3-p0.1">Whether compulsory consent invalidates a marriage?</h4> | |
| 12499 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 12500 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p2"> | |
| 12501 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that compulsory consent does not invalidate a marriage. For just as consent is necessary for matrimony, so | |
| 12502 is intention necessary for Baptism. Now one who is compelled by fear to receive Baptism, receives the sacrament. Therefore | |
| 12503 one who is compelled by fear to consent is bound by his marriage. | |
| 12504 </p> | |
| 12505 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p3"> | |
| 12506 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1), that which is done on account of mixed violence is more voluntary | |
| 12507 than involuntary. Now consent cannot be compelled except by mixed violence. Therefore it is not entirely involuntary, and | |
| 12508 consequently the marriage is valid. | |
| 12509 </p> | |
| 12510 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p4"> | |
| 12511 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, seemingly he who has consented to marriage under compulsion ought to be counseled to stand to that marriage; because | |
| 12512 to promise and not to fulfill has an "appearance of evil," and the Apostle wishes us to refrain from all such things ( | |
| 12513 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q47_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iThess.5.22" target="asv">1 Thess 5:22</a>). But that would not be the case if compulsory consent invalidated a marriage altogether. Therefore, etc. | |
| 12514 </p> | |
| 12515 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p5"> | |
| 12516 <b>On the contrary,</b> A Decretal says (cap. Cum locum, De sponsal. et matrim.): "Since there is no room for consent where fear or compulsion enters | |
| 12517 in, it follows that where a person's consent is required, every pretext for compulsion must be set aside." Now mutual contract | |
| 12518 is necessary in marriage. Therefore, etc. | |
| 12519 </p> | |
| 12520 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p6"> Further, Matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church, which union is according to the liberty of love. Therefore | |
| 12521 it cannot be the result of compulsory consent. | |
| 12522 </p> | |
| 12523 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p7"> | |
| 12524 <b>I answer that,</b> The marriage bond is everlasting. Hence whatever is inconsistent with its perpetuity invalidates marriage. Now the fear which | |
| 12525 compels a constant man deprives the contract of its perpetuity, since its complete rescission can be demanded. Wherefore this | |
| 12526 compulsion by fear which influences a constant man, invalidates marriage, but not the other compulsion. Now a constant man | |
| 12527 is reckoned a virtuous man who, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 4), is a | |
| 12528 measure in all human actions. | |
| 12529 </p> | |
| 12530 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p8"> However, some say that if there be consent although compulsory, the marriage is valid in conscience and in God's sight, but | |
| 12531 not in the eyes of the Church, who presumes that there was no inward consent on account of the fear. But this is of no account, | |
| 12532 because the Church should not presume a person to sin until it be proved; and he sinned if he said that he consented whereas | |
| 12533 he did not consent. Wherefore the Church presumes that he did consent, but judges this compulsory consent | |
| 12534 to be insufficient for a valid marriage. | |
| 12535 </p> | |
| 12536 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p9"> | |
| 12537 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The intention is not the efficient cause of the sacrament in baptism, it is merely the cause that elicits the action of the | |
| 12538 agent; whereas the consent is the efficient cause in matrimony. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 12539 </p> | |
| 12540 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p10"> | |
| 12541 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Not any kind of voluntariness suffices for marriage: it must be completely voluntary, because it has to be perpetual; and | |
| 12542 consequently it is invalidated by violence of a mixed nature. | |
| 12543 </p> | |
| 12544 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p11"> | |
| 12545 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> He ought not always to be advised to stand to that marriage, but only when evil results are feared from its dissolution. | |
| 12546 Nor does he sin if he does otherwise, because there is no appearance of evil in not fulfilling a promise that one has made | |
| 12547 unwillingly. | |
| 12548 </p> | |
| 12549 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 12550 <p id="XP_Q47_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 12551 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12552 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A4.html"></a> | |
| 12553 </div> | |
| 12554 <div id="XP_Q47_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 12555 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A3.html"></a> | |
| 12556 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A5.html"></a> | |
| 12557 <h4 id="XP_Q47_A4-p0.1">Whether compulsory consent makes a marriage as regards the party who uses compulsion?</h4> | |
| 12558 <p id="XP_Q47_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 12559 <p id="XP_Q47_A4-p2"> | |
| 12560 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that compulsory consent makes a marriage, at least as regards the party who uses compulsion. For matrimony | |
| 12561 is a sign of a spiritual union. But spiritual union which is by charity may be with one who has not charity. Therefore marriage | |
| 12562 is possible with one who wills it not. | |
| 12563 </p> | |
| 12564 <p id="XP_Q47_A4-p3"> | |
| 12565 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if she who was compelled consents afterwards, it will be a true marriage. But he who compelled her before is not | |
| 12566 bound by her consent. Therefore he was married to her by virtue of the consent he gave before. | |
| 12567 </p> | |
| 12568 <p id="XP_Q47_A4-p4"> | |
| 12569 <b>On the contrary,</b> Matrimony is an equiparant relation. Now a relation of that kind is equally in both terms. Therefore if there is an impediment | |
| 12570 on the part of one, there will be no marriage on the part of the other. | |
| 12571 </p> | |
| 12572 <p id="XP_Q47_A4-p5"> | |
| 12573 <b>I answer that,</b> Since marriage is a kind of relation, and a relation cannot arise in one of the terms without arising in the other, it follows | |
| 12574 that whatever is an impediment to matrimony in the one, is an impediment to matrimony in the other; since it is impossible | |
| 12575 for a man to be the husband of one who is not his wife, or for a woman to be a wife without a husband, just as it is impossible | |
| 12576 to be a mother without having a child. Hence it is a common saying that "marriage is | |
| 12577 not lame." | |
| 12578 </p> | |
| 12579 <p id="XP_Q47_A4-p6"> | |
| 12580 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the act of the lover can be directed to one who loves not, there can be no union between them, unless love be mutual. | |
| 12581 Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 2) that friendship which consists in a kind of union requires a return of love. | |
| 12582 </p> | |
| 12583 <p id="XP_Q47_A4-p7"> | |
| 12584 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Marriage does not result from the consent of her who was compelled before, except in so far as the other party's previous | |
| 12585 consent remains in force; wherefore if he were to withdraw his consent there would be no marriage. | |
| 12586 </p> | |
| 12587 <p id="XP_Q47_A4-p8"></p> | |
| 12588 <p id="XP_Q47_A4-p9"></p> | |
| 12589 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A3.html"></a> | |
| 12590 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A5.html"></a> | |
| 12591 </div> | |
| 12592 <div id="XP_Q47_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 12593 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A4.html"></a> | |
| 12594 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A6.html"></a> | |
| 12595 <h4 id="XP_Q47_A5-p0.1">Whether conditional consent makes a marriage?</h4> | |
| 12596 <p id="XP_Q47_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 12597 <p id="XP_Q47_A5-p2"> | |
| 12598 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not even a conditional consent makes a marriage, because a statement is not made simply if it is made | |
| 12599 subject to a condition. But in marriage the words expressive of consent must be uttered simply. Therefore a conditional consent | |
| 12600 makes no marriage. | |
| 12601 </p> | |
| 12602 <p id="XP_Q47_A5-p3"> | |
| 12603 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, marriage should be certain. But where a statement is made under a condition it is rendered doubtful. Therefore a | |
| 12604 like consent makes no marriage. | |
| 12605 </p> | |
| 12606 <p id="XP_Q47_A5-p4"> | |
| 12607 <b>On the contrary,</b> In other contracts an obligation is undertaken conditionally, and holds so long as the condition holds. Therefore since marriage | |
| 12608 is a contract, it would seem that it can be made by a conditional consent. | |
| 12609 </p> | |
| 12610 <p id="XP_Q47_A5-p5"> | |
| 12611 <b>I answer that,</b> The condition made is either of the present or of the future. If it is of the present and is not contrary to marriage, whether | |
| 12612 it be moral or immoral, the marriage holds if the condition is verified, and is invalid if the condition is not verified. | |
| 12613 If, however, it be contrary to the marriage blessings, the marriage is invalid, as we have also said in reference to betrothals | |
| 12614 ( | |
| 12615 <a id="XP_Q47_A5-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q43_A1.html">Q[43], A[1]</a>). But if the condition refer to the future, it | |
| 12616 is either necessary, as that the sun will rise tomorrow---and then the marriage is valid, because such future things are present | |
| 12617 in their causes---or else it is contingent, as the payment of a sum of money, or the consent of the parents, and then the | |
| 12618 judgment about a consent of this kind is the same as about a consent expressed in words of the future tense; wherefore it | |
| 12619 makes no marriage. | |
| 12620 </p> | |
| 12621 <p id="XP_Q47_A5-p6"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 12622 <p id="XP_Q47_A5-p7"></p> | |
| 12623 <p id="XP_Q47_A5-p8"></p> | |
| 12624 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A4.html"></a> | |
| 12625 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A6.html"></a> | |
| 12626 </div> | |
| 12627 <div id="XP_Q47_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 12628 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A5.html"></a> | |
| 12629 <a href="summa.XP_Q48.html"></a> | |
| 12630 <h4 id="XP_Q47_A6-p0.1">Whether one can be compelled by one's father's command to marry?</h4> | |
| 12631 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 12632 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p2"> | |
| 12633 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one can be compelled by one's father's command to marry. For it is written ( | |
| 12634 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q47_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3.20" target="asv">Col. 3:20</a>): "Children, obey your parents in all things." Therefore they are bound to obey them in this also. | |
| 12635 </p> | |
| 12636 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p3"> | |
| 12637 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Isaac charged Jacob ( | |
| 12638 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q47_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.28.1" target="asv">Gn. 28:1</a>) not to take a wife from the daughters of Chanaan. But he would not have charged him thus unless he had the right to command | |
| 12639 it. Therefore a son is bound to obey his father in this. | |
| 12640 </p> | |
| 12641 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p4"> | |
| 12642 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no one should promise, especially with an oath, for one whom he cannot compel to keep the promise. Now parents promise | |
| 12643 future marriages for their children, and even confirm their promise by oath. Therefore they can compel their children to keep | |
| 12644 that promise. | |
| 12645 </p> | |
| 12646 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p5"> | |
| 12647 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, our spiritual father, the Pope to wit, can by his command compel a man to a spiritual marriage, namely to accept | |
| 12648 a bishopric. Therefore a carnal father can compel his son to marriage. | |
| 12649 </p> | |
| 12650 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p6"> | |
| 12651 <b>On the contrary,</b> A son may lawfully enter religion though his father command him to marry. Therefore he is not bound to obey him in this. | |
| 12652 </p> | |
| 12653 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p7"> Further, if he were bound to obey, a betrothal contracted by the parents would hold good without their children's consent. | |
| 12654 But this is against the law (cap. Ex litteris, De despon. impub.). Therefore, etc. | |
| 12655 </p> | |
| 12656 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p8"> | |
| 12657 <b>I answer that,</b> Since in marriage there is a kind of perpetual service, as it were, a father cannot by his command compel his son to marry, | |
| 12658 since the latter is of free condition: but he may induce him for a reasonable cause; and thus the son will be affected by | |
| 12659 his father's command in the same way as he is affected by that cause, so that if the cause be compelling as indicating either | |
| 12660 obligation or fitness, his father's command will compel him in the same measure: otherwise | |
| 12661 he may not compel him. | |
| 12662 </p> | |
| 12663 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p9"> | |
| 12664 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words of the Apostle do not refer to those matters in which a man is his own master as the father is. Such is marriage | |
| 12665 by which the son also becomes a father. | |
| 12666 </p> | |
| 12667 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p10"> | |
| 12668 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There were other motives why Jacob was bound to do what Isaac commanded him, both on account of the wickedness of those women, | |
| 12669 and because the seed of Chanaan was to be cast forth from the land which was promised to the seed of the patriarchs. Hence | |
| 12670 Isaac could command this. | |
| 12671 </p> | |
| 12672 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p11"> | |
| 12673 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> They do not swear except with the implied condition "if it please them"; and they are bound to induce them in good faith. | |
| 12674 </p> | |
| 12675 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p12"> | |
| 12676 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Some say that the Pope cannot command a man to accept a bishopric, because consent should be free. But if this be granted | |
| 12677 there would be an end of ecclesiastical order, for unless a man can be compelled to accept the government of a church, the | |
| 12678 Church could not be preserved, since sometimes those who are qualified for the purpose are unwilling to accept unless they | |
| 12679 be compelled. Therefore we must reply that the two cases are not parallel; for there is | |
| 12680 no bodily service in a spiritual marriage as there is in the bodily marriage; because the spiritual marriage is a kind of | |
| 12681 office for dispensing the public weal: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the | |
| 12682 mysteries of God" ( | |
| 12683 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q47_A6-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.1" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:1</a>). | |
| 12684 </p> | |
| 12685 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p13"></p> | |
| 12686 <p id="XP_Q47_A6-p14"></p> | |
| 12687 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A5.html"></a> | |
| 12688 <a href="summa.XP_Q48.html"></a> | |
| 12689 </div> | |
| 12690 <a href="summa.XP_Q46_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12691 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12692 </div> | |
| 12693 <div id="XP_Q48" class="div3"> | |
| 12694 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A6.html"></a> | |
| 12695 <a href="summa.XP_Q48_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12696 <h3 id="XP_Q48-p0.1">OF THE OBJECT OF THE CONSENT (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 12697 <p id="XP_Q48-p1"></p> | |
| 12698 <p id="XP_Q48-p2"> We must now consider the object of the consent. Under this head there are two points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 12699 <p id="XP_Q48-p3"> (1) Whether the consent that makes a marriage is a consent to carnal intercourse?</p> | |
| 12700 <p id="XP_Q48-p4"> (2) Whether consent to marry a person for an immoral motive makes a marriage?</p> | |
| 12701 <div id="XP_Q48_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 12702 <a href="summa.XP_Q48.html"></a> | |
| 12703 <a href="summa.XP_Q48_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12704 <h4 id="XP_Q48_A1-p0.1">Whether the consent that makes a marriage is a consent to carnal intercourse?</h4> | |
| 12705 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 12706 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p2"> | |
| 12707 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the consent which makes a marriage is a consent to carnal intercourse. For Jerome [*The words quoted are | |
| 12708 found implicitly in St. Augustine (De Bono Viduit ix)] says that "for those who have vowed virginity it is wicked, not only | |
| 12709 to marry, but even to wish to marry." But it would not be wicked unless it were contrary to virginity, and marriage is not | |
| 12710 contrary to virginity except by reason of carnal intercourse. Therefore the will's consent in | |
| 12711 marriage is a consent to carnal intercourse. | |
| 12712 </p> | |
| 12713 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p3"> | |
| 12714 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever there is in marriage between husband and wife is lawful between brother and sister except carnal intercourse. | |
| 12715 But there cannot lawfully be a consent to marriage between them. Therefore the marriage consent is a consent to carnal intercourse. | |
| 12716 </p> | |
| 12717 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p4"> | |
| 12718 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the woman say to the man: "I consent to take thee provided however that you know me not," it is not a marriage | |
| 12719 consent, because it contains something against the essence of that consent. Yet this would not be the case unless the marriage | |
| 12720 consent were a consent to carnal intercourse. Therefore, etc. | |
| 12721 </p> | |
| 12722 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p5"> | |
| 12723 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in everything the beginning corresponds to the consummation. Now marriage is consummated by carnal intercourse. | |
| 12724 Therefore, since it begins by the consent, it would seem that the consent is to carnal intercourse. | |
| 12725 </p> | |
| 12726 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p6"> | |
| 12727 <b>On the contrary,</b> No one that consents to carnal intercourse is a virgin in mind and body. Yet Blessed John the evangelist after consenting | |
| 12728 to marriage was a virgin both in mind and body. Therefore he did not consent to carnal intercourse. | |
| 12729 </p> | |
| 12730 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p7"> Further, the effect corresponds to its cause. Now consent is the cause of marriage. Since then carnal intercourse is not | |
| 12731 essential to marriage, seemingly neither is the consent which causes marriage a consent to carnal intercourse. | |
| 12732 </p> | |
| 12733 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p8"> | |
| 12734 <b>I answer that,</b> The consent that makes a marriage is a consent to marriage, because the proper effect of the will is the thing willed. Wherefore, | |
| 12735 according as carnal intercourse stands in relation to marriage, so far is the consent that causes marriage a consent to carnal | |
| 12736 intercourse. Now, as stated above ( | |
| 12737 <a id="XP_Q48_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q44_A1.html">Q[44], A[1]</a>; | |
| 12738 <a id="XP_Q48_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q45_A1.html"> Q[45], AA[1]</a>,2), marriage is not essentially the carnal union itself, but a certain joining together of | |
| 12739 husband and wife ordained to carnal intercourse, and a further consequent union between husband and wife, in so far as they | |
| 12740 each receive power over the other in reference to carnal intercourse, which joining together is called the nuptial bond. Hence | |
| 12741 it is evident that they said well who asserted that to consent to marriage is to consent to carnal intercourse implicitly | |
| 12742 and not explicitly. For carnal intercourse is not to be understood, except as an effect is implicitly contained in its cause, | |
| 12743 for the power to have carnal intercourse, which power is the object of the consent, is the cause of carnal intercourse, just | |
| 12744 as the power to use one's own property is the cause of the use. | |
| 12745 </p> | |
| 12746 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p9"> | |
| 12747 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The reason why consent to marriage after taking the vow of virginity is sinful, is because that consent gives a power to | |
| 12748 do what is unlawful: even so would a man sin if he gave another man the power to receive that which he has in deposit, and | |
| 12749 not only by actually delivering it to him. With regard to the consent of the Blessed Virgin, we have spoken about it above | |
| 12750 (Sent. iv, D, 3; | |
| 12751 <a id="XP_Q48_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q29_A2.html">TP, Q[29], A[2]</a>). | |
| 12752 </p> | |
| 12753 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p10"> | |
| 12754 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Between brother and sister there can be no power of one over the other in relation to carnal intercourse, even as neither | |
| 12755 can there be lawfully carnal intercourse itself. Consequently the argument does not prove. | |
| 12756 </p> | |
| 12757 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p11"> | |
| 12758 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Such an explicit condition is contrary not only to the act but also to the power of carnal intercourse, and therefore it | |
| 12759 is contrary to marriage. | |
| 12760 </p> | |
| 12761 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p12"> | |
| 12762 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Marriage begun corresponds to marriage consummated, as habit or power corresponds to the act which is operation. | |
| 12763 </p> | |
| 12764 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p13"> The arguments on the contrary side show that consent is not given explicitly to carnal intercourse; and this is true.</p> | |
| 12765 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 12766 <p id="XP_Q48_A1-p15"></p> | |
| 12767 <a href="summa.XP_Q48.html"></a> | |
| 12768 <a href="summa.XP_Q48_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12769 </div> | |
| 12770 <div id="XP_Q48_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 12771 <a href="summa.XP_Q48_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12772 <a href="summa.XP_Q49.html"></a> | |
| 12773 <h4 id="XP_Q48_A2-p0.1">Whether marriage can result from one person's consent to take another for a base motive?</h4> | |
| 12774 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 12775 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p2"> | |
| 12776 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that marriage cannot result from one person's consent to take another for a base motive. For there is but one | |
| 12777 reason for one thing. Now marriage is one sacrament. Therefore it cannot result from the intention of any other end than that | |
| 12778 for which it was instituted by God; namely the begetting of children. | |
| 12779 </p> | |
| 12780 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p3"> | |
| 12781 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the marriage union is from God, according to | |
| 12782 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q48_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.6" target="asv"> Mat. 19:6, </a> "What . . . God hath joined together let no man put asunder." But a union that is made for immoral motives is not from God. | |
| 12783 Therefore it is not a marriage. | |
| 12784 </p> | |
| 12785 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p4"> | |
| 12786 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the other sacraments, if the intention of the Church be not observed, the sacrament is invalid. Now the intention | |
| 12787 of the Church in the sacrament of matrimony is not directed to a base purpose. Therefore, if a marriage be contracted for | |
| 12788 a base purpose, it will not be a valid marriage. | |
| 12789 </p> | |
| 12790 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p5"> | |
| 12791 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, according to Boethius (De Diff., Topic. ii) "a thing is good if its end be good." But matrimony is always good. | |
| 12792 Therefore it is not matrimony if it is done for an evil end. | |
| 12793 </p> | |
| 12794 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p6"> | |
| 12795 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church; and in this there can be nothing base. Neither therefore | |
| 12796 can marriage be contracted for a base motive. | |
| 12797 </p> | |
| 12798 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p7"> | |
| 12799 <b>On the contrary,</b> He who baptizes another for the sake of gain baptizes validly. Therefore if a man marries a woman for the purpose of gain | |
| 12800 it is a valid marriage. | |
| 12801 </p> | |
| 12802 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p8"> Further, the same conclusion is proved by the examples and authorities quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 30).</p> | |
| 12803 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p9"> | |
| 12804 <b>I answer that,</b> The final cause of marriage may be taken as twofold, namely essential and accidental. The essential cause of marriage is | |
| 12805 the end to which it is by its very nature ordained, and this is always good, namely the begetting of children and the avoiding | |
| 12806 of fornication. But the accidental final cause thereof is that which the contracting parties intend as the result of marriage. | |
| 12807 And since that which is intended as the result of marriage is consequent upon marriage, | |
| 12808 and since that which comes first is not altered by what comes after, but conversely; marriage does not become good or evil | |
| 12809 by reason of that cause, but the contracting parties to whom this cause is the essential end. And since accidental causes | |
| 12810 are infinite in number, it follows that there can be an infinite number of such causes in matrimony, some of which are good | |
| 12811 and some bad. | |
| 12812 </p> | |
| 12813 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p10"> | |
| 12814 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This is true of the essential and principal cause; but that which has one essential and principal end may have several secondary | |
| 12815 essential ends, and an infinite number of accidental ends. | |
| 12816 </p> | |
| 12817 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p11"> | |
| 12818 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The joining together can be taken for the relation itself which is marriage, and that is always from God, and is good, whatever | |
| 12819 be its cause; or for the act of those who are being joined together, and thus it is sometimes evil and is not from God simply. | |
| 12820 Nor is it unreasonable that an effect be from God, the cause of which is evil, such as a child born of adultery; for it is | |
| 12821 not from that cause as evil, but as having some good in so far as it is from | |
| 12822 God, although it is not from God simply. | |
| 12823 </p> | |
| 12824 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p12"> | |
| 12825 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The intention of the Church whereby she intends to confer a sacrament is essential to each sacrament, so that if it be not | |
| 12826 observed, all sacraments are null. But the intention of the Church whereby she intends an advantage resulting from the sacrament | |
| 12827 belongs to the well-being and not to the essence of a sacrament; wherefore, if it be not observed, the sacrament is none the | |
| 12828 less valid. Yet he who omits this intention sins; for instance if in baptism | |
| 12829 one intend not the healing of the mind which the Church intends. In like manner he who intends to marry, although he fail | |
| 12830 to direct it to the end which the Church intends, nevertheless contracts a valid marriage. | |
| 12831 </p> | |
| 12832 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p13"> | |
| 12833 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This evil which is intended is the end not of marriage, but of the contracting parties. | |
| 12834 </p> | |
| 12835 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p14"> | |
| 12836 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The union itself, and not the action of those who are united, is the sign of the union of Christ with the Church: wherefore | |
| 12837 the conclusion does not follow. | |
| 12838 </p> | |
| 12839 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p15"></p> | |
| 12840 <p id="XP_Q48_A2-p16"></p> | |
| 12841 <a href="summa.XP_Q48_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12842 <a href="summa.XP_Q49.html"></a> | |
| 12843 </div> | |
| 12844 <a href="summa.XP_Q47_A6.html"></a> | |
| 12845 <a href="summa.XP_Q48_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12846 </div> | |
| 12847 <div id="XP_Q49" class="div3"> | |
| 12848 <a href="summa.XP_Q48_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12849 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12850 <h3 id="XP_Q49-p0.1">OF THE MARRIAGE GOODS* (SIX ARTICLES) [*"Bona matrimonii," variously rendered marriage goods, marriage blessings, and advantages | |
| 12851 of marriage.] | |
| 12852 </h3> | |
| 12853 <p id="XP_Q49-p1"></p> | |
| 12854 <p id="XP_Q49-p2"> In the next place we must consider the marriage goods. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 12855 <p id="XP_Q49-p3"> (1) Whether certain goods are necessary in order to excuse marriage?</p> | |
| 12856 <p id="XP_Q49-p4"> (2) Whether those assigned are sufficient?</p> | |
| 12857 <p id="XP_Q49-p5"> (3) Whether the sacrament is the principal among the goods?</p> | |
| 12858 <p id="XP_Q49-p6"> (4) Whether the marriage act is excused from sin by the aforesaid goods?</p> | |
| 12859 <p id="XP_Q49-p7"> (5) Whether it can ever be excused from sin without them?</p> | |
| 12860 <p id="XP_Q49-p8"> (6) Whether in their absence it is always a mortal sin?</p> | |
| 12861 <div id="XP_Q49_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 12862 <a href="summa.XP_Q49.html"></a> | |
| 12863 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12864 <h4 id="XP_Q49_A1-p0.1">Whether certain blessings are necessary in order to excuse marriage?</h4> | |
| 12865 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 12866 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p2"> | |
| 12867 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that certain blessings are not necessary in order to excuse marriage. For just as the preservation of the individual | |
| 12868 which is effected by the nutritive power is intended by nature, so too is the preservation of the species which is effected | |
| 12869 by marriage; and indeed so much the more as the good of the species is better and more exalted than the good of the individual. | |
| 12870 But no goods are necessary to excuse the act of the nutritive power. Neither | |
| 12871 therefore are they necessary to excuse marriage. | |
| 12872 </p> | |
| 12873 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p3"> | |
| 12874 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12) the friendship between husband and wife is natural, and includes | |
| 12875 the virtuous, the useful, and the pleasant. But that which is virtuous in itself needs no excuse. Therefore neither should | |
| 12876 any goods be assigned for the excuse of matrimony. | |
| 12877 </p> | |
| 12878 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p4"> | |
| 12879 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, matrimony was instituted as a remedy and as an office, as stated above ( | |
| 12880 <a id="XP_Q49_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q42_A2.html">Q[42], A[2]</a>). Now it needs no excuse in so far as it is instituted as an office, since then it would also have needed an excuse in paradise, | |
| 12881 which is false, for there, as Augustine says, "marriage would have been without reproach and the marriage-bed without stain" | |
| 12882 (Gen. ad lit. ix). In like manner neither does it need an excuse in so far as it is intended | |
| 12883 as a remedy, any more than the other sacraments which were instituted as remedies for sin. Therefore matrimony does not need | |
| 12884 these excuses. | |
| 12885 </p> | |
| 12886 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p5"> | |
| 12887 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the virtues are directed to whatever can be done aright. If then marriage can be righted by certain goods, it needs | |
| 12888 nothing else to right it besides the virtues of the soul; and consequently there is no need to assign to matrimony any goods | |
| 12889 whereby it is righted, any more than to other things in which the virtues direct us. | |
| 12890 </p> | |
| 12891 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p6"> | |
| 12892 <b>On the contrary,</b> Wherever there is indulgence, there must needs be some reason for excuse. Now marriage is allowed in the state of infirmity | |
| 12893 "by indulgence" ( | |
| 12894 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q49_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:6</a>). Therefore it needs to be excused by certain goods. | |
| 12895 </p> | |
| 12896 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p7"> Further, the intercourse of fornication and that of marriage are of the same species as regards the species of nature. But | |
| 12897 the intercourse of fornication is wrong in itself. Therefore, in order that the marriage intercourse be not wrong, something | |
| 12898 must be added to it to make it right, and draw it to another moral species. | |
| 12899 </p> | |
| 12900 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p8"> | |
| 12901 <b>I answer that,</b> No wise man should allow himself to lose a thing except for some compensation in the shape of an equal or better good. Wherefore | |
| 12902 for a thing that has a loss attached to it to be eligible, it needs to have some good connected with it, which by compensating | |
| 12903 for that loss makes that thing ordinate and right. Now there is a loss of reason incidental to the union of man and woman, | |
| 12904 both because the reason is carried away entirely on account of the vehemence of the | |
| 12905 pleasure, so that it is unable to understand anything at the same time, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 11); and again | |
| 12906 because of the tribulation of the flesh which such persons have to suffer from solicitude for temporal things ( | |
| 12907 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q49_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.28" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:28</a>). Consequently the choice of this union cannot be made ordinate except by certain compensations whereby that same union is | |
| 12908 righted. and these are the goods which excuse marriage and make it right. | |
| 12909 </p> | |
| 12910 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p9"> | |
| 12911 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the act of eating there is not such an intense pleasure overpowering the reason as in the aforesaid action, both because | |
| 12912 the generative power, whereby original sin is transmitted, is infected and corrupt, whereas the nutritive power, by which | |
| 12913 original sin is not transmitted, is neither corrupt nor infected; and again because each one feels in himself a defect of | |
| 12914 the individual more than a defect of the species. Hence, in order to entice a man to | |
| 12915 take food which supplies a defect of the individual, it is enough that he feel this defect; but in order to entice him to | |
| 12916 the act whereby a defect of the species is remedied, Divine providence attached pleasure to that act, which moves even irrational | |
| 12917 animals in which there is not the stain of original sin. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 12918 </p> | |
| 12919 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p10"> | |
| 12920 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> These goods which justify marriage belong to the nature of marriage, which consequently needs them, not as extrinsic causes | |
| 12921 of its rectitude, but as causing in it that rectitude which belongs to it by nature. | |
| 12922 </p> | |
| 12923 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p11"> | |
| 12924 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> From the very fact that marriage is intended as an office or as a remedy it has the aspect of something useful and right; | |
| 12925 nevertheless both aspects belong to it from the fact that it has these goods by which it fulfills the office and affords a | |
| 12926 remedy to concupiscence. | |
| 12927 </p> | |
| 12928 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p12"> | |
| 12929 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> An act of virtue may derive its rectitude both from the virtue as its elicitive principle, and from its circumstances as | |
| 12930 its formal principles; and the goods of marriage are related to marriage as circumstances to an act of virtue which owes it | |
| 12931 to those circumstances that it can be an act of virtue. | |
| 12932 </p> | |
| 12933 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 12934 <p id="XP_Q49_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 12935 <a href="summa.XP_Q49.html"></a> | |
| 12936 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A2.html"></a> | |
| 12937 </div> | |
| 12938 <div id="XP_Q49_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 12939 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A1.html"></a> | |
| 12940 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A3.html"></a> | |
| 12941 <h4 id="XP_Q49_A2-p0.1">Whether the goods of marriage are sufficiently enumerated?</h4> | |
| 12942 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 12943 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p2"> | |
| 12944 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the goods of marriage are insufficiently enumerated by the Master (Sent. iv, D, 31), namely "faith, offspring, | |
| 12945 and sacrament." For the object of marriage among men is not only the begetting and feeding of children, but also the partnership | |
| 12946 of a common life, whereby each one contributes his share of work to the common stock, as stated in Ethic. viii, 12. Therefore | |
| 12947 as the offspring is reckoned a good of matrimony, so also should the | |
| 12948 communication of works. | |
| 12949 </p> | |
| 12950 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p3"> | |
| 12951 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the union of Christ with the Church, signified by matrimony, is the effect of charity. Therefore charity rather | |
| 12952 than faith should be reckoned among the goods of matrimony. | |
| 12953 </p> | |
| 12954 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p4"> | |
| 12955 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in matrimony, just as it is required that neither party have intercourse with another, so is it required that the | |
| 12956 one pay the marriage debt to the other. Now the former pertains to faith according to the Master (Sent. iv, D, 31). Therefore | |
| 12957 justice should also be reckoned among the goods of marriage on account of the payment of the debt. | |
| 12958 </p> | |
| 12959 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p5"> | |
| 12960 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in matrimony as signifying the union of Christ with the Church, just as indivisibility is required, so also is unity, | |
| 12961 whereby one man has one wife. But the sacrament which is reckoned among the three marriage goods pertains to indivisibility. | |
| 12962 Therefore there should be something else pertaining to unity. | |
| 12963 </p> | |
| 12964 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p6"> | |
| 12965 <b>Objection 5:</b> On the other hand, it would seem that they are too many. For one virtue suffices to make one act right. Now faith is one | |
| 12966 virtue. Therefore it was not necessary to add two other goods to make marriage right. | |
| 12967 </p> | |
| 12968 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p7"> | |
| 12969 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the same cause does not make a thing both useful and virtuous, since the useful and the virtuous are opposite divisions | |
| 12970 of the good. Now marriage derives its character of useful from the offspring. Therefore the offspring should not be reckoned | |
| 12971 among the goods that make marriage virtuous. | |
| 12972 </p> | |
| 12973 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p8"> | |
| 12974 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, nothing should be reckoned as a property or condition of itself. Now these goods are reckoned to be conditions of | |
| 12975 marriage. Therefore since matrimony is a sacrament, the sacrament should not be reckoned a condition of matrimony. | |
| 12976 </p> | |
| 12977 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p9"> | |
| 12978 <b>I answer that,</b> Matrimony is instituted both as an office of nature and as a sacrament of the Church. As an office of nature it is directed | |
| 12979 by two things, like every other virtuous act. one of these is required on the part of the agent and is the intention of the | |
| 12980 due end, and thus the "offspring" is accounted a good of matrimony; the other is required on the part of the act, which is | |
| 12981 good generically through being about a due matter; and thus we have "faith," whereby a man | |
| 12982 has intercourse with his wife and with no other woman. Besides this it has a certain goodness as a sacrament, and this is | |
| 12983 signified by the very word "sacrament." | |
| 12984 </p> | |
| 12985 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p10"> | |
| 12986 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Offspring signifies not only the begetting of children, but also their education, to which as its end is directed the entire | |
| 12987 communion of works that exists between man and wife as united in marriage, since parents naturally "lay up" for their "children" | |
| 12988 ( | |
| 12989 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q49_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:14</a>); so that the offspring like a principal end includes another, as it were, secondary end. | |
| 12990 </p> | |
| 12991 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p11"> | |
| 12992 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Faith is not taken here as a theological virtue, but as part of justice, in so far as faith [fides] signifies the suiting | |
| 12993 of deed to word [fiant dicta] by keeping one's promises; for since marriage is a contract it contains a promise whereby this | |
| 12994 man is assigned to this woman. | |
| 12995 </p> | |
| 12996 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p12"> | |
| 12997 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as the marriage promise means that neither party is to have intercourse with a third party, so does it require that | |
| 12998 they should mutually pay the marriage debt. The latter is indeed the chief of the two, since it follows from the power which | |
| 12999 each receives over the other. Consequently both these things pertain to faith, although the Book of Sentences mentions that | |
| 13000 which is the less manifest. | |
| 13001 </p> | |
| 13002 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p13"> | |
| 13003 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> By sacrament we are to understand not only indivisibility, but all those things that result from marriage being a sign of | |
| 13004 Christ's union with the Church. We may also reply that the unity to which the objection refers pertains to faith, just as | |
| 13005 indivisibility belongs to the sacrament. | |
| 13006 </p> | |
| 13007 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p14"> | |
| 13008 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Faith here does not denote a virtue, but that condition of virtue which is a part of justice and is called by the name of | |
| 13009 faith. | |
| 13010 </p> | |
| 13011 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p15"> | |
| 13012 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Just as the right use of a useful good derives its rectitude not from the useful but from the reason which causes the right | |
| 13013 use, so too direction to a useful good may cause the goodness of rectitude by virtue of the reason causing the right direction; | |
| 13014 and in this way marriage, through being directed to the offspring, is useful, and nevertheless righteous, inasmuch as it is | |
| 13015 directed aright. | |
| 13016 </p> | |
| 13017 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p16"> | |
| 13018 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> As the Master says (Sent. iv, D, 31), sacrament here does not mean matrimony itself, but its indissolubility, which is a | |
| 13019 sign of the same thing as matrimony is. | |
| 13020 </p> | |
| 13021 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p17"> We may also reply that although marriage is a sacrament, marriage as marriage is not the same as marriage as a sacrament, | |
| 13022 since it was instituted not only as a sign of a sacred thing, but also as an office of nature. Hence the sacramental aspect | |
| 13023 is a condition added to marriage considered in itself, whence also it derives its rectitude. Hence its sacramentality, if | |
| 13024 I may use the term, is reckoned among the goods which justify marriage; and accordingly this third good of | |
| 13025 marriage, the sacrament to wit, denotes not only its indissolubility, but also whatever pertains to its signification. | |
| 13026 </p> | |
| 13027 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p18"></p> | |
| 13028 <p id="XP_Q49_A2-p19"></p> | |
| 13029 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13030 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A3.html"></a> | |
| 13031 </div> | |
| 13032 <div id="XP_Q49_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 13033 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13034 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A4.html"></a> | |
| 13035 <h4 id="XP_Q49_A3-p0.1">Whether the sacrament is the chief of the marriage goods?</h4> | |
| 13036 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 13037 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p2"> | |
| 13038 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the "sacrament" is not the chief of the marriage goods. For the end is principal in everything. Now the | |
| 13039 end of marriage is the offspring. Therefore the offspring is the chief marriage good. | |
| 13040 </p> | |
| 13041 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p3"> | |
| 13042 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the specific nature the difference is more important than the genus, even as the form is more important than | |
| 13043 matter in the composition of a natural thing. Now "sacrament" refers to marriage on the part of its genus, while "offspring" | |
| 13044 and "faith" refer thereto on the part of the difference whereby it is a special kind of sacrament. Therefore these other two | |
| 13045 are more important than sacrament in reference to marriage. | |
| 13046 </p> | |
| 13047 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p4"> | |
| 13048 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as we find marriage without "offspring" and without "faith," so do we find it without indissolubility, as in | |
| 13049 the case where one of the parties enters religion before the marriage is consummated. Therefore neither from this point of | |
| 13050 view is "sacrament" the most important marriage good. | |
| 13051 </p> | |
| 13052 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p5"> | |
| 13053 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, an effect cannot be more important than its cause. Now consent, which is the cause of matrimony, is often changed. | |
| 13054 Therefore the marriage also can be dissolved and consequently inseparability is not always a condition of marriage. | |
| 13055 </p> | |
| 13056 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p6"> | |
| 13057 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the sacraments which produce an everlasting effect imprint a character. But no character is imprinted in matrimony. | |
| 13058 Therefore it is not conditioned by a lasting inseparability. Consequently just as there is marriage without "offspring" so | |
| 13059 is there marriage without "sacrament," and thus the same conclusion follows as above. | |
| 13060 </p> | |
| 13061 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p7"> | |
| 13062 <b>On the contrary,</b> That which has a place in the definition of a thing is most essential thereto. Now inseparability, which pertains to sacrament, | |
| 13063 is placed in the definition of marriage ( | |
| 13064 <a id="XP_Q49_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q44_A3.html">Q[44], A[3]</a>), while offspring and faith are not. Therefore among the other goods sacrament is the most essential to matrimony. | |
| 13065 </p> | |
| 13066 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p8"> Further, the Divine power which works in the sacraments is more efficacious than human power. But "offspring" and "faith" | |
| 13067 pertain to matrimony as directed to an office of human nature, whereas "sacrament" pertains to it as instituted by God. Therefore | |
| 13068 sacrament takes a more important part in marriage than the other two. | |
| 13069 </p> | |
| 13070 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p9"> | |
| 13071 <b>I answer that,</b> This or that may be more important to a thing in two ways, either because it is more essential or because it is more excellent. | |
| 13072 If the reason is because it is more excellent, then "sacrament" is in every way the most important of the three marriage goods, | |
| 13073 since it belongs to marriage considered as a sacrament of grace; while the other two belong to it as an office of nature; | |
| 13074 and a perfection of grace is more excellent than a perfection of nature. If, | |
| 13075 however, it is said to be more important because it is more essential, we must draw a distinction; for "faith" and "offspring" | |
| 13076 can be considered in two ways. First, in themselves, and thus they regard the use of matrimony in begetting children and observing | |
| 13077 the marriage compact; while inseparability, which is denoted by "sacrament," regards the very sacrament considered in itself, | |
| 13078 since from the very fact that by the marriage compact man and wife give to one another power the one over the other | |
| 13079 in perpetuity, it follows that they cannot be put asunder. Hence there is no matrimony without inseparability, whereas there | |
| 13080 is matrimony without "faith" and "offspring," because the existence of a thing does not depend on its use; and in this sense | |
| 13081 "sacrament" is more essential to matrimony than "faith" and "offspring." Secondly, "faith" and "offspring" may be considered | |
| 13082 as in their principles, so that "offspring" denote the intention of having children, and "faith" the duty of remaining | |
| 13083 faithful, and there can be no matrimony without these also, since they are caused in matrimony by the marriage compact itself, | |
| 13084 so that if anything contrary to these were expressed in the consent which makes a marriage, the marriage would be invalid. | |
| 13085 Taking "faith" and "offspring" in this sense, it is clear that "offspring" is the most essential thing in marriage, secondly | |
| 13086 "faith," and thirdly "sacrament"; even as to man it is more essential to be in nature than to be in grace, although it is | |
| 13087 more excellent to be in grace. | |
| 13088 </p> | |
| 13089 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p10"> | |
| 13090 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The end as regards the intention stands first in a thing, but as regards the attainment it stands last. It is the same with | |
| 13091 "offspring" among the marriage goods; wherefore in a way it is the most important and in another way it is not. | |
| 13092 </p> | |
| 13093 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p11"> | |
| 13094 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sacrament, even as holding the third place among the marriage goods, belongs to matrimony by reason of its difference; for | |
| 13095 it is called "sacrament" from its signification of that particular sacred thing which matrimony signifies. | |
| 13096 </p> | |
| 13097 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p12"> | |
| 13098 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to Augustine (De Bono Conjug. ix), marriage is a good of mortals, wherefore in the resurrection "they shall neither | |
| 13099 marry nor be married" ( | |
| 13100 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q49_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.30" target="asv">Mat. 22:30</a>). Hence the marriage bond does not last after the life wherein it is contracted, and consequently it is said to be inseparable, | |
| 13101 because it cannot be sundered in this life, but either by bodily death after carnal union, or by spiritual death after a merely | |
| 13102 spiritual | |
| 13103 union. | |
| 13104 </p> | |
| 13105 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p13"> | |
| 13106 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although the consent which makes a marriage is not everlasting materially, i.e. in regard to the substance of the act, since | |
| 13107 that act ceases and a contrary act may succeed it, nevertheless formally speaking it is everlasting, because it is a consent | |
| 13108 to an ever lasting bond, else it would not make a marriage, for a consent to take a woman for a time makes no marriage. Hence | |
| 13109 it is everlasting formally, inasmuch as an act takes its species from its | |
| 13110 object; and thus it is that matrimony derives its inseparability from the consent. | |
| 13111 </p> | |
| 13112 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p14"> | |
| 13113 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> In those sacraments wherein a character is imprinted, power is given to perform spiritual actions; but in matrimony, to perform | |
| 13114 bodily actions. Wherefore matrimony by reason of the power which man and wife receive over one another agrees with the sacraments | |
| 13115 in which a character is imprinted, and from this it derives its inseparability, as the Master says (Sent. iv, D, 31); yet | |
| 13116 it differs from them in so far as that power regards bodily acts; hence it | |
| 13117 does not confer a spiritual character. | |
| 13118 </p> | |
| 13119 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p15"></p> | |
| 13120 <p id="XP_Q49_A3-p16"></p> | |
| 13121 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13122 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A4.html"></a> | |
| 13123 </div> | |
| 13124 <div id="XP_Q49_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 13125 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A3.html"></a> | |
| 13126 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A5.html"></a> | |
| 13127 <h4 id="XP_Q49_A4-p0.1">Whether the marriage act is excused by the aforesaid goods?</h4> | |
| 13128 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 13129 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p2"> | |
| 13130 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the marriage act cannot be altogether excused from sin by the aforesaid goods. For whoever allows himself | |
| 13131 to lose a greater good for the sake of a lesser good sins because he allows it inordinately. Now the good of reason which | |
| 13132 is prejudiced in the marriage act is greater than these three marriage goods. Therefore the aforesaid goods do not suffice | |
| 13133 to excuse marriage intercourse. | |
| 13134 </p> | |
| 13135 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p3"> | |
| 13136 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if a moral good be added to a moral evil the sum total is evil and not good, since one evil circumstance makes an | |
| 13137 action evil, whereas one good circumstance does not make it good. Now the marriage act is evil in itself, else it would need | |
| 13138 no excuse. Therefore the addition of the marriage goods cannot make the act good. | |
| 13139 </p> | |
| 13140 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p4"> | |
| 13141 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, wherever there is immoderate passion there is moral vice. Now the marriage goods cannot prevent the pleasure in | |
| 13142 that act from being immoderate. Therefore they cannot excuse it from being a sin. | |
| 13143 </p> | |
| 13144 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p5"> | |
| 13145 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 15), shame is only caused by a disgraceful deed. Now the marriage goods | |
| 13146 do not deprive that deed of its shame. Therefore they cannot excuse it from sin. | |
| 13147 </p> | |
| 13148 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p6"> | |
| 13149 <b>On the contrary,</b> The marriage act differs not from fornication except by the marriage goods. If therefore these were not sufficient to excuse | |
| 13150 it marriage would be always unlawful; and this is contrary to what was stated above ( | |
| 13151 <a id="XP_Q49_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q41_A3.html">Q[41], A[3]</a>). | |
| 13152 </p> | |
| 13153 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p7"> Further, the marriage goods are related to its act as its due circumstances, as stated above (A[1], ad 4). Now the like circumstances | |
| 13154 are sufficient to prevent an action from being evil. Therefore these goods can excuse marriage so that it is nowise a sin. | |
| 13155 </p> | |
| 13156 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p8"> | |
| 13157 <b>I answer that,</b> An act is said to be excused in two ways. First, on the part of the agent, so that although it be evil it is not imputed | |
| 13158 as sin to the agent, or at least not as so grave a sin. thus ignorance is said to excuse a sin wholly or partly. Secondly, | |
| 13159 an act is said to be excused on its part, so that, namely, it is not evil; and it is thus that the aforesaid goods are said | |
| 13160 to excuse the marriage act. Now it is from the same cause that an act is not morally evil, and | |
| 13161 that it is good, since there is no such thing as an indifferent act, as was stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40; | |
| 13162 <a id="XP_Q49_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q18_A9.html">FS, Q[18], A[9]</a>). Now a human act is said to be good in two ways. In one way by goodness of virtue, and thus an act derives its goodness | |
| 13163 from those things which place it in the mean. This is what "faith" and "offspring" do in the marriage act, as stated above | |
| 13164 | |
| 13165 <a id="XP_Q49_A4-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q49_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. In another way, by goodness of the "sacrament," in which way | |
| 13166 an act is said to be not only good, but also holy, and the marriage act derives this goodness from the indissolubility of | |
| 13167 the union, in respect of which it signifies the union of Christ with the Church. Thus it is clear that the aforesaid goods | |
| 13168 sufficiently excuse the marriage act. | |
| 13169 </p> | |
| 13170 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p9"> | |
| 13171 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By the marriage act man does not incur harm to his reason as to habit, but only as to act. Nor is it unfitting that a certain | |
| 13172 act which is generically better be sometimes interrupted for some less good act; for it is possible to do this without sin, | |
| 13173 as in the case of one who ceases from the act of contemplation in order meanwhile to devote himself to action. | |
| 13174 </p> | |
| 13175 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p10"> | |
| 13176 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument would avail if the evil that is inseparable from carnal intercourse were an evil of sin. But in this case it | |
| 13177 is an evil not of sin but of punishment alone, consisting in the rebellion of concupiscence against reason; and consequently | |
| 13178 the conclusion does not follow. | |
| 13179 </p> | |
| 13180 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p11"> | |
| 13181 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The excess of passion that amounts to a sin does not refer to the passion's quantitative intensity, but to its proportion | |
| 13182 to reason; wherefore it is only when a passion goes beyond the bounds of reason that it is reckoned to be immoderate. Now | |
| 13183 the pleasure attaching to the marriage act, while it is most intense in point of quantity, does not go beyond the bounds previously | |
| 13184 appointed by reason before the commencement of the act, although reason is | |
| 13185 unable to regulate them during the pleasure itself. | |
| 13186 </p> | |
| 13187 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p12"> | |
| 13188 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The turpitude that always accompanies the marriage act and always causes shame is the turpitude of punishment, not of sin, | |
| 13189 for man is naturally ashamed of any defect. | |
| 13190 </p> | |
| 13191 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p13"></p> | |
| 13192 <p id="XP_Q49_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 13193 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A3.html"></a> | |
| 13194 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A5.html"></a> | |
| 13195 </div> | |
| 13196 <div id="XP_Q49_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 13197 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A4.html"></a> | |
| 13198 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A6.html"></a> | |
| 13199 <h4 id="XP_Q49_A5-p0.1">Whether the marriage act can be excused without the marriage goods?</h4> | |
| 13200 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 13201 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p2"> | |
| 13202 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the marriage act can be excused even without the marriage goods. For he who is moved by nature alone to | |
| 13203 the marriage act, apparently does not intend any of the marriage goods, since the marriage goods pertain to grace or virtue. | |
| 13204 Yet when a person is moved to the aforesaid act by the natural appetite alone, seemingly he commits no sin, for nothing natural | |
| 13205 is an evil, since "evil is contrary to nature and order," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. | |
| 13206 iv). Therefore the marriage act can be excused even without the marriage goods. | |
| 13207 </p> | |
| 13208 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p3"> | |
| 13209 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he who has intercourse with his wife in order to avoid fornication, does not seemingly intend any of the marriage | |
| 13210 goods. Yet he does not sin apparently, because marriage was granted to human weakness for the very purpose of avoiding fornication | |
| 13211 ( | |
| 13212 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q49_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.2" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:2</a>, | |
| 13213 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q49_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.6" target="asv">6</a>). Therefore the marriage act can be excused even without the marriage goods. | |
| 13214 </p> | |
| 13215 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p4"> | |
| 13216 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, he who uses as he will that which is his own does not act against justice, and thus seemingly does not sin. Now | |
| 13217 marriage makes the wife the husband's own, and "vice versa." Therefore, if they use one another at will through the instigation | |
| 13218 of lust, it would seem that it is no sin; and thus the same conclusion follows. | |
| 13219 </p> | |
| 13220 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p5"> | |
| 13221 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, that which is good generically does not become evil unless it be done with an evil intention. Now the marriage act | |
| 13222 whereby a husband knows his wife is generically good. Therefore it cannot be evil unless it be done with an evil intention. | |
| 13223 Now it can be done with a good intention, even without intending any marriage good, for instance by intending to keep or acquire | |
| 13224 bodily health. Therefore it seems that this act can be excused even without the | |
| 13225 marriage goods. | |
| 13226 </p> | |
| 13227 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p6"> | |
| 13228 <b>On the contrary,</b> If the cause be removed the effect is removed. Now the marriage goods are the cause of rectitude in the marriage act. Therefore | |
| 13229 the marriage act cannot be excused without them. | |
| 13230 </p> | |
| 13231 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p7"> Further, the aforesaid act does not differ from the act of fornication except in the aforesaid goods. But the act of fornication | |
| 13232 is always evil. Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused by the aforesaid goods. | |
| 13233 </p> | |
| 13234 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p8"> | |
| 13235 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as the marriage goods, in so far as they consist in a habit, make a marriage honest and holy, so too, in so far as they | |
| 13236 are in the actual intention, they make the marriage act honest, as regards those two marriage goods which relate to the marriage | |
| 13237 act. Hence when married persons come together for the purpose of begetting children, or of paying the debt to one another | |
| 13238 (which pertains to "faith") they are wholly excused from sin. But the third good does | |
| 13239 not relate to the use of marriage, but to its excuse, as stated above | |
| 13240 <a id="XP_Q49_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q49_A3.html">(A[3])</a>; wherefore it makes marriage itself honest, but not its act, as though its act were wholly excused from sin, through being | |
| 13241 done on account of some signification. Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without | |
| 13242 any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt. otherwise it is always at least a venial | |
| 13243 sin. | |
| 13244 </p> | |
| 13245 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p9"> | |
| 13246 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The offspring considered as a marriage good includes something besides the offspring as a good intended by nature. For nature | |
| 13247 intends offspring as safeguarding the good of the species, whereas the offspring as a good of the sacrament of marriage includes | |
| 13248 besides this the directing of the child to God. Wherefore the intention of nature which intends the offspring must needs be | |
| 13249 referred either actually or habitually to the intention of having an | |
| 13250 offspring, as a good of the sacrament: otherwise the intention would go no further than a creature; and this is always a sin. | |
| 13251 Consequently whenever nature alone moves a person to the marriage act, he is not wholly excused from sin, except in so far | |
| 13252 as the movement of nature is further directed actually or habitually to the offspring as a good of the sacrament. Nor does | |
| 13253 it follow that the instigation of nature is evil, but that it is imperfect unless it be further directed to some marriage | |
| 13254 good. | |
| 13255 </p> | |
| 13256 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p10"> | |
| 13257 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If a man intends by the marriage act to prevent fornication in his wife, it is no sin, because this is a kind of payment | |
| 13258 of the debt that comes under the good of "faith." But if he intends to avoid fornication in himself, then there is a certain | |
| 13259 superfluity, and accordingly there is a venial sin, nor was the sacrament instituted for that purpose, except by indulgence, | |
| 13260 which regards venial sins. | |
| 13261 </p> | |
| 13262 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p11"> | |
| 13263 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> One due circumstance does not suffice to make a good act, and consequently it does not follow that, no matter how one use | |
| 13264 one's own property, the use is good, but when one uses it as one ought according to all the circumstances. | |
| 13265 </p> | |
| 13266 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p12"> | |
| 13267 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although it is not evil in itself to intend to keep oneself in good health, this intention becomes evil, if one intend health | |
| 13268 by means of something that is not naturally ordained for that purpose; for instance if one sought only bodily health by the | |
| 13269 sacrament of baptism, and the same applies to the marriage act in the question at issue. | |
| 13270 </p> | |
| 13271 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p13"></p> | |
| 13272 <p id="XP_Q49_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 13273 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A4.html"></a> | |
| 13274 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A6.html"></a> | |
| 13275 </div> | |
| 13276 <div id="XP_Q49_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 13277 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A5.html"></a> | |
| 13278 <a href="summa.XP_Q50.html"></a> | |
| 13279 <h4 id="XP_Q49_A6-p0.1">Whether it is a mortal sin for a man to have knowledge of his wife, with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of | |
| 13280 pleasure? | |
| 13281 </h4> | |
| 13282 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 13283 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p2"> | |
| 13284 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that whenever a man has knowledge of his wife, with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of pleasure, | |
| 13285 he commits a mortal sin. For according to Jerome (Comment. in | |
| 13286 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q49_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.25" target="asv"> Eph. 5:25</a>), as quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 31), "the pleasure taken in the embraces of a wanton is damnable in a husband." Now | |
| 13287 nothing but mortal sin is said to be damnable. Therefore it is always a mortal sin to have knowledge of one's wife for | |
| 13288 mere pleasure. | |
| 13289 </p> | |
| 13290 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p3"> | |
| 13291 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, consent to pleasure is a mortal sin, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 24). Now whoever knows his wife | |
| 13292 for the sake of pleasure consents to the pleasure. Therefore he sins mortally. | |
| 13293 </p> | |
| 13294 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p4"> | |
| 13295 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whoever fails to refer the use of a creature to God enjoys a creature, and this is a mortal sin. But whoever uses | |
| 13296 his wife for mere pleasure does not refer that use to God. Therefore he sins mortally. | |
| 13297 </p> | |
| 13298 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p5"> | |
| 13299 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, no one should be excommunicated except for a mortal sin. Now according to the text (Sent. ii, D, 24) a man who knows | |
| 13300 his wife for mere pleasure is debarred from entering the Church, as though he were excommunicate. Therefore every such man | |
| 13301 sins mortally. | |
| 13302 </p> | |
| 13303 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p6"> | |
| 13304 <b>On the contrary,</b> As stated in the text (Sent. ii, D, 24), according to Augustine (Contra Jul. ii, 10; De Decem Chord. xi; Serm. xli, de Sanct.), | |
| 13305 carnal intercourse of this kind is one of the daily sins, for which we say the "Our Father." Now these are not mortal sins. | |
| 13306 Therefore, etc. | |
| 13307 </p> | |
| 13308 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p7"> Further, it is no mortal sin to take food for mere pleasure. Therefore in like manner it is not a mortal sin for a man to | |
| 13309 use his wife merely to satisfy his desire. | |
| 13310 </p> | |
| 13311 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p8"> | |
| 13312 <b>I answer that,</b> Some say that whenever pleasure is the chief motive for the marriage act it is a mortal sin; that when it is an indirect | |
| 13313 motive it is a venial sin; and that when it spurns the pleasure altogether and is displeasing, it is wholly void of venial | |
| 13314 sin; so that it would be a mortal sin to seek pleasure in this act, a venial sin to take the pleasure when offered, but that | |
| 13315 perfection requires one to detest it. But this is impossible, since according to the | |
| 13316 Philosopher (Ethic. x, 3,4) the same judgment applies to pleasure as to action, because pleasure in a good action is good, | |
| 13317 and in an evil action, evil; wherefore, as the marriage act is not evil in itself, neither will it be always a mortal sin | |
| 13318 to seek pleasure therein. Consequently the right answer to this question is that if pleasure be sought in such a way as to | |
| 13319 exclude the honesty of marriage, so that, to wit, it is not as a wife but as a woman that a man treats his wife, and that | |
| 13320 he is | |
| 13321 ready to use her in the same way if she were not his wife, it is a mortal sin; wherefore such a man is said to be too ardent | |
| 13322 a lover of his wife, because his ardor carries him away from the goods of marriage. If, however, he seek pleasure within the | |
| 13323 bounds of marriage, so that it would not be sought in another than his wife, it is a venial sin. | |
| 13324 </p> | |
| 13325 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p9"> | |
| 13326 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A man seeks wanton pleasure in his wife when he sees no more in her that he would in a wanton. | |
| 13327 </p> | |
| 13328 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p10"> | |
| 13329 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Consent to the pleasure of the intercourse that is a mortal sin is itself a mortal sin; but such is not the consent to the | |
| 13330 marriage act. | |
| 13331 </p> | |
| 13332 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p11"> | |
| 13333 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although he does not actually refer the pleasure to God, he does not place his will's last end therein; otherwise he would | |
| 13334 seek it anywhere indifferently. Hence it does not follow that he enjoys a creature; but he uses a creature actually for his | |
| 13335 own sake, and himself habitually, though not actually, for God's sake. | |
| 13336 </p> | |
| 13337 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p12"> | |
| 13338 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The reason for this statement is not that man deserves to be excommunicated for this sin, but because he renders himself | |
| 13339 unfit for spiritual things, since in that act, he becomes flesh and nothing more. | |
| 13340 </p> | |
| 13341 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p13"></p> | |
| 13342 <p id="XP_Q49_A6-p14"></p> | |
| 13343 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A5.html"></a> | |
| 13344 <a href="summa.XP_Q50.html"></a> | |
| 13345 </div> | |
| 13346 <a href="summa.XP_Q48_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13347 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13348 </div> | |
| 13349 <div id="XP_Q50" class="div3"> | |
| 13350 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A6.html"></a> | |
| 13351 <a href="summa.XP_Q50_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13352 <h3 id="XP_Q50-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENTS OF MARRIAGE, IN GENERAL (ONE ARTICLE)</h3> | |
| 13353 <p id="XP_Q50-p1"></p> | |
| 13354 <p id="XP_Q50-p2"> In the next place we must consider the impediments of marriage: (1) In general; (2) In particular.</p> | |
| 13355 <div id="XP_Q50_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 13356 <a href="summa.XP_Q50.html"></a> | |
| 13357 <a href="summa.XP_Q51.html"></a> | |
| 13358 <h4 id="XP_Q50_A1-p0.1">Whether it is fitting that impediments should be assigned to marriage?</h4> | |
| 13359 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 13360 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p2"> | |
| 13361 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting for impediments to be assigned to marriage. For marriage is a sacrament condivided with the others. | |
| 13362 But no impediments are assigned to the others. Neither therefore should they be assigned to marriage. | |
| 13363 </p> | |
| 13364 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p3"> | |
| 13365 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the less perfect a thing is the fewer its obstacles. Now matrimony is the least perfect of the sacraments. Therefore | |
| 13366 it should have either no impediments or very few. | |
| 13367 </p> | |
| 13368 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p4"> | |
| 13369 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, wherever there is disease, it is necessary to have a remedy for the disease. Now concupiscence, a remedy for which | |
| 13370 is permitted in matrimony ( | |
| 13371 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q50_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:6</a>), is in all. Therefore there should not be any impediment making it altogether unlawful for a particular person to marry. | |
| 13372 </p> | |
| 13373 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p5"> | |
| 13374 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, unlawful means against the law. Now these impediments that are assigned to matrimony are not against the natural | |
| 13375 law, because they are not found to be the same in each state of the human race, since more degrees of kindred come under prohibition | |
| 13376 at one time than at another. Nor, seemingly, can human law set impediments against marriage, since marriage, like the other | |
| 13377 sacraments, is not of human but of Divine institution. Therefore impediments should | |
| 13378 not be assigned to marriage, making it unlawful for a person to marry. | |
| 13379 </p> | |
| 13380 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p6"> | |
| 13381 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, lawful and unlawful differ as that which is against the law from that which is not, and between these there is no | |
| 13382 middle term, since they are opposed according to affirmation and negation. Therefore there cannot be impediments to marriage, | |
| 13383 placing a person in a middle position between those who are lawful and those who are unlawful subjects of marriage. | |
| 13384 </p> | |
| 13385 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p7"> | |
| 13386 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, union of man and woman is unlawful save in marriage. Now every unlawful union should be dissolved. Therefore if | |
| 13387 anything prevent a marriage being contracted, it will "de facto" dissolve it after it has been contracted; and thus impediments | |
| 13388 should not be assigned to marriage, which hinder it from being contracted, and dissolve it after it has been contracted. | |
| 13389 </p> | |
| 13390 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p8"> | |
| 13391 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, no impediment can remove from a thing that which is part of its definition. Now indissolubility is part of the definition | |
| 13392 of marriage. Therefore there cannot be any impediments which annul a marriage already contracted. | |
| 13393 </p> | |
| 13394 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p9"> | |
| 13395 <b>Objection 8:</b> On the other hand, it would seem that there should be an infinite number of impediments to marriage. For marriage is a good. | |
| 13396 Now good may be lacking in an infinite number of ways, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iii). Therefore there is an infinite number | |
| 13397 of impediments to marriage. | |
| 13398 </p> | |
| 13399 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p10"> | |
| 13400 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, the impediments to marriage arise from the conditions of individuals. But such like conditions are infinite in number. | |
| 13401 Therefore the impediments to marriage are also infinite. | |
| 13402 </p> | |
| 13403 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p11"> | |
| 13404 <b>I answer that,</b> In marriage, as in other sacraments, there are certain things essential to marriage, and others that belong to its solemnization. | |
| 13405 And since even without the things that pertain to its solemnization it is still a true sacrament, as also in the case of the | |
| 13406 other sacraments, it follows that the impediments to those things that pertain to the solemnization of this sacrament do not | |
| 13407 derogate from the validity of the marriage. These impediments are said to hinder | |
| 13408 the contracting of marriage, but they do not dissolve the marriage once contracted; such are the veto of the Church, or the | |
| 13409 holy seasons. Hence the verse: | |
| 13410 </p> | |
| 13411 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p12"> "The veto of the Church and holy tide</p> | |
| 13412 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p13"> Forbid the knot, but loose it not if tied."</p> | |
| 13413 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p14"> On the other hand, those impediments which regard the essentials of marriage make a marriage invalid, wherefore they are | |
| 13414 said not only to hinder the contracting of marriage, but to dissolve it if contracted; and they are contained in the following | |
| 13415 verse: | |
| 13416 </p> | |
| 13417 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p15"> "Error, station, vow, kinship, crime,</p> | |
| 13418 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p16"> Difference of worship, force, holy orders,</p> | |
| 13419 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p17"> Marriage bond, honesty, affinity, impotence,</p> | |
| 13420 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p18"> All these forbid marriage, and annul it though</p> | |
| 13421 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p19"> contracted."</p> | |
| 13422 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p20"> The reason for this number may be explained as follows: Marriage may be hindered either on the part of the contract or in | |
| 13423 regard to the contracting parties. If in the first way, since the marriage contract is made by voluntary consent, and this | |
| 13424 is incompatible with either ignorance or violence, there will be two impediments to marriage, namely "force," i.e. compulsion, | |
| 13425 and "error" in reference to ignorance. Wherefore the Master pronounced on these two impediments when treating | |
| 13426 of the cause of matrimony (Sent. iv, DD 29,30). Here, however, he is treating of the impediments as arising from the contracting | |
| 13427 parties, and these may be differentiated as follows. A person may be hindered from contracting marriage either simply, or | |
| 13428 with some particular person. If simply, so that he be unable to contract marriage with any woman, this can only be because | |
| 13429 he is hindered from performing the marriage act. This happens in two ways. First, because he cannot "de facto," either | |
| 13430 through being altogether unable---and thus we have the impediment of "impotence"---or through being unable to do so freely, | |
| 13431 and thus we have the impediment of the "condition of slavery." Secondly, because he cannot do it lawfully, and this because | |
| 13432 he is bound to continence, which happens in two ways, either through his being bound on account of the office he has undertaken | |
| 13433 to fulfill---and thus we have the impediment of "Order"---or on account of his having taken a vow---and thus "Vow" is an | |
| 13434 impediment. | |
| 13435 </p> | |
| 13436 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p21"> If, however, a person is hindered from marrying, not simply but in reference to a particular person, this is either because | |
| 13437 he is bound to another person, and thus he who is married to one cannot marry another, which constitutes the impediment of | |
| 13438 the "bond of marriage"---or through lack of proportion to the other party, and this for three reasons. First, on account of | |
| 13439 too great a distance separating them, and thus we have "difference of worship"; secondly, on account of their | |
| 13440 being too closely related, and thus we have three impediments, namely "kinship," then "affinity," which denotes the close | |
| 13441 relationship between two persons, in reference to a third united to one of them by marriage, and the "justice of public honesty," | |
| 13442 where we have a close relationship between two persons arising out of the betrothal of one of them to a third person; thirdly, | |
| 13443 on account of a previous undue union between him and the woman, and thus the "crime of adultery" previously committed | |
| 13444 with her is an impediment. | |
| 13445 </p> | |
| 13446 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p22"> | |
| 13447 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There may be impediments to the other sacraments also in the omission either of that which is essential, or of that which | |
| 13448 pertains to the solemnization of the sacrament, as stated above. However, impediments are assigned to matrimony rather than | |
| 13449 to the other sacraments for three reasons. First, because matrimony consists of two persons, and consequently can be impeded | |
| 13450 in more ways than the other sacraments which refer to one person taken individually; | |
| 13451 secondly, because matrimony has its cause in us and in God, while some of the other sacraments have their cause in God alone. | |
| 13452 Wherefore penance which in a manner has a cause in us, is assigned certain impediments by the Master (Sent. iv, D, 16), such | |
| 13453 as hypocrisy, the public games, and so forth; thirdly, because other sacraments are objects of command or counsel, as being | |
| 13454 more perfect goods, whereas marriage is a matter of indulgence, as being a less perfect good ( | |
| 13455 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q50_A1-p22.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.6" target="asv">1 Cor. | |
| 13456 7:6 | |
| 13457 </a>). Wherefore, in order to afford an opportunity of proficiency towards a greater good, more impediments are assigned to matrimony | |
| 13458 than to the other sacraments. | |
| 13459 </p> | |
| 13460 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p23"> | |
| 13461 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The more perfect things can be hindered in more ways, in so far as more conditions are required for them. And if an imperfect | |
| 13462 thing requires more conditions, there will be more impediments to it; and thus it is in matrimony. | |
| 13463 </p> | |
| 13464 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p24"> | |
| 13465 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument would hold, were there no other and more efficacious remedies for the disease of concupiscence; which is false. | |
| 13466 </p> | |
| 13467 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p25"> | |
| 13468 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Persons are said to be unlawful subjects for marriage through being contrary to the law whereby marriage is established. | |
| 13469 Now marriage as fulfilling an office of nature is established by the natural law; as a sacrament, by the Divine law; as fulfilling | |
| 13470 an office of society, by the civil law. Consequently a person may be rendered an unlawful subject of marriage by any of the | |
| 13471 aforesaid laws. Nor does the comparison with the other sacraments hold, for | |
| 13472 they are sacraments only. And since the natural law is particularized in various ways according to the various states of mankind, | |
| 13473 and since positive law, too, varies according to the various conditions of men, the Master (Sent. iv, D, 34) asserts that | |
| 13474 at various times various persons have been unlawful subjects of marriage. | |
| 13475 </p> | |
| 13476 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p26"> | |
| 13477 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The law may forbid a thing either altogether, or in part and in certain cases. Hence between that which is altogether according | |
| 13478 to the law and that which is altogether against the law (which are opposed by contrariety and not according to affirmation | |
| 13479 and negation), that which is somewhat according to the law and somewhat against the law is a middle term. For this reason | |
| 13480 certain persons hold a middle place between those who are simply lawful subjects | |
| 13481 and those who are simply unlawful. | |
| 13482 </p> | |
| 13483 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p27"> | |
| 13484 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Those impediments which do not annul a marriage already contracted sometimes hinder a marriage from being contracted, by | |
| 13485 rendering it not invalid but unlawful. And if it be contracted it is a true marriage although the contracting parties sin; | |
| 13486 just as by consecrating after breaking one's fast one would sin by disobeying the Church's ordinance, and yet it would be | |
| 13487 a valid sacrament because it is not essential to the sacrament that the consecrator be | |
| 13488 fasting. | |
| 13489 </p> | |
| 13490 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p28"> | |
| 13491 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> When we say that the aforesaid impediments annul marriage already contracted, we do not mean that they dissolve a marriage | |
| 13492 contracted in due form, but that they dissolve a marriage contracted "de facto" and not "de jure." Wherefore if an impediment | |
| 13493 supervene after a marriage has been contracted in due form, it cannot dissolve the marriage. | |
| 13494 </p> | |
| 13495 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p29"> | |
| 13496 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> The impediments that hinder a good accidentally are infinite in number, like all accidental causes. But the causes which | |
| 13497 of their own nature corrupt a certain good are directed to that effect, and determinate, even as are the causes which produce | |
| 13498 that good; for the causes by which a thing is destroyed and those by which it is made are either contrary to one another, | |
| 13499 or the same but taken in a contrary way. | |
| 13500 </p> | |
| 13501 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p30"> | |
| 13502 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> The conditions of particular persons taken individually are infinite in number, but taken in general, they may be reduced | |
| 13503 to a certain number; as instanced in medicine and all operative arts, which consider the conditions of particular persons | |
| 13504 in whom acts are. | |
| 13505 </p> | |
| 13506 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p31"></p> | |
| 13507 <p id="XP_Q50_A1-p32"></p> | |
| 13508 <a href="summa.XP_Q50.html"></a> | |
| 13509 <a href="summa.XP_Q51.html"></a> | |
| 13510 </div> | |
| 13511 <a href="summa.XP_Q49_A6.html"></a> | |
| 13512 <a href="summa.XP_Q50_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13513 </div> | |
| 13514 <div id="XP_Q51" class="div3"> | |
| 13515 <a href="summa.XP_Q50_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13516 <a href="summa.XP_Q51_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13517 <h3 id="XP_Q51-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENT OF ERROR (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 13518 <p id="XP_Q51-p1"></p> | |
| 13519 <p id="XP_Q51-p2"> We must now consider the impediments to matrimony in particular, and in the first place the impediment of error. Under this | |
| 13520 head there are two points of inquiry: | |
| 13521 </p> | |
| 13522 <p id="XP_Q51-p3"> (1) Whether error of its very nature is an impediment to matrimony?</p> | |
| 13523 <p id="XP_Q51-p4"> (2) What kind of error?</p> | |
| 13524 <div id="XP_Q51_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 13525 <a href="summa.XP_Q51.html"></a> | |
| 13526 <a href="summa.XP_Q51_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13527 <h4 id="XP_Q51_A1-p0.1">Whether it is right to reckon error as an impediment to marriage?</h4> | |
| 13528 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 13529 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p2"> | |
| 13530 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that error should not be reckoned in itself an impediment to marriage. For consent, which is the efficient | |
| 13531 cause of marriage, is hindered in the same way as the voluntary. Now the voluntary, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, | |
| 13532 1), may be hindered by ignorance. But ignorance is not the same as error, because ignorance excludes knowledge altogether, | |
| 13533 whereas error does not, since "error is to approve the false as though it were true," | |
| 13534 according to Augustine (De Trin. ix, 11). Therefore ignorance rather than error should have been reckoned here as an impediment | |
| 13535 to marriage. | |
| 13536 </p> | |
| 13537 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p3"> | |
| 13538 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which of its very nature can be an impediment to marriage is in opposition to the good of marriage. But error | |
| 13539 is not a thing of this kind. Therefore error is not by its very nature an impediment to marriage. | |
| 13540 </p> | |
| 13541 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p4"> | |
| 13542 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as consent is required for marriage, so is intention required for baptism. Now if one were to baptize John, | |
| 13543 thinking to baptize Peter, John would be baptized none the less. Therefore error does not annul matrimony. | |
| 13544 </p> | |
| 13545 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p5"> | |
| 13546 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, there was true marriage between Lia and Jacob, and yet, in this case, there was error. Therefore error does not | |
| 13547 annul a marriage. | |
| 13548 </p> | |
| 13549 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p6"> | |
| 13550 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said in the Digests (Si per errorem, ff. De jurisdic. omn. judic.): "What is more opposed to consent than error?" Now | |
| 13551 consent is required for marriage. Therefore error is an impediment to matrimony. | |
| 13552 </p> | |
| 13553 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p7"> Further, consent denotes something voluntary. Now error is an obstacle to the voluntary, since "the voluntary," according | |
| 13554 to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1), Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24), and Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius] (De Nat. Hom. xxxii), | |
| 13555 "is that which has its principle in one who has knowledge of singulars which are the matter of actions." But this does not | |
| 13556 apply to one who is in error. Therefore error is an impediment to matrimony. | |
| 13557 </p> | |
| 13558 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p8"> | |
| 13559 <b>I answer that,</b> Whatever hinders a cause, of its very nature hinders the effect likewise. Now consent is the cause of matrimony, as stated | |
| 13560 above ( | |
| 13561 <a id="XP_Q51_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q45_A1.html">Q[45], A[1]</a>). Hence whatever voids the consent, voids marriage. Now consent is an act of the will, presupposing an act of the intellect; | |
| 13562 and if the first be lacking, the second must needs be lacking also. Hence, when error hinders knowledge, there follows a defect | |
| 13563 in the consent also, and consequently in | |
| 13564 the marriage. Therefore it is possible according to the natural law for error to void marriage. | |
| 13565 </p> | |
| 13566 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p9"> | |
| 13567 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Speaking simply, ignorance differs from error, because ignorance does not of its very nature imply an act of knowledge, while | |
| 13568 error supposes a wrong judgment of reason about something. However, as regards being an impediment to the voluntary, it differs | |
| 13569 not whether we call it ignorance or error, since no ignorance can be an impediment to the voluntary, unless it have error | |
| 13570 in conjunction with it, because the will's act presupposes an estimate or | |
| 13571 judgment about something which is the object of the will. Wherefore if there be ignorance there must needs be error; and for | |
| 13572 this reason error is set down as being the proximate cause. | |
| 13573 </p> | |
| 13574 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p10"> | |
| 13575 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although error is not of itself contrary to matrimony, it is contrary thereto as regards the cause of marriage. | |
| 13576 </p> | |
| 13577 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p11"> | |
| 13578 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The character of baptism is not caused directly by the intention of the baptizer, but by the material element applied outwardly; | |
| 13579 and the intention is effective only as directing the material element to its effect; whereas the marriage tie is caused by | |
| 13580 the consent directly. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 13581 </p> | |
| 13582 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p12"> | |
| 13583 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> According to the Master (Sent. iv, D, 30) the marriage between Lia and Jacob was effected not by their coming together, which | |
| 13584 happened through an error, but by their consent, which followed afterwards. Yet both are clearly to be excused from sin (Sent. | |
| 13585 iv, D, 30). | |
| 13586 </p> | |
| 13587 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 13588 <p id="XP_Q51_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 13589 <a href="summa.XP_Q51.html"></a> | |
| 13590 <a href="summa.XP_Q51_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13591 </div> | |
| 13592 <div id="XP_Q51_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 13593 <a href="summa.XP_Q51_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13594 <a href="summa.XP_Q52.html"></a> | |
| 13595 <h4 id="XP_Q51_A2-p0.1">Whether every error is an impediment to matrimony?</h4> | |
| 13596 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 13597 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p2"> | |
| 13598 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that every error is an impediment to matrimony, and not, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 30), only error | |
| 13599 about the condition or the person. For that which applies to a thing as such applies to it in all its bearings. Now error | |
| 13600 is of its very nature an impediment to matrimony, as stated above | |
| 13601 <a id="XP_Q51_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q51_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore every error is an impediment to matrimony. | |
| 13602 </p> | |
| 13603 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p3"> | |
| 13604 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if error, as such, is an impediment to matrimony, the greater the error the greater the impediment. Now the error | |
| 13605 concerning faith in a heretic who disbelieves in this sacrament is greater than an error concerning the person. Therefore | |
| 13606 it should be a greater impediment than error about the person. | |
| 13607 </p> | |
| 13608 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p4"> | |
| 13609 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, error does not void marriage except as removing voluntariness. Now ignorance about any circumstance takes away voluntariness | |
| 13610 (Ethic. iii, 1). Therefore it is not only error about condition or person that is an impediment to matrimony. | |
| 13611 </p> | |
| 13612 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p5"> | |
| 13613 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, just as the condition of slavery is an accident affecting the person, so are bodily or mental qualities. But error | |
| 13614 regarding the condition is an impediment to matrimony. Therefore error concerning quality or fortune is equally an impediment. | |
| 13615 </p> | |
| 13616 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p6"> | |
| 13617 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, just as slavery or freedom pertains to the condition of person, so do high and low rank, or dignity of position | |
| 13618 and the lack thereof. Now error regarding the condition of slavery is an impediment to matrimony. Therefore error about the | |
| 13619 other matters mentioned is also an impediment. | |
| 13620 </p> | |
| 13621 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p7"> | |
| 13622 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, just as the condition of slavery is an impediment, so are difference of worship and impotence, as we shall say further | |
| 13623 on ( | |
| 13624 <a id="XP_Q51_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q52_A2.html">Q[52], A[2]</a>; | |
| 13625 <a id="XP_Q51_A2-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q58_A1.html"> Q[58], A[1]</a>; | |
| 13626 <a id="XP_Q51_A2-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q59_A1.html"> Q[59], A[1]</a>). Therefore just as error regarding the condition is an impediment, so also should error about those other matters be reckoned | |
| 13627 an impediment. | |
| 13628 </p> | |
| 13629 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p8"> | |
| 13630 <b>Objection 7:</b> On the other hand, it would seem that not even error about the person is an impediment to marriage. For marriage is a contract | |
| 13631 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. | |
| 13632 Therefore a marriage is not voided if one woman be taken instead of another. | |
| 13633 </p> | |
| 13634 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p9"> | |
| 13635 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, it is possible for them to remain in this error for many years and to beget between them sons and daughters. But | |
| 13636 it would be a grave assertion to maintain that they ought to be separated then. Therefore their previous error did not void | |
| 13637 their marriage. | |
| 13638 </p> | |
| 13639 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p10"> | |
| 13640 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, it might happen that the woman is betrothed to the brother of the man whom she thinks that she is consenting to | |
| 13641 marry, and that she has had carnal intercourse with him; in which case, seemingly, she cannot go back to the man to whom she | |
| 13642 thought to give her consent, but should hold on to his brother. Thus error regarding the person is not an impediment to marriage. | |
| 13643 </p> | |
| 13644 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p11"> | |
| 13645 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as error, through causing involuntariness, is an excuse from sin, so on the same count is it an impediment to marriage. | |
| 13646 Now error does not excuse from sin unless it refer to a circumstance the presence or absence of which makes an action lawful | |
| 13647 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 | |
| 13648 wholly, although perhaps in part; but if a man were to strike his father, thinking to | |
| 13649 strike his son to correct him, he is wholly excused provided he take due care. Wherefore error, in order to void marriage, | |
| 13650 must needs be about the essentials of marriage. Now marriage includes two things, namely the two persons who are joined together, | |
| 13651 and the mutual power over one another wherein marriage consists. The first of these is removed by error concerning the person, | |
| 13652 the second by error regarding the condition, since a slave cannot freely give power over his body to another, without | |
| 13653 his master's consent. For this reason these two errors, and no others, are an impediment to matrimony. | |
| 13654 </p> | |
| 13655 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p12"> | |
| 13656 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is not from its generic nature that error is an impediment to marriage, but from the nature of the difference added thereto; | |
| 13657 namely from its being error about one of the essentials to marriage. | |
| 13658 </p> | |
| 13659 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p13"> | |
| 13660 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> An error of faith about matrimony is about things consequent upon matrimony, for instance on the question of its being a | |
| 13661 sacrament, or of its being lawful. Wherefore such error as these is no impediment to marriage, as neither does an error about | |
| 13662 baptism hinder a man from receiving the character, provided he intend to receive what the Church gives, although he believe | |
| 13663 it to be nothing. | |
| 13664 </p> | |
| 13665 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p14"> | |
| 13666 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is not any ignorance of a circumstance that causes the involuntariness which is an excuse from sin, as stated above; wherefore | |
| 13667 the argument does not prove. | |
| 13668 </p> | |
| 13669 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p15"> | |
| 13670 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Difference of fortune or of quality does not make a difference in the essentials to matrimony, as the condition of slavery | |
| 13671 does. Hence the argument does not prove. | |
| 13672 </p> | |
| 13673 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p16"> | |
| 13674 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Error about a person's rank, as such, does not void a marriage, for the same reason as neither does error about a personal | |
| 13675 quality. If, however, the error about a person's rank or position amounts to an error about the person, it is an impediment | |
| 13676 to matrimony. Hence, if the woman consent directly to this particular person, her error about his rank does not void the marriage; | |
| 13677 but if she intend directly to consent to marry the king's son, whoever he may | |
| 13678 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 | |
| 13679 void. | |
| 13680 </p> | |
| 13681 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p17"> | |
| 13682 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Error is an impediment to matrimony, although it be about other impediments to marriage if it concern those things which | |
| 13683 render a person an unlawful subject of marriage. But (the Master) does not mention error about such things, because they are | |
| 13684 an impediment to marriage whether there be error about them or not; so that if a woman contract with a subdeacon, whether | |
| 13685 she know this or not, there is no marriage; whereas the condition of slavery is no | |
| 13686 impediment if the slavery be known. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 13687 </p> | |
| 13688 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p18"> | |
| 13689 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> In contracts money is regarded as the measure of other things (Ethic. v, 5), and not as being sought for its own sake. Hence | |
| 13690 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 | |
| 13691 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; | |
| 13692 and thus it is in the case in point. | |
| 13693 </p> | |
| 13694 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p19"> | |
| 13695 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> No matter how long they have cohabited, unless she be willing to consent again, there is no marriage. | |
| 13696 </p> | |
| 13697 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p20"> | |
| 13698 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> 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 | |
| 13699 to his brother, especially if there has been carnal intercourse between her and the man she took to husband. If, however, | |
| 13700 she had previously consented to take the first one in words of the present, she cannot have the second while the first lives. | |
| 13701 But she may either leave the second or return to the first; and ignorance of the | |
| 13702 fact excuses her from sin, just as she would be excused if after the consummation of the marriage a kinsman of her husband | |
| 13703 were to know her by fraud since she is not to be blamed for the other's deceit. | |
| 13704 </p> | |
| 13705 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p21"></p> | |
| 13706 <p id="XP_Q51_A2-p22"></p> | |
| 13707 <a href="summa.XP_Q51_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13708 <a href="summa.XP_Q52.html"></a> | |
| 13709 </div> | |
| 13710 <a href="summa.XP_Q50_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13711 <a href="summa.XP_Q51_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13712 </div> | |
| 13713 <div id="XP_Q52" class="div3"> | |
| 13714 <a href="summa.XP_Q51_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13715 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13716 <h3 id="XP_Q52-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENT OF THE CONDITION OF SLAVERY (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 13717 <p id="XP_Q52-p1"></p> | |
| 13718 <p id="XP_Q52-p2"> We must now consider the impediment of the condition of slavery. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 13719 <p id="XP_Q52-p3"> (1) Whether the condition of slavery is an impediment to matrimony?</p> | |
| 13720 <p id="XP_Q52-p4"> (2) Whether a slave can marry without his master's consent?</p> | |
| 13721 <p id="XP_Q52-p5"> (3) Whether a man who is already married can make himself a slave without his wife's consent?</p> | |
| 13722 <p id="XP_Q52-p6"> (4) Whether the children should follow the condition of their father or of their mother?</p> | |
| 13723 <div id="XP_Q52_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 13724 <a href="summa.XP_Q52.html"></a> | |
| 13725 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13726 <h4 id="XP_Q52_A1-p0.1">Whether the condition of slavery is an impediment to matrimony?</h4> | |
| 13727 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 13728 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p2"> | |
| 13729 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the condition of slavery is no impediment to matrimony. For nothing is an impediment to marriage except | |
| 13730 what is in some way opposed to it. But slavery is in no way opposed to marriage, else there could be no marriage among slaves. | |
| 13731 Therefore slavery is no impediment to marriage. | |
| 13732 </p> | |
| 13733 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p3"> | |
| 13734 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which is contrary to nature cannot be an impediment to that which is according to nature. Now slavery is contrary | |
| 13735 to nature, for as Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 6), "it is contrary to nature for man to wish to lord it over another man"; and | |
| 13736 this is also evident from the fact that it was said of man ( | |
| 13737 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q52_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.26" target="asv">Gn. 1:26</a>) that he should "have dominion over the fishes of the sea," but not that he should have dominion over man. Therefore it | |
| 13738 cannot be an impediment to marriage, which is a natural thing. | |
| 13739 </p> | |
| 13740 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p4"> | |
| 13741 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if it is an impediment, this is either of natural law or of positive law. But it is not of natural law, since according | |
| 13742 to natural law all men are equal, as Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 6), while it is stated at the beginning of the Digests (Manumissiones, | |
| 13743 ff. de just. et jure.) that slavery is not of natural law; and positive law springs from the natural law, as Tully says (De | |
| 13744 Invent. ii). Therefore, according to law, slavery is not an impediment to any | |
| 13745 marriage. | |
| 13746 </p> | |
| 13747 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p5"> | |
| 13748 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, that which is an impediment to marriage is equally an impediment whether it be known or not, as in the case of consanguinity. | |
| 13749 Now the slavery of one party, if it be known to the other, is no impediment to their marriage. Therefore slavery, considered | |
| 13750 in itself, is unable to void a marriage; and consequently it should not be reckoned by itself as a distinct impediment to | |
| 13751 marriage. | |
| 13752 </p> | |
| 13753 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p6"> | |
| 13754 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, just as one may be in error about slavery, so as to deem a person free who is a slave, so may one be in error about | |
| 13755 freedom, so as to deem a person a slave whereas he is free. But freedom is not accounted an impediment to matrimony. Therefore | |
| 13756 neither should slavery be so accounted. | |
| 13757 </p> | |
| 13758 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p7"> | |
| 13759 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, leprosy is a greater burden to the fellowship of marriage and is a greater obstacle to the good of the offspring | |
| 13760 than slavery is. Yet leprosy is not reckoned an impediment to marriage. Therefore neither should slavery be so reckoned. | |
| 13761 </p> | |
| 13762 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p8"> | |
| 13763 <b>On the contrary,</b> A Decretal says (De conjug. servorum, cap. Ad nostram) that "error regarding the condition hinders a marriage from being | |
| 13764 contracted and voids that which is already contracted." | |
| 13765 </p> | |
| 13766 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p9"> Further, marriage is one of the goods that are sought for their own sake, because it is qualified by honesty; whereas slavery | |
| 13767 is one of the things to be avoided for their own sake. Therefore marriage and slavery are contrary to one another; and consequently | |
| 13768 slavery is an impediment to matrimony. | |
| 13769 </p> | |
| 13770 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p10"> | |
| 13771 <b>I answer that,</b> In the marriage contract one party is bound to the other in the matter of paying the debt; wherefore if one who thus binds | |
| 13772 himself is unable to pay the debt, ignorance of this inability, on the side of the party to whom he binds himself, voids the | |
| 13773 contract. Now just as impotence in respect of coition makes a person unable to pay the debt, so that he is altogether disabled, | |
| 13774 so slavery makes him unable to pay it freely. Therefore, just as ignorance or | |
| 13775 impotence in respect of coition is an impediment if not known but not if known, as we shall state further on ( | |
| 13776 <a id="XP_Q52_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q58.html">Q[58])</a>, so the condition of slavery is an impediment if not known, but not if it be known. | |
| 13777 </p> | |
| 13778 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p11"> | |
| 13779 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Slavery is contrary to marriage as regards the act to which marriage binds one party in relation to the other, because it | |
| 13780 prevents the free execution of that act; and again as regards the good of the offspring who become subject to the same condition | |
| 13781 by reason of the parent's slavery. Since, however, it is free to everyone to suffer detriment in that which is his due, if | |
| 13782 one of the parties knows the other to be a slave, the marriage is none the less | |
| 13783 valid. Likewise since in marriage there is an equal obligation on either side to pay the debt, neither party can exact of | |
| 13784 the other a greater obligation than that under which he lies; so that if a slave marry a bondswoman, thinking her to be free, | |
| 13785 the marriage is not thereby rendered invalid. It is therefore evident that slavery is no impediment to marriage except when | |
| 13786 it is unknown to the other party, even though the latter be in a condition of freedom; and so nothing prevents marriage between | |
| 13787 slaves, or even between a freeman and a bondswoman. | |
| 13788 </p> | |
| 13789 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p12"> | |
| 13790 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Nothing prevents a thing being against nature as to the first intention of nature, and yet not against nature as to its second | |
| 13791 intention. Thus, as stated in De Coelo, ii, all corruption, defect, and old age are contrary to nature, because nature intends | |
| 13792 being and perfection, and yet they are not contrary to the second intention of nature, because nature, through being unable | |
| 13793 to preserve being in one thing, preserves it in another which is engendered | |
| 13794 of the other's corruption. And when nature is unable to bring a thing to a greater perfection it brings it to a lesser; thus | |
| 13795 when it cannot produce a male it produces a female which is "a misbegotten male" (De Gener. Animal. ii, 3). I say then in | |
| 13796 like manner that slavery is contrary to the first intention of nature. Yet it is not contrary to the second, because natural | |
| 13797 reason has this inclination, and nature has this desire---that everyone should be good; but from the fact that a person sins, | |
| 13798 nature has an inclination that he should be punished for his sin, and thus slavery was brought in as a punishment of sin. | |
| 13799 Nor is it unreasonable for a natural thing to be hindered by that which is unnatural in this way; for thus is marriage hindered | |
| 13800 by impotence of coition, which impotence is contrary to nature in the way mentioned. | |
| 13801 </p> | |
| 13802 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p13"> | |
| 13803 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The natural law requires punishment to be inflicted for guilt, and that no one should be punished who is not guilty; but | |
| 13804 the appointing of the punishment according to the circumstances of person and guilt belongs to positive law. Hence slavery | |
| 13805 which is a definite punishment is of positive law, and arises out of natural law, as the determinate from that which is indeterminate. | |
| 13806 And it arises from the determination of the same positive law that slavery | |
| 13807 if unknown is an impediment to matrimony, lest one who is not guilty be punished; for it is a punishment to the wife to have | |
| 13808 a slave for husband, and "vice versa." | |
| 13809 </p> | |
| 13810 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p14"> | |
| 13811 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Certain impediments render a marriage unlawful; and since it is not our will that makes a thing lawful or unlawful, but the | |
| 13812 law to which our will ought to be subject, it follows that the validity or invalidity of a marriage is not affected either | |
| 13813 by ignorance (such as destroys voluntariness) of the impediment or by knowledge thereof; and such an impediment is affinity | |
| 13814 or a vow, and others of the same kind. other impediments, however, render a marriage | |
| 13815 ineffectual as to the payment of the debt; and since it is within the competency of our will to remit a debt that is due to | |
| 13816 us, it follows that such impediments, if known, do not invalidate a marriage, but only when ignorance of them destroys voluntariness. | |
| 13817 Such impediments are slavery and impotence of coition. And, because they have of themselves the nature of an impediment, they | |
| 13818 are reckoned as special impediments besides error; whereas a change of person is not reckoned a special impediment | |
| 13819 besides error, because the substitution of another person has not the nature of an impediment except by reason of the intention | |
| 13820 of one of the contracting parties. | |
| 13821 </p> | |
| 13822 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p15"> | |
| 13823 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Freedom does not hinder the marriage act, wherefore ignorance of freedom is no impediment to matrimony. | |
| 13824 </p> | |
| 13825 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p16"> | |
| 13826 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Leprosy does not hinder marriage as to its first act, since lepers can pay the debt freely; although they lay a burden upon | |
| 13827 marriage as to its secondary effects; wherefore it is not an impediment to marriage as slavery is. | |
| 13828 </p> | |
| 13829 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p17"></p> | |
| 13830 <p id="XP_Q52_A1-p18"></p> | |
| 13831 <a href="summa.XP_Q52.html"></a> | |
| 13832 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13833 </div> | |
| 13834 <div id="XP_Q52_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 13835 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13836 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A3.html"></a> | |
| 13837 <h4 id="XP_Q52_A2-p0.1">Whether a slave can marry without his master's consent?</h4> | |
| 13838 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 13839 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p2"> | |
| 13840 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a slave cannot marry without his master's consent. For no one can give a person that which is another's | |
| 13841 without the latter's consent. Now a slave is his master's chattel. Therefore he cannot give his wife power over his body by | |
| 13842 marrying without his master's consent. | |
| 13843 </p> | |
| 13844 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p3"> | |
| 13845 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a slave is bound to obey his master. But his master may command him not to consent to marry. Therefore he cannot | |
| 13846 marry without his consent. | |
| 13847 </p> | |
| 13848 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p4"> | |
| 13849 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, after marriage, a slave is bound even by a precept of the Divine law to pay the debt to his wife. But at the time | |
| 13850 that his wife asks for the debt his master may demand of him a service which he will be unable to perform if he wish to occupy | |
| 13851 himself in carnal intercourse. Therefore if a slave can marry without his master's consent, the latter would be deprived of | |
| 13852 a service due to him without any fault of his; and this ought not to be. | |
| 13853 </p> | |
| 13854 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p5"> | |
| 13855 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a master may sell his slave into a foreign country, where the latter's wife is unable to follow him, through either | |
| 13856 bodily weakness, or imminent danger to her faith; for instance if he be sold to unbelievers, or if her master be unwilling, | |
| 13857 supposing her to be a bondswoman; and thus the marriage will be dissolved, which is unfitting. Therefore a slave cannot marry | |
| 13858 without his master's consent. | |
| 13859 </p> | |
| 13860 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p6"> | |
| 13861 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the burden under which a man binds himself to the Divine service is more advantageous than that whereby a man subjects | |
| 13862 himself to his wife. But a slave cannot enter religion or receive orders without his master's consent. Much less therefore | |
| 13863 can he be married without his consent. | |
| 13864 </p> | |
| 13865 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p7"> | |
| 13866 <b>On the contrary,</b> "In Christ Jesus . . . there is neither bond nor free" ( | |
| 13867 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q52_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.26" target="asv">Gal. 3:26</a>, | |
| 13868 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q52_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.28" target="asv">28</a>). Therefore both freeman and bondsman enjoy the same liberty to marry in the faith of Christ Jesus. | |
| 13869 </p> | |
| 13870 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p8"> Further, slavery is of positive law; whereas marriage is of natural and Divine law. Since then positive law is not prejudicial | |
| 13871 to the natural or the Divine law, it would seem that a slave can marry without his master's consent. | |
| 13872 </p> | |
| 13873 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p9"> | |
| 13874 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 3), the positive law arises out of the natural law, and consequently slavery, which is of positive | |
| 13875 law, cannot be prejudicious to those things that are of natural law. Now just as nature seeks the preservation of the individual, | |
| 13876 so does it seek the preservation of the species by means of procreation; wherefore even as a slave is not so subject to his | |
| 13877 master as not to be at liberty to eat, sleep, and do such things as pertain to the | |
| 13878 needs of his body, and without which nature cannot be preserved, so he is not subject to him to the extent of being unable | |
| 13879 to marry freely, even without his master's knowledge or consent. | |
| 13880 </p> | |
| 13881 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p10"> | |
| 13882 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A slave is his master's chattel in matters superadded to nature, but in natural things all are equal. Wherefore, in things | |
| 13883 pertaining to natural acts, a slave can by marrying give another person power over his body without his master's consent. | |
| 13884 </p> | |
| 13885 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p11"> | |
| 13886 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A slave is bound to obey his master in those things which his master can command lawfully; and just as his master cannot | |
| 13887 lawfully command him not to eat or sleep, so neither can he lawfully command him to refrain from marrying. For it is the concern | |
| 13888 of the lawgiver how each one uses his own, and consequently if the master command his slave not to marry, the slave is not | |
| 13889 bound to obey his master. | |
| 13890 </p> | |
| 13891 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p12"> | |
| 13892 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If a slave has married with his master's consent, he should omit the service commanded by his master and pay the debt to | |
| 13893 his wife; because the master, by consenting to his slave's marriage, implicitly consented to all that marriage requires. If, | |
| 13894 however, the marriage was contracted without the master's knowledge or consent, he is not bound to pay the debt, but in preference | |
| 13895 to obey his master, if the two things are incompatible. Nevertheless in such | |
| 13896 matters there are many particulars to be considered, as in all human acts, namely the danger to which his wife's chastity | |
| 13897 is exposed, and the obstacle which the payment of the debt places in the way of the service commanded, and other like considerations, | |
| 13898 all of which being duly weighed it will be possible to judge which of the two in preference the slave is bound to obey, his | |
| 13899 master or his wife. | |
| 13900 </p> | |
| 13901 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p13"> | |
| 13902 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In such a case it is said that the master should be compelled not to sell the slave in such a way as to increase the weight | |
| 13903 of the marriage burden, especially since he is able to obtain anywhere a just price for his slave. | |
| 13904 </p> | |
| 13905 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p14"> | |
| 13906 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> By entering religion or receiving orders a man is bound to the Divine service for all time; whereas a husband is bound to | |
| 13907 pay the debt to his wife not always, but at a fitting time; hence the comparison fails. Moreover, he who enters religion or | |
| 13908 receives orders binds himself to works that are superadded to natural works, and in which his master has power over him, but | |
| 13909 not in natural works to which a man binds himself by marriage. Hence he cannot vow | |
| 13910 continence without his master's consent. | |
| 13911 </p> | |
| 13912 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p15"></p> | |
| 13913 <p id="XP_Q52_A2-p16"></p> | |
| 13914 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A1.html"></a> | |
| 13915 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A3.html"></a> | |
| 13916 </div> | |
| 13917 <div id="XP_Q52_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 13918 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13919 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A4.html"></a> | |
| 13920 <h4 id="XP_Q52_A3-p0.1">Whether slavery can supervene to marriage?</h4> | |
| 13921 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 13922 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p2"> | |
| 13923 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that slavery cannot supervene to marriage, by the husband selling himself to another as slave. Because what | |
| 13924 is done by fraud and to another's detriment should not hold. But a husband who sells himself for a slave, does so sometimes | |
| 13925 to cheat marriage, and at least to the detriment of his wife. Therefore such a sale should not hold as to the effect of slavery. | |
| 13926 </p> | |
| 13927 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p3"> | |
| 13928 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, two favorable things outweigh one that is not favorable. Now marriage and freedom are favorable things and are contrary | |
| 13929 to slavery, which in law is not a favorable thing. Therefore such a slavery ought to be entirely annulled in marriage. | |
| 13930 </p> | |
| 13931 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p4"> | |
| 13932 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in marriage husband and wife are on a par with one another. Now the wife cannot surrender herself to be a slave | |
| 13933 without her husband's consent. Therefore neither can the husband without his wife's consent. | |
| 13934 </p> | |
| 13935 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p5"> | |
| 13936 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in natural things that which hinders a thing being generated destroys it after it has been generated. Now bondage | |
| 13937 of the husband, if unknown to the wife, is an impediment to the act of marriage before it is performed. Therefore if it could | |
| 13938 supervene to marriage it would dissolve it; which is unreasonable. | |
| 13939 </p> | |
| 13940 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p6"> | |
| 13941 <b>On the contrary,</b> Everyone can give another that which is his own. Now the husband is his own master since he is free. Therefore he can surrender | |
| 13942 his right to another. | |
| 13943 </p> | |
| 13944 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p7"> Further, a slave can marry without his master's consent, as stated above | |
| 13945 <a id="XP_Q52_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q52_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore a husband can in like manner subject himself to a master, without his wife's consent. | |
| 13946 </p> | |
| 13947 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p8"> | |
| 13948 <b>I answer that,</b> A husband is subject to his wife in those things which pertain to the act of nature; in these things they are equal, and | |
| 13949 the subjection of slavery does not extend thereto. Wherefore the husband, without his wife's knowledge, can surrender himself | |
| 13950 to be another's slave. Nor does this result in a dissolution of the marriage, since no impediment supervening to marriage | |
| 13951 can dissolve it, as stated above ( | |
| 13952 <a id="XP_Q52_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q50_A1.html">Q[50], A[1]</a>, ad 7). | |
| 13953 </p> | |
| 13954 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p9"> | |
| 13955 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The fraud can indeed hurt the person who has acted fraudulently, but it cannot be prejudicial to another person: wherefore | |
| 13956 if the husband, to cheat his wife, surrender himself to be another's slave, It will be to his own prejudice, through his losing | |
| 13957 the inestimable good of freedom; whereas this can nowise be prejudicial to the wife, and he is bound to pay her the debt when | |
| 13958 she asks, and to do all that marriage requires of him for he cannot be taken | |
| 13959 away from these obligations by his master's command. | |
| 13960 </p> | |
| 13961 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p10"> | |
| 13962 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In so far as slavery is opposed to marriage, marriage is prejudicial to slavery, since the slave is bound then to pay the | |
| 13963 debt to his wife, though his master be unwilling. | |
| 13964 </p> | |
| 13965 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p11"> | |
| 13966 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although husband and wife are considered to be on a par in the marriage act and in things relating to nature, to which the | |
| 13967 condition of slavery does not extend, nevertheless as regards the management of the household, and other such additional matters | |
| 13968 the husband is the head of the wife and should correct her, and not "vice versa." Hence the wife cannot surrender herself | |
| 13969 to be a slave without her husband's consent. | |
| 13970 </p> | |
| 13971 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p12"> | |
| 13972 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This argument considers corruptible things; and yet even in these there are many obstacles to generation that are not capable | |
| 13973 of destroying what is already generated. But in things which have stability it is possible to have an impediment which prevents | |
| 13974 a certain thing from beginning to be, yet does not cause it to cease to be; as instanced by the rational soul. It is the same | |
| 13975 with marriage, which is a lasting tie so long as this life lasts. | |
| 13976 </p> | |
| 13977 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 13978 <p id="XP_Q52_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 13979 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A2.html"></a> | |
| 13980 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A4.html"></a> | |
| 13981 </div> | |
| 13982 <div id="XP_Q52_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 13983 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A3.html"></a> | |
| 13984 <a href="summa.XP_Q53.html"></a> | |
| 13985 <h4 id="XP_Q52_A4-p0.1">Whether children should follow the condition of their father?</h4> | |
| 13986 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 13987 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p2"> | |
| 13988 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that children should follow the condition of their father. Because dominion belongs to those of higher rank. | |
| 13989 Now in generating the father ranks above the mother. Therefore, etc. | |
| 13990 </p> | |
| 13991 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p3"> | |
| 13992 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the being of a thing depends on the form more than on the matter. Now in generation the father gives the form, and | |
| 13993 the mother the matter (De Gener. Animal. ii, 4). Therefore the child should follow the condition of the father rather than | |
| 13994 of the mother. | |
| 13995 </p> | |
| 13996 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p4"> | |
| 13997 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a thing should follow that chiefly to which it is most like. Now the son is more like the father than the mother, | |
| 13998 even as the daughter is more like the mother. Therefore at least the son should follow the father in preference, and the daughter | |
| 13999 the mother. | |
| 14000 </p> | |
| 14001 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p5"> | |
| 14002 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in Holy Writ genealogies are not traced through the women but through the men. Therefore the children follow the | |
| 14003 father rather than the mother. | |
| 14004 </p> | |
| 14005 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p6"> | |
| 14006 <b>On the contrary,</b> If a man sows on another's land, the produce belongs to the owner of the land. Now the woman's womb in relation to the seed | |
| 14007 of man is like the land in relation to the sower. Therefore, etc. | |
| 14008 </p> | |
| 14009 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p7"> Further, we observe that in animals born from different species the offspring follows the mother rather that the father, | |
| 14010 wherefore mules born of a mare and an ass are more like mares than those born of a she-ass and a horse. Therefore it should | |
| 14011 be the same with men. | |
| 14012 </p> | |
| 14013 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p8"> | |
| 14014 <b>I answer that,</b> According to civil law (XIX, ff. De statu hom. vii, cap. De rei vendit.) the offspring follows the womb: and this is reasonable | |
| 14015 since the offspring derives its formal complement from the father, but the substance of the body from the mother. Now slavery | |
| 14016 is a condition of the body, since a slave is to the master a kind of instrument in working; wherefore children follow the | |
| 14017 mother in freedom and bondage; whereas in matters pertaining to dignity as proceeding | |
| 14018 from a thing's form, they follow the father, for instance in honors, franchise, inheritance and so forth. The canons are in | |
| 14019 agreement with this (cap. Liberi, 32, qu. iv, in gloss.: cap. Inducens, De natis ex libero ventre) as also the law of Moses | |
| 14020 ( | |
| 14021 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q52_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21" target="asv">Ex. 21</a>). | |
| 14022 </p> | |
| 14023 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p9"> In some countries, however, where the civil law does not hold, the offspring follows the inferior condition, so that if the | |
| 14024 father be a slave the children will be slaves although the mother be free; but not if the father gave himself up as a slave | |
| 14025 after his marriage and without his wife's consent; and the same applies if the case be reversed. And if both be of servile | |
| 14026 condition and belong to different masters, the children, if several, are divided among the latter, or if one | |
| 14027 only, the one master will compensate the other in value and will take the child thus born for his slave. However it is incredible | |
| 14028 that this custom have as much reason in its favor as the decision of the time-honored deliberations of many wise men. Moreover | |
| 14029 in natural things it is the rule that what is received is in the recipient according to the mode of the recipient and not | |
| 14030 according to the mode of the giver; wherefore it is reasonable that the seed received by the mother should be drawn to | |
| 14031 her condition. | |
| 14032 </p> | |
| 14033 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p10"> | |
| 14034 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the father is a more noble principle than the mother, nevertheless the mother provides the substance of the body, | |
| 14035 and it is to this that the condition of slavery attaches. | |
| 14036 </p> | |
| 14037 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p11"> | |
| 14038 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As regards things pertaining to the specific nature the son is like the father rather than the mother, but in material conditions | |
| 14039 should be like the mother rather than the father, since a thing has its specific being from its form, but material conditions | |
| 14040 from matter. | |
| 14041 </p> | |
| 14042 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p12"> | |
| 14043 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The son is like the father in respect of the form which is his, and also the father's, complement. Hence the argument is | |
| 14044 not to the point. | |
| 14045 </p> | |
| 14046 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p13"> | |
| 14047 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It is because the son derives honor from his father rather than from his mother that in the genealogies of Scripture, and | |
| 14048 according to common custom, children are named after their father rather than from their mother. But in matters relating to | |
| 14049 slavery they follow the mother by preference. | |
| 14050 </p> | |
| 14051 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 14052 <p id="XP_Q52_A4-p15"></p> | |
| 14053 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14054 <a href="summa.XP_Q53.html"></a> | |
| 14055 </div> | |
| 14056 <a href="summa.XP_Q51_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14057 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14058 </div> | |
| 14059 <div id="XP_Q53" class="div3"> | |
| 14060 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A4.html"></a> | |
| 14061 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14062 <h3 id="XP_Q53-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENT OF VOWS AND ORDERS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 14063 <p id="XP_Q53-p1"></p> | |
| 14064 <p id="XP_Q53-p2"> We must now consider the impediment of vows and orders. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 14065 <p id="XP_Q53-p3"> (1) Whether a simple vow is a diriment impediment to matrimony?</p> | |
| 14066 <p id="XP_Q53-p4"> (2) Whether a solemn vow is a diriment impediment?</p> | |
| 14067 <p id="XP_Q53-p5"> (3) Whether order is an impediment to matrimony?</p> | |
| 14068 <p id="XP_Q53-p6"> (4) Whether a man can receive a sacred order after being married?</p> | |
| 14069 <div id="XP_Q53_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 14070 <a href="summa.XP_Q53.html"></a> | |
| 14071 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14072 <h4 id="XP_Q53_A1-p0.1">Whether marriage already contracted should be annulled by the obligation of a simple vow?</h4> | |
| 14073 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 14074 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p2"> | |
| 14075 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a marriage already contracted ought to be annulled by the obligation of a simple vow. For the stronger | |
| 14076 tie takes precedence of the weaker. Now a vow is a stronger tie than marriage, since the latter binds man to man, but the | |
| 14077 former binds man to God. Therefore the obligation of a vow takes precedence of the marriage tie. | |
| 14078 </p> | |
| 14079 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p3"> | |
| 14080 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, God's commandment is no less binding than the commandment of the Church. Now the commandment of the Church is so | |
| 14081 binding that a marriage is void if contracted in despite thereof; as instanced in the case of those who marry within the degrees | |
| 14082 of kindred forbidden by the Church. Therefore, since it is a Divine commandment to keep a vow, it would seem that if a person | |
| 14083 marry in despite of a vow his marriage should be annulled for that reason. | |
| 14084 </p> | |
| 14085 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p4"> | |
| 14086 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in marriage a man may have carnal intercourse without sin. Yet he who has taken a simple vow of chastity can never | |
| 14087 have carnal intercourse with his wife without sin. Therefore a simple vow annuls marriage. The minor is proved as follows. | |
| 14088 It is clear that it is a mortal sin to marry after taking a simple vow of continence, since according to Jerome [*Cf. St. | |
| 14089 Augustine, De Bono Viduit, ix] "for those who vow virginity it is damnable not only to marry, | |
| 14090 but even to wish to marry." Now the marriage contract is not contrary to the vow of continence, except by reason of carnal | |
| 14091 intercourse: and therefore he sins mortally the first time he has intercourse with his wife, and for the same reason every | |
| 14092 other time, because a sin committed in the first instance cannot be an excuse for a subsequent sin. | |
| 14093 </p> | |
| 14094 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p5"> | |
| 14095 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, husband and wife should be equal in marriage, especially as regards carnal intercourse. But he who has taken a simple | |
| 14096 vow of continence can never ask for the debt without a sin, for this is clearly against his vow of continence, since he is | |
| 14097 bound to continence by vow. Therefore neither can he pay the debt without sin. | |
| 14098 </p> | |
| 14099 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p6"> | |
| 14100 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Clement [*Alexander III] says (cap. Consuluit, De his qui cler. vel vovent.) that a "simple vow is an impediment to | |
| 14101 the contract of marriage, but does not annul it after it is contracted." | |
| 14102 </p> | |
| 14103 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p7"> | |
| 14104 <b>I answer that,</b> A thing ceases to be in one man's power from the fact that it passes into the power of another. Now the promise of a thing | |
| 14105 does not transfer it into the power of the person to whom it is promised, wherefore a thing does not cease to be in a person's | |
| 14106 power for the reason that he has promised it. Since then a simple vow contains merely a simple promise of one's body to the | |
| 14107 effect of keeping continence for God's sake, a man still retains power over his own body | |
| 14108 after a simple vow, and consequently can surrender it to another, namely his wife; and in this surrender consists the sacrament | |
| 14109 of matrimony, which is indissoluble. Therefore although a simple vow is an impediment to the contracting of a marriage, since | |
| 14110 it is a sin to marry after taking a simple vow of continence, yet since the contract is valid, the marriage cannot be annulled | |
| 14111 on that account. | |
| 14112 </p> | |
| 14113 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p8"> | |
| 14114 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A vow is a stronger tie than matrimony, as regards that to which man is tied, and the obligation under which he lies. because | |
| 14115 by marriage a man is tied to his wife, with the obligation of paying the debt, whereas by a vow a man is tied to God, with | |
| 14116 the obligation of remaining continent. But as to the manner in which he is tied marriage is a stronger tie than a simple vow, | |
| 14117 since by marriage a man surrenders himself actually to the power of his wife, | |
| 14118 but not by a simple vow as explained above: and the possessor is always in the stronger position. In this respect a simple | |
| 14119 vow binds in the same way as a betrothal; wherefore a betrothal must be annulled on account of a simple vow. | |
| 14120 </p> | |
| 14121 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p9"> | |
| 14122 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The contracting of a marriage between blood relations is annulled by the commandment forbidding such marriages, not precisely | |
| 14123 because it is a commandment of God or of the Church, but because it makes it impossible for the body of a kinswoman to be | |
| 14124 transferred into the power of her kinsman: whereas the commandment forbidding marriage after a simple vow has not this effect, | |
| 14125 as already stated. Hence the argument is void for it assigns as a cause that | |
| 14126 which is not cause. | |
| 14127 </p> | |
| 14128 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p10"> | |
| 14129 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If after taking a simple vow a man contract marriage by words of the present, he cannot know his wife without mortal sin, | |
| 14130 because until the marriage is consummated he is still in a position to fulfill the vow of continence. But after the marriage | |
| 14131 has been consummated, thenceforth through his fault it is unlawful for him not to pay the debt when his wife asks: wherefore | |
| 14132 this is not covered by his obligation to his vow, as explained above (ad 1). | |
| 14133 Nevertheless he should atone for not keeping continence, by his tears of repentance. | |
| 14134 </p> | |
| 14135 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p11"> | |
| 14136 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> After contracting marriage he is still bound to keep his vow of continence in those matters wherein he is not rendered unable | |
| 14137 to do so. Hence if his wife die he is bound to continence altogether. And since the marriage tie does not bind him to ask | |
| 14138 for the debt, he cannot ask for it without sin, although he can pay the debt without sin on being asked, when once he has | |
| 14139 incurred this obligation through the carnal intercourse that has already occurred. | |
| 14140 And this holds whether the wife ask expressly or interpretively, as when she is ashamed and her husband feels that she desires | |
| 14141 him to pay the debt, for then he may pay it without sin. This is especially the case if he fears to endanger her chastity: | |
| 14142 nor does it matter that they are equal in the marriage act, since everyone may renounce what is his own. Some say, however, | |
| 14143 that he may both ask and pay lest the marriage become too burdensome to the wife who has always to ask; but if this be looked | |
| 14144 into aright, it is the same as asking interpretively. | |
| 14145 </p> | |
| 14146 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 14147 <p id="XP_Q53_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 14148 <a href="summa.XP_Q53.html"></a> | |
| 14149 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14150 </div> | |
| 14151 <div id="XP_Q53_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 14152 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14153 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14154 <h4 id="XP_Q53_A2-p0.1">Whether a solemn vow dissolves a marriage already contracted?</h4> | |
| 14155 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 14156 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p2"> | |
| 14157 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not even a solemn vow dissolves a marriage already contracted. For according to a Decretal (cap. Rursus, | |
| 14158 De his qui cler. vel vovent.) "in God's sight a simple vow is no less binding than a solemn one." Now marriage stands or falls | |
| 14159 by virtue of the Divine acceptance. Therefore since a simple vow does not dissolve marriage, neither will a solemn vow dissolve | |
| 14160 it. | |
| 14161 </p> | |
| 14162 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p3"> | |
| 14163 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a solemn vow does not add the same force to a simple vow as an oath does. Now a simple vow, even though an oath | |
| 14164 be added thereto, does not dissolve a marriage already contracted. Neither therefore does a solemn vow. | |
| 14165 </p> | |
| 14166 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p4"> | |
| 14167 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a solemn vow has nothing that a simple vow cannot have. For a simple vow may give rise to scandal since it may be | |
| 14168 public, even as a solemn vow. Again the Church could and should ordain that a simple vow dissolves a marriage already contracted, | |
| 14169 so that many sins may be avoided. Therefore for the same reason that a simple vow does not dissolve a marriage already contracted, | |
| 14170 neither should a solemn vow dissolve it. | |
| 14171 </p> | |
| 14172 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p5"> | |
| 14173 <b>On the contrary,</b> He who takes a solemn vow contracts a spiritual marriage with God, which is much more excellent than a material marriage. | |
| 14174 Now a material marriage already contracted annuls a marriage contracted afterwards. Therefore a solemn vow does also. | |
| 14175 </p> | |
| 14176 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p6"> Further, the same conclusion may be proved by many authorities quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 28).</p> | |
| 14177 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p7"> | |
| 14178 <b>I answer that,</b> All agree that as a solemn vow is an impediment to the contracting of marriage, so it invalidates the contract. Some assign | |
| 14179 scandal as the reason. But this is futile, because even a simple vow sometimes leads to scandal since it is at times somewhat | |
| 14180 public. Moreover the indissolubility of marriage belongs to the truth of life [*Cf. | |
| 14181 <a id="XP_Q53_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q16_A4.html">FP, Q[16], A[4]</a>, ad 3; | |
| 14182 <a id="XP_Q53_A2-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q21_A2.html">FP, Q[21], A[2]</a>, ad 2; | |
| 14183 <a id="XP_Q53_A2-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q109_A3.html">SS, | |
| 14184 Q[109], A[3] | |
| 14185 </a>, ad 3], which truth is not to be set aside on account of scandal. Wherefore others say that it is on account of the ordinance | |
| 14186 of the Church. But this again is insufficient, since in that case the Church might decide the contrary, which is seemingly | |
| 14187 untrue. Wherefore we must say with others that a solemn vow of its very nature dissolves the marriage contract, inasmuch namely | |
| 14188 as thereby a man has lost the power over his own body, through surrendering it to God for the purpose of | |
| 14189 perpetual continence. Wherefore he is unable to surrender it to the power of a wife by contracting marriage. And since the | |
| 14190 marriage that follows such a vow is void, a vow of this kind is said to annul the marriage contracted. | |
| 14191 </p> | |
| 14192 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p8"> | |
| 14193 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A simple vow is said to be no less binding in God's sight than a solemn vow, in matters pertaining to God, for instance the | |
| 14194 separation from God by mortal sin, because he who breaks a simple vow commits a mortal sin just as one who breaks a solemn | |
| 14195 vow, although it is more grievous to break a solemn vow, so that the comparison be understood as to the genus and not as to | |
| 14196 the definite degree of guilt. But as regards marriage, whereby one man is under an | |
| 14197 obligation to another, there is no need for it to be of equal obligation even in general, since a solemn vow binds to certain | |
| 14198 things to which a simple vow does not bind. | |
| 14199 </p> | |
| 14200 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p9"> | |
| 14201 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> An oath is more binding than a vow on the part of the cause of the obligation: but a solemn vow is more binding as to the | |
| 14202 manner in which it binds, in so far as it is an actual surrender of that which is promised; while an oath does not do this | |
| 14203 actually. Hence the conclusion does not follow. | |
| 14204 </p> | |
| 14205 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p10"> | |
| 14206 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A solemn vow implies the actual surrender of one's body, whereas a simple vow does not, as stated above | |
| 14207 <a id="XP_Q53_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q53_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Hence the argument does not suffice to prove the conclusion. | |
| 14208 </p> | |
| 14209 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 14210 <p id="XP_Q53_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 14211 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14212 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14213 </div> | |
| 14214 <div id="XP_Q53_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 14215 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14216 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A4.html"></a> | |
| 14217 <h4 id="XP_Q53_A3-p0.1">Whether order is an impediment to matrimony?</h4> | |
| 14218 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 14219 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p2"> | |
| 14220 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that order is not an impediment to matrimony. For nothing is an impediment to a thing except its contrary. | |
| 14221 But order is not contrary to matrimony. Therefore it is not an impediment thereto. | |
| 14222 </p> | |
| 14223 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p3"> | |
| 14224 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, orders are the same with us as with the Eastern Church. But they are not an impediment to matrimony in the Eastern | |
| 14225 Church. Therefore, etc. | |
| 14226 </p> | |
| 14227 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p4"> | |
| 14228 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church. Now this is most fittingly signified in those who are Christ's | |
| 14229 ministers, those namely who are ordained. Therefore order is not an impediment to matrimony. | |
| 14230 </p> | |
| 14231 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p5"> | |
| 14232 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, all the orders are directed to spiritual things. Now order cannot be an impediment to matrimony except by reason | |
| 14233 of its spirituality. Therefore if order is an impediment to matrimony, every order will be an impediment, and this is untrue. | |
| 14234 </p> | |
| 14235 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p6"> | |
| 14236 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, every ordained person can have ecclesiastical benefices, and can enjoy equally the privilege of clergy. If, therefore, | |
| 14237 orders are an impediment to marriage, because married persons cannot have an ecclesiastical benefice, nor enjoy the privilege | |
| 14238 of clergy, as jurists assert (cap. Joannes et seqq., De cler. conjug.), then every order ought to be an impediment. Yet this | |
| 14239 is false, as shown by the Decretal of Alexander III (De cler. conjug., cap. Si Quis): | |
| 14240 and consequently it would seem that no order is an impediment to marriage. | |
| 14241 </p> | |
| 14242 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p7"> | |
| 14243 <b>On the contrary,</b> the Decretal says (De cler. conjug., cap. Si Quis): "any person whom you shall find to have taken a wife after receiving | |
| 14244 the subdiaconate or the higher orders, you shall compel to put his wife away." But this would not be so if the marriage were | |
| 14245 valid. | |
| 14246 </p> | |
| 14247 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p8"> Further, no person who has vowed continence can contract marriage. Now some orders have a vow of continence connected with | |
| 14248 them, as appears from the text (Sent. iv, D, 37). Therefore in that case order is an impediment to matrimony. | |
| 14249 </p> | |
| 14250 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p9"> | |
| 14251 <b>I answer that,</b> By a certain fittingness the very nature of holy order requires that it should be an impediment to marriage: because those | |
| 14252 who are in holy orders handle the sacred vessels and the sacraments: wherefore it is becoming that they keep their bodies | |
| 14253 clean by continence [*Cf. | |
| 14254 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q53_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.52.11" target="asv"> Is. 52:11</a>]. But it is owing to the Church's ordinance that it is actually an impediment to marriage. However it is not the same with | |
| 14255 the Latins as with the Greeks; since | |
| 14256 with the Greeks it is an impediment to the contracting of marriage, solely by virtue of order; whereas with the Latins it | |
| 14257 is an impediment by virtue of order, and besides by virtue of the vow of continence which is annexed to the sacred orders; | |
| 14258 for although this vow is not expressed in words, nevertheless a person is understood to have taken it by the very fact of | |
| 14259 his being ordained. Hence among the Greeks and other Eastern peoples a sacred order is an impediment to the contracting of | |
| 14260 matrimony | |
| 14261 but it does not forbid the use of marriage already contracted: for they can use marriage contracted previously, although they | |
| 14262 cannot be married again. But in the Western Church it is an impediment both to marriage and to the use of marriage, unless | |
| 14263 perhaps the husband should receive a sacred order without the knowledge or consent of his wife, because this cannot be prejudicial | |
| 14264 to her. | |
| 14265 </p> | |
| 14266 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p10"> Of the distinction between sacred and non-sacred orders now and in the early Church we have spoken above ( | |
| 14267 <a id="XP_Q53_A3-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q37_A3.html">Q[37], A[3]</a>). | |
| 14268 </p> | |
| 14269 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p11"> | |
| 14270 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although a sacred order is not contrary to matrimony as a sacrament, it has a certain incompatibility with marriage in respect | |
| 14271 of the latter's act which is an obstacle to spiritual acts. | |
| 14272 </p> | |
| 14273 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p12"> | |
| 14274 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The objection is based on a false statement: since order is everywhere an impediment to the contracting of marriage, although | |
| 14275 it has not everywhere a vow annexed to it. | |
| 14276 </p> | |
| 14277 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p13"> | |
| 14278 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those who are in sacred orders signify Christ by more sublime actions, as appears from what has been said in the treatise | |
| 14279 on orders ( | |
| 14280 <a id="XP_Q53_A3-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q37_A2.html">Q[37], AA[2]</a>,4), than those who are married. Consequently the conclusion does not follow. | |
| 14281 </p> | |
| 14282 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p14"> | |
| 14283 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Those who are in minor orders are not forbidden to marry by virtue of their order; for although those orders are entrusted | |
| 14284 with certain spiritualities, they are not admitted to the immediate handling of sacred things, as those are who are in sacred | |
| 14285 orders. But according to the laws of the Western Church, the use of marriage is an impediment to the exercise of a non-sacred | |
| 14286 order, for the sake of maintaining a greater honesty in the offices of the | |
| 14287 Church. And since the holding of an ecclesiastical benefice binds a man to the exercise of his order, and since for this very | |
| 14288 reason he enjoys the privilege of clergy, it follows that in the Latin Church this privilege is forfeit to a married cleric. | |
| 14289 </p> | |
| 14290 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p15"> This suffices for the Reply to the last Objection.</p> | |
| 14291 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p16"></p> | |
| 14292 <p id="XP_Q53_A3-p17"></p> | |
| 14293 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14294 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A4.html"></a> | |
| 14295 </div> | |
| 14296 <div id="XP_Q53_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 14297 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14298 <a href="summa.XP_Q54.html"></a> | |
| 14299 <h4 id="XP_Q53_A4-p0.1">Whether a sacred order cannot supervene to matrimony?</h4> | |
| 14300 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 14301 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p2"> | |
| 14302 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a sacred order cannot supervene to matrimony. For the stronger prejudices the weaker. Now a spiritual | |
| 14303 obligation is stronger than a bodily tie. Therefore if a married man be ordained, this will prejudice the wife, so that she | |
| 14304 will be unable to demand the debt, since order is a spiritual, and marriage a bodily bond. Hence it would seem that a man | |
| 14305 cannot receive a sacred order after consummating marriage. | |
| 14306 </p> | |
| 14307 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p3"> | |
| 14308 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, after consummating the marriage, one of the parties cannot vow continence without the other's consent [*Cf. | |
| 14309 <a id="XP_Q53_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q61_A1.html"> Q[61], A[1]</a>]. Now a sacred order has a vow of continence annexed to it. Therefore if the husband be ordained without his wife's consent, | |
| 14310 she will be bound to remain continent against her will, since she cannot marry another man during her husband's lifetime. | |
| 14311 </p> | |
| 14312 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p4"> | |
| 14313 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a husband may not even for a time devote himself to prayer without his wife's consent ( | |
| 14314 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q53_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.5" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:5</a>). But in the Eastern Church those who are in sacred orders are bound to continence for the time when they exercise their | |
| 14315 office. Therefore neither may they be ordained without their wife's consent, and much less may the Latins. | |
| 14316 </p> | |
| 14317 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p5"> | |
| 14318 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, husband and wife are on a par with one another. Now a Greek priest cannot marry again after his wife's death. Therefore | |
| 14319 neither can his wife after her husband's death. But she cannot be deprived by her husband's act of the right to marry after | |
| 14320 his death. Therefore her husband cannot receive orders after marriage. | |
| 14321 </p> | |
| 14322 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p6"> | |
| 14323 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, order is as much opposed to marriage as marriage to order. Now a previous order is an impediment to a subsequent | |
| 14324 marriage. Therefore, etc. | |
| 14325 </p> | |
| 14326 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p7"> | |
| 14327 <b>On the contrary,</b> Religious are bound to continence like those who are in sacred orders. But a man may enter religion after marriage, if his | |
| 14328 wife die, or if she consent. Therefore he can also receive orders. | |
| 14329 </p> | |
| 14330 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p8"> Further, a man may become a man's bondsman after marriage. Therefore he can become a bondsman of God by receiving orders.</p> | |
| 14331 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p9"> | |
| 14332 <b>I answer that,</b> Marriage is not an impediment to the receiving of sacred orders, since if a married man receive sacred orders, even though | |
| 14333 his wife be unwilling, he receives the character of order: but he lacks the exercise of his order. If, however, his wife consent, | |
| 14334 or if she be dead, he receives both the order and the exercise. | |
| 14335 </p> | |
| 14336 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p10"> | |
| 14337 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The bond of orders dissolves the bond of marriage as regards the payment of the debt, in respect of which it is incompatible | |
| 14338 with marriage, on the part of the person ordained, since he cannot demand the debt, nor is the wife bound to pay it. But it | |
| 14339 does not dissolve the bond in respect of the other party, since the husband is bound to pay the debt to the wife if he cannot | |
| 14340 persuade her to observe continence. | |
| 14341 </p> | |
| 14342 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p11"> | |
| 14343 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If the husband receive sacred orders with the knowledge and consent of his wife, she is bound to vow perpetual continence, | |
| 14344 but she is not bound to enter religion, if she has no fear of her chastity being endangered through her husband having taken | |
| 14345 a solemn vow: it would have been different, however, if he had taken a simple vow. On the other hand, if he be ordained without | |
| 14346 her consent, she is not bound in this way, because the result is not | |
| 14347 prejudicial to her in any way. | |
| 14348 </p> | |
| 14349 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p12"> | |
| 14350 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It would seem more probable, although some say the contrary, that even a Greek ought not to receive sacred orders without | |
| 14351 his wife's consent, since at least at the time of his ministry she would be deprived of the payment of the debt, of which | |
| 14352 she cannot be deprived according to law if the husband should have been ordained without her consent or knowledge. | |
| 14353 </p> | |
| 14354 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p13"> | |
| 14355 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As stated, among the Greeks the wife, by the very fact of consenting to her husband's receiving a sacred order, binds herself | |
| 14356 never to marry another man, because the signification of marriage would not be safeguarded, and this is especially required | |
| 14357 in the marriage of a priest. If, however, he be ordained without her consent, seemingly she would not be under that obligation. | |
| 14358 </p> | |
| 14359 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p14"> | |
| 14360 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Marriage has for its cause our consent: not so order, which has a sacramental cause appointed by God. Hence matrimony may | |
| 14361 be impeded by a previous order; so as not to be true marriage: whereas order cannot be impeded by marriage, so as not to be | |
| 14362 true order, because the power of the sacraments is unchangeable, whereas human acts can be impeded. | |
| 14363 </p> | |
| 14364 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p15"></p> | |
| 14365 <p id="XP_Q53_A4-p16"></p> | |
| 14366 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14367 <a href="summa.XP_Q54.html"></a> | |
| 14368 </div> | |
| 14369 <a href="summa.XP_Q52_A4.html"></a> | |
| 14370 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14371 </div> | |
| 14372 <div id="XP_Q54" class="div3"> | |
| 14373 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A4.html"></a> | |
| 14374 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14375 <h3 id="XP_Q54-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENT OF CONSANGUINITY (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 14376 <p id="XP_Q54-p1"></p> | |
| 14377 <p id="XP_Q54-p2"> We must next consider the impediment of consanguinity. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 14378 <p id="XP_Q54-p3"> (1) Whether consanguinity is rightly defined by some?</p> | |
| 14379 <p id="XP_Q54-p4"> (2) Whether it is fittingly distinguished by degrees and lines?</p> | |
| 14380 <p id="XP_Q54-p5"> (3) Whether certain degrees are by natural law an impediment to marriage?</p> | |
| 14381 <p id="XP_Q54-p6"> (4) Whether the impediment degrees can be fixed by the ordinance of the Church?</p> | |
| 14382 <div id="XP_Q54_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 14383 <a href="summa.XP_Q54.html"></a> | |
| 14384 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14385 <h4 id="XP_Q54_A1-p0.1">Whether consanguinity is rightly defined?</h4> | |
| 14386 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 14387 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p2"> | |
| 14388 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that consanguinity is unsuitably defined by some as follows: "Consanguinity is the tie contracted between persons | |
| 14389 descending from the same common ancestor by carnal procreation." For all men descend from the same common ancestor, namely | |
| 14390 Adam, by carnal procreation. Therefore if the above definition of consanguinity is right, all men would be related by consanguinity: | |
| 14391 which is false. | |
| 14392 </p> | |
| 14393 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p3"> | |
| 14394 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a tie is only between things in accord with one another, since a tie unites. Now there is not greater accordance | |
| 14395 between persons descended from a common ancestor than there is between other men, since they accord in species but differ | |
| 14396 in number, just as other men do. Therefore consanguinity is not a tie. | |
| 14397 </p> | |
| 14398 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p4"> | |
| 14399 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, carnal procreation, according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Anim. ii, 19), is effected from the surplus food [*Cf. | |
| 14400 | |
| 14401 <a id="XP_Q54_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q119_A2.html">FP, Q[119], A[2]</a>]. Now this surplus has more in common with that which is eaten, since it agrees with it in substance, than with him who eats. | |
| 14402 Since then no tie of consanguinity arises between the person born of semen and that which he eats, neither will there be any | |
| 14403 tie of kindred between him and the person of | |
| 14404 whom he is born by carnal procreation. | |
| 14405 </p> | |
| 14406 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p5"> | |
| 14407 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Laban said to Jacob ( | |
| 14408 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q54_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.29.14" target="asv">Gn. 29:14</a>): "Thou art my bone and my flesh," on account of the relationship between them. Therefore such a kinship should be called | |
| 14409 flesh-relationship rather than blood-relationship [consanguinitas]. | |
| 14410 </p> | |
| 14411 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p6"> | |
| 14412 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, carnal procreation is common to men and animals. But no tie of consanguinity is contracted among animals from carnal | |
| 14413 procreation. Therefore neither is there among men. | |
| 14414 </p> | |
| 14415 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p7"> | |
| 14416 <b>I answer that,</b> According to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11, 12) "all friendship is based on some kind of fellowship." And since friendship | |
| 14417 is a knot or union, it follows that the fellowship which is the cause of friendship is called "a tie." Wherefore in respect | |
| 14418 of any kind of a fellowship certain persons are denominated as though they were tied together: thus we speak of fellow-citizens | |
| 14419 who are connected by a common political life, of fellow-soldiers who are connected by | |
| 14420 the common business of soldiering, and in the same way those who are connected by the fellowship of nature are said to be | |
| 14421 tied by blood [consanguinei]. Hence in the above definition "tie" is included as being the genus of consanguinity; the "persons | |
| 14422 descending from the same common ancestor," who are thus tied together are the subject of this tie. while "carnal procreation" | |
| 14423 is mentioned as being its origin. | |
| 14424 </p> | |
| 14425 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p8"> | |
| 14426 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> An active force is not received into an instrument in the same degree of perfection as it has in the principal agent. And | |
| 14427 since every moved mover is an instrument, it follows that the power of the first mover in a particular genus when drawn out | |
| 14428 through many mediate movers fails at length, and reaches something that is moved and not a mover. But the power of a begetter | |
| 14429 moves not only as to that which belongs to the species, but also as to that which | |
| 14430 belongs to the individual, by reason of which the child is like the parent even in accidentals and not only in the specific | |
| 14431 nature. And yet this individual power of the father is not so perfect in the son as it was in the father, and still less so | |
| 14432 in the grandson, and thus it goes on failing: so that at length it ceases and can go no further. Since then consanguinity | |
| 14433 results from this power being communicated to many through being conveyed to them from one person by procreation, it destroys | |
| 14434 itself by little and little, as Isidore says (Etym. ix). Consequently in defining consanguinity we must not take a remote | |
| 14435 common ancestor but the nearest, whose power still remains in those who are descended from him. | |
| 14436 </p> | |
| 14437 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p9"> | |
| 14438 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is clear from what has been said that blood relations agree not only in the specific nature but also in that power peculiar | |
| 14439 to the individual which is conveyed from one to many: the result being that sometimes the child is not only like his father, | |
| 14440 but also his grandfather or his remote ancestors (De Gener. Anim. iv, 3). | |
| 14441 </p> | |
| 14442 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p10"> | |
| 14443 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Likeness depends more on form whereby a thing is actually, than on matter whereby a thing is potentially: for instance, charcoal | |
| 14444 has more in common with fire than with the tree from which the wood was cut. In like manner food already transformed by the | |
| 14445 nutritive power into the substance of the person fed has more in common with the subject nourished than with that from which | |
| 14446 the nourishment was taken. The argument however would hold according to the | |
| 14447 opinion of those who asserted that the whole nature of a thing is from its matter and that all forms are accidents: which | |
| 14448 is false. | |
| 14449 </p> | |
| 14450 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p11"> | |
| 14451 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It is the blood that is proximately changed into the semen, as proved in De Gener. Anim. i, 18. Hence the tie contracted | |
| 14452 by carnal procreation is more fittingly called blood-relationship than flesh-relationship. That sometimes one relation is | |
| 14453 called the flesh of another, is because the blood which is transformed into the man's seed or into the menstrual fluid is | |
| 14454 potentially flesh and bone. | |
| 14455 </p> | |
| 14456 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p12"> | |
| 14457 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Some say that the reason why the tie of consanguinity is contracted among men through carnal procreation, and not among other | |
| 14458 animals, is because whatever belongs to the truth of human nature in all men was in our first parent: which does not apply | |
| 14459 to other animals. But according to this, matrimonial consanguinity would never come to an end. However the above theory was | |
| 14460 disproved in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 30: | |
| 14461 <a id="XP_Q54_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q119_A1.html">FP, Q[119], | |
| 14462 A[1] | |
| 14463 </a>). Wherefore we must reply that the reason for this is that animals are not united together in the union of friendship through | |
| 14464 the begetting of many from one proximate parent, as is the case with men, as stated above. | |
| 14465 </p> | |
| 14466 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 14467 <p id="XP_Q54_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 14468 <a href="summa.XP_Q54.html"></a> | |
| 14469 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14470 </div> | |
| 14471 <div id="XP_Q54_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 14472 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14473 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14474 <h4 id="XP_Q54_A2-p0.1">Whether consanguinity is fittingly distinguished by degrees and lines?</h4> | |
| 14475 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 14476 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p2"> | |
| 14477 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that consanguinity is unfittingly distinguished by degrees and lines. For a line of consanguinity is described | |
| 14478 as "the ordered series of persons related by blood, and descending from a common ancestor in various degrees." Now consanguinity | |
| 14479 is nothing else but a series of such persons. Therefore a line of consanguinity is the same as consanguinity. Now a thing | |
| 14480 ought not to be distinguished by itself. Therefore consanguinity is not fittingly | |
| 14481 distinguished into lines. | |
| 14482 </p> | |
| 14483 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p3"> | |
| 14484 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that by which a common thing is divided should not be placed in the definition of that common thing. Now descent | |
| 14485 is placed in the above definition of consanguinity. Therefore consanguinity cannot be divided into ascending, descending and | |
| 14486 collateral lines. | |
| 14487 </p> | |
| 14488 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p4"> | |
| 14489 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a line is defined as being between two points. But two points make but one degree. Therefore one line has but one | |
| 14490 degree, and for this reason it would seem that consanguinity should not be divided into lines and degrees. | |
| 14491 </p> | |
| 14492 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p5"> | |
| 14493 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a degree is defined as "the relation between distant persons, whereby is known the distance between them." Now since | |
| 14494 consanguinity is a kind of propinquity, distance between persons is opposed to consanguinity rather than a part thereof. | |
| 14495 </p> | |
| 14496 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p6"> | |
| 14497 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, if consanguinity is distinguished and known by its degrees, those who are in the same degree ought to be equally | |
| 14498 related. But this is false since a man's great-uncle and great-nephew are in the same degree, and yet they are not equally | |
| 14499 related according to a Decretal (cap. Porro; cap. Parenteloe, 35, qu. v). Therefore consanguinity is not rightly divided into | |
| 14500 degrees. | |
| 14501 </p> | |
| 14502 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p7"> | |
| 14503 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, in ordinary things a different degree results from the addition of one thing to another, even as every additional | |
| 14504 unity makes a different species of number. Yet the addition of one person to another does not always make a different degree | |
| 14505 of consanguinity, since father and uncle are in the same degree of consanguinity, for they are side by side. Therefore consanguinity | |
| 14506 is not rightly divided into degrees. | |
| 14507 </p> | |
| 14508 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p8"> | |
| 14509 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, if two persons be akin to one another there is always the same measure of kinship between them, since the distance | |
| 14510 from one extreme to the other is the same either way. Yet the degrees of consanguinity are not always the same on either side, | |
| 14511 since sometimes one relative is in the third and the other in the fourth degree. Therefore the measure of consanguinity cannot | |
| 14512 be sufficiently known by its degrees. | |
| 14513 </p> | |
| 14514 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p9"> | |
| 14515 <b>I answer that,</b> Consanguinity as stated | |
| 14516 <a id="XP_Q54_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q54_A1.html">(A[1])</a> is a certain propinquity based on the natural communication by the act of procreation whereby nature is propagated. Wherefore | |
| 14517 according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12) this communication is threefold. one corresponds to the relationship between | |
| 14518 cause and effect, and this is the consanguinity of father to son, wherefore he says that "parents love their children as being | |
| 14519 a part of themselves." | |
| 14520 Another corresponds to the relation of effect to cause, and this is the consanguinity of son to father, wherefore he says | |
| 14521 that "children love their parents as being themselves something which owes its existence to them." The third corresponds to | |
| 14522 the mutual relation between things that come from the same cause, as brothers, "who are born of the same parents," as he again | |
| 14523 says (Ethic. viii, 12). And since the movement of a point makes a line, and since a father by procreation may be said to | |
| 14524 descend to his son, hence it is that corresponding to these three relationships there are three lines of consanguinity, namely | |
| 14525 the "descending" line corresponding to the first relationship, the "ascending" line corresponding to the second, and the "collateral" | |
| 14526 line corresponding to the third. Since however the movement of propagation does not rest in one term but continues beyond, | |
| 14527 the result is that one can point to the father's father and to the son's son, and so on, and according to the | |
| 14528 various steps we take we find various degrees in one line. And seeing that the degrees of a thing are parts of that thing, | |
| 14529 there cannot be degrees of propinquity where there is no propinquity. Consequently identity and too great a distance do away | |
| 14530 with degrees of consanguinity; since no man is kin to himself any more than he is like himself: for which reason there is | |
| 14531 no degree of consanguinity where there is but one person, but only when one person is compared to another. | |
| 14532 </p> | |
| 14533 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p10"> Nevertheless there are different ways of counting the degrees in various lines. For the degree of consanguinity in the ascending | |
| 14534 and descending line is contracted from the fact that one of the parties whose consanguinity is in question, is descended from | |
| 14535 the other. Wherefore according to the canonical as well as the legal reckoning, the person who occupies the first place, whether | |
| 14536 in the ascending or in the descending line, is distant from a certain one, say Peter, in the first | |
| 14537 degree---for instance father and son; while the one who occupies the second place in either direction is distant in the second | |
| 14538 degree, for instance grandfather, grandson and so on. But the consanguinity that exists between persons who are in collateral | |
| 14539 lines is contracted not through one being descended from the other, but through both being descended from one: wherefore the | |
| 14540 degrees of consanguinity in this line must be reckoned in relation to the one principle whence it arises. Here, however, | |
| 14541 the canonical and legal reckonings differ: for the legal reckoning takes into account the descent from the common stock on | |
| 14542 both sides, whereas the canonical reckoning takes into account only one, that namely on which the greater number of degrees | |
| 14543 are found. Hence according to the legal reckoning brother and sister, or two brothers, are related in the second degree, because | |
| 14544 each is separated from the common stock by one degree; and in like manner the children of two brothers are distant from one | |
| 14545 another in the fourth degree. But according to the canonical reckoning, two brothers are related in the first degree, since | |
| 14546 neither is distant more than one degree from the common stock: but the children of one brother are distant in the second degree | |
| 14547 from the other brother, because they are at that distance from the common stock. Hence, according to the canonical reckoning, | |
| 14548 by whatever degree a person is distant from some higher degree, by so much and never by less is he distant from each | |
| 14549 person descending from that degree, because "the cause of a thing being so is yet more so." Wherefore although the other descendants | |
| 14550 from the common stock be related to some person on account of his being descended from the common stock, these descendants | |
| 14551 of the other branch cannot be more nearly related to him than he is to the common stock. Sometimes, however, a person is more | |
| 14552 distantly related to a descendant from the common stock, than he himself is to the common stock, because this other | |
| 14553 person may be more distantly related to the common stock than he is: and consanguinity must be reckoned according to the more | |
| 14554 distant degree. | |
| 14555 </p> | |
| 14556 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p11"> | |
| 14557 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This objection is based on a false premise: for consanguinity is not the series but a mutual relationship existing between | |
| 14558 certain persons, the series of whom forms a line of consanguinity. | |
| 14559 </p> | |
| 14560 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p12"> | |
| 14561 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Descent taken in a general sense attaches to every line of consanguinity, because carnal procreation whence the tie of consanguinity | |
| 14562 arises is a kind of descent: but it is a particular kind of descent, namely from the person whose consanguinity is in question, | |
| 14563 that makes the descending line. | |
| 14564 </p> | |
| 14565 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p13"> | |
| 14566 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A line may be taken in two ways. Sometimes it is taken properly for the dimension itself that is the first species of continuous | |
| 14567 quantity: and thus a straight line contains actually but two points which terminate it, but infinite points potentially, any | |
| 14568 one of which being actually designated, the line is divided, and becomes two lines. But sometimes a line designates things | |
| 14569 which are arranged in a line, and thus we have line and figure in numbers, in | |
| 14570 so far as unity added to unity involves number. Thus every unity added makes a degree in a particular line: and it is the | |
| 14571 same with the line of consanguinity: wherefore one line contains several degrees. | |
| 14572 </p> | |
| 14573 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p14"> | |
| 14574 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Even as there cannot be likeness without a difference, so there is no propinquity without distance. Hence not every distance | |
| 14575 is opposed to consanguinity, but such as excludes the propinquity of blood-relationship. | |
| 14576 </p> | |
| 14577 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p15"> | |
| 14578 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Even as whiteness is said to be greater in two ways, in one way through intensity of the quality itself, in another way through | |
| 14579 the quantity of the surface, so consanguinity is said to be greater or lesser in two ways. First, intensively by reason of | |
| 14580 the very nature of consanguinity: secondly, extensively as it were, and thus the degree of consanguinity is measured by the | |
| 14581 persons between whom there is the propagation of a common blood, and in this way | |
| 14582 the degrees of consanguinity are distinguished. Wherefore it happens that of two persons related to one person in the same | |
| 14583 degree of consanguinity, one is more akin to him than the other, if we consider the quantity of consanguinity in the first | |
| 14584 way: thus a man's father and brother are related to him in the first degree of consanguinity, because in neither case does | |
| 14585 any person come in between; and yet from the point of view of intensity a man's father is more closely related to him than | |
| 14586 his | |
| 14587 brother, since his brother is related to him only because he is of the same father. Hence the nearer a person is to the common | |
| 14588 ancestor from whom the consanguinity descends, the greater is his consanguinity although he be not in a nearer degree. In | |
| 14589 this way a man's great-uncle is more closely related to him than his great-nephew, although they are in the same degree. | |
| 14590 </p> | |
| 14591 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p16"> | |
| 14592 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Although a man's father and uncle are in the same degree in respect of the root of consanguinity, since both are separated | |
| 14593 by one degree from the grandfather, nevertheless in respect of the person whose consanguinity is in question, they are not | |
| 14594 in the same degree, since the father is in the first degree, whereas the uncle cannot be nearer than the second degree, wherein | |
| 14595 the grandfather stands. | |
| 14596 </p> | |
| 14597 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p17"> | |
| 14598 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> Two persons are always related in the same degree to one another, although they are not always distant in the same number | |
| 14599 of degrees from the common ancestor, as explained above. | |
| 14600 </p> | |
| 14601 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p18"></p> | |
| 14602 <p id="XP_Q54_A2-p19"></p> | |
| 14603 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14604 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14605 </div> | |
| 14606 <div id="XP_Q54_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 14607 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14608 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A4.html"></a> | |
| 14609 <h4 id="XP_Q54_A3-p0.1">Whether consanguinity is an impediment to marriage by virtue of the natural law?</h4> | |
| 14610 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 14611 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p2"> | |
| 14612 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that consanguinity is not by natural law an impediment to marriage. For no woman can be more akin to a man | |
| 14613 than Eve was to Adam, since of her did he say ( | |
| 14614 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q54_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.23" target="asv">Gn. 2:23</a>): "This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Yet Eve was joined in marriage to Adam. Therefore as regards the | |
| 14615 natural law no consanguinity is an impediment to marriage. | |
| 14616 </p> | |
| 14617 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p3"> | |
| 14618 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the natural law is the same for all. Now among the uncivilized nations no person is debarred from marriage by reason | |
| 14619 of consanguinity. Therefore, as regards the law of nature, consanguinity is no impediment to marriage. | |
| 14620 </p> | |
| 14621 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p4"> | |
| 14622 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the natural law is what "nature has taught all animals," as stated at the beginning of the Digests (i, ff. De just. | |
| 14623 et jure). Now brute animals copulate even with their mother. Therefore it is not of natural law that certain persons are debarred | |
| 14624 from marriage on account of consanguinity. | |
| 14625 </p> | |
| 14626 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p5"> | |
| 14627 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, nothing that is not contrary to one of the goods of matrimony is an impediment to marriage. But consanguinity is | |
| 14628 not contrary to any of the goods of marriage. Therefore it is not an impediment thereto. | |
| 14629 </p> | |
| 14630 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p6"> | |
| 14631 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, things which are more akin and more similar to one another are better and more firmly united together. Now matrimony | |
| 14632 is a kind of union. Since then consanguinity is a kind of kinship, it does not hinder marriage but rather strengthens the | |
| 14633 union. | |
| 14634 </p> | |
| 14635 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p7"> | |
| 14636 <b>On the contrary,</b> According to the natural law whatever is an obstacle to the good of the offspring is an impediment to marriage. Now consanguinity | |
| 14637 hinders the good of the offspring, because in the words of Gregory (Regist., epis. xxxi) quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, | |
| 14638 40): "We have learnt by experience that the children of such a union cannot thrive." Therefore according to the law of nature | |
| 14639 consanguinity is an impediment to matrimony. | |
| 14640 </p> | |
| 14641 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p8"> Further, that which belongs to human nature when it was first created is of natural law. Now it belonged to human nature | |
| 14642 from when it was first created that one should be debarred from marrying one's father or mother: in proof of which it was | |
| 14643 said ( | |
| 14644 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q54_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.24" target="asv">Gn. 2:24</a>): "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother": which cannot be understood of cohabitation, and consequently must refer | |
| 14645 to the union of marriage. Therefore consanguinity is an impediment to marriage | |
| 14646 according to the natural law. | |
| 14647 </p> | |
| 14648 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p9"> | |
| 14649 <b>I answer that,</b> In relation to marriage a thing is said to be contrary to the natural law if it prevents marriage from reaching the end for | |
| 14650 which it was instituted. Now the essential and primary end of marriage is the good of the offspring. and this is hindered | |
| 14651 by a certain consanguinity, namely that which is between father and daughter, or son and mother. It is not that the good of | |
| 14652 the offspring is utterly destroyed, since a daughter can have a child of her father's semen | |
| 14653 and with the father rear and teach that child in which things the good of the offspring consists, but that it is not effected | |
| 14654 in a becoming way. For it is out of order that a daughter be mated to her father in marriage for the purpose of begetting | |
| 14655 and rearing children, since in all things she ought to be subject to her father as proceeding from him. Hence by natural law | |
| 14656 a father and mother are debarred from marrying their children; and the mother still more than the father, since it is more | |
| 14657 derogatory to the reverence due to parents if the son marry his mother than if the father marry his daughter; since the wife | |
| 14658 should be to a certain extent subject to her husband. The secondary essential end of marriage is the curbing of concupiscence; | |
| 14659 and this end would be forfeit if a man could marry any blood-relation, since a wide scope would be afforded to concupiscence | |
| 14660 if those who have to live together in the same house were not forbidden to be mated in the flesh. Wherefore the Divine law | |
| 14661 debars from marriage not only father and mother, but also other kinsfolk who have to live in close intimacy with one another | |
| 14662 and ought to safeguard one another's modesty. The Divine law assigns this reason ( | |
| 14663 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q54_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.18.10" target="asv">Lev. 18:10</a>): "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness" of such and such a one, "because it is thy own nakedness." | |
| 14664 </p> | |
| 14665 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p10"> But the accidental end of marriage is the binding together of mankind and the extension of friendship: for a husband regards | |
| 14666 his wife's kindred as his own. Hence it would be prejudicial to this extension of friendship if a man could take a woman of | |
| 14667 his kindred to wife since no new friendship would accrue to anyone from such a marriage. Wherefore, according to human law | |
| 14668 and the ordinances of the Church, several degrees of consanguinity are debarred from marriage. | |
| 14669 </p> | |
| 14670 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p11"> Accordingly it is clear from what has been said that consanguinity is by natural law an impediment to marriage in regard | |
| 14671 to certain persons, by Divine law in respect of some, and by human law in respect of others. | |
| 14672 </p> | |
| 14673 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p12"> | |
| 14674 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although Eve was formed from Adam she was not Adam's daughter, because she was not formed from him after the manner in which | |
| 14675 it is natural for a man to beget his like in species, but by the Divine operation, since from Adam's rib a horse might have | |
| 14676 been formed in the same way as Eve was. Hence the natural connection between Eve and Adam was not so great as between daughter | |
| 14677 and father, nor was Adam the natural principle of Eve as a father is of his | |
| 14678 daughter. | |
| 14679 </p> | |
| 14680 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p13"> | |
| 14681 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That certain barbarians are united carnally to their parents does not come from the natural law but from the passion of concupiscence | |
| 14682 which has clouded the natural law in them. | |
| 14683 </p> | |
| 14684 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p14"> | |
| 14685 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Union of male and female is said to be of natural law, because nature has taught this to animals: yet she has taught this | |
| 14686 union to various animals in various ways according to their various conditions. But carnal copulation with parents is derogatory | |
| 14687 to the reverence due to them. For just as nature has instilled into parents solicitude in providing for their offspring, so | |
| 14688 has it instilled into the offspring reverence towards their parents: yet to no | |
| 14689 kind of animal save man has she instilled a lasting solicitude for his children or reverence for parents; but to other animals | |
| 14690 more or less, according as the offspring is more or less necessary to its parents, or the parents to their offspring. Hence | |
| 14691 as the Philosopher attests (De Animal. ix, 47) concerning the camel and the horse, among certain animals the son abhors copulation | |
| 14692 with its mother as long as he retains knowledge of her and a certain reverence for her. And since all honest customs | |
| 14693 of animals are united together in man naturally, and more perfectly than in other animals, it follows that man naturally abhors | |
| 14694 carnal knowledge not only of his mother, but also of his daughter, which is, however, less against nature, as stated above. | |
| 14695 </p> | |
| 14696 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p15"> Moreover consanguinity does not result from carnal procreation in other animals as in man, as stated above (A[1], ad 5). | |
| 14697 Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 14698 </p> | |
| 14699 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p16"> | |
| 14700 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It has been shown how consanguinity between married persons is contrary to the goods of marriage. Hence the Objection proceeds | |
| 14701 from false premises. | |
| 14702 </p> | |
| 14703 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p17"> | |
| 14704 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> It is not unreasonable for one of two unions to be hindered by the other, even as where there is identity there is not likeness. | |
| 14705 In like manner the tie of consanguinity may hinder the union of marriage. | |
| 14706 </p> | |
| 14707 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p18"></p> | |
| 14708 <p id="XP_Q54_A3-p19"></p> | |
| 14709 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14710 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A4.html"></a> | |
| 14711 </div> | |
| 14712 <div id="XP_Q54_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 14713 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14714 <a href="summa.XP_Q55.html"></a> | |
| 14715 <h4 id="XP_Q54_A4-p0.1">Whether the degrees of consanguinity that are an impediment to marriage could be fixed by the Church?</h4> | |
| 14716 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 14717 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p2"> | |
| 14718 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the degrees of consanguinity that are an impediment to marriage could not be fixed by the Church so as | |
| 14719 to reach to the fourth degree. For it is written ( | |
| 14720 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q54_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.6" target="asv">Mat. 19:6</a>): "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." But God joined those together who are married within the fourth | |
| 14721 degree of consanguinity, since their union is not forbidden by the Divine law. Therefore they should not be put asunder by | |
| 14722 a human law. | |
| 14723 </p> | |
| 14724 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p3"> | |
| 14725 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, matrimony is a sacrament as also is baptism. Now no ordinance of the Church could prevent one who is baptized from | |
| 14726 receiving the baptismal character, if he be capable of receiving it according to the Divine law. Therefore neither can an | |
| 14727 ordinance of the Church forbid marriage between those who are not forbidden to marry by the Divine law. | |
| 14728 </p> | |
| 14729 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p4"> | |
| 14730 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, positive law can neither void nor extend those things which are natural. Now consanguinity is a natural tie which | |
| 14731 is in itself of a nature to impede marriage. Therefore the Church cannot by its ordinance permit or forbid certain people | |
| 14732 to marry, any more than she can make them to be kin or not kin. | |
| 14733 </p> | |
| 14734 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p5"> | |
| 14735 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, an ordinance of positive law should have some reasonable cause, since it is for this reasonable cause that it proceeds | |
| 14736 from the natural law. But the causes that are assigned for the number of degrees seem altogether unreasonable, since they | |
| 14737 bear no relation to their effect; for instance, that consanguinity be an impediment as far as the fourth degree on account | |
| 14738 of the four elements as far as the sixth degree on account of the six ages of the world, as | |
| 14739 far as the seventh degree on account of the seven days of which all time is comprised. Therefore seemingly this prohibition | |
| 14740 is of no force. | |
| 14741 </p> | |
| 14742 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p6"> | |
| 14743 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, where the cause is the same there should be the same effect. Now the causes for which consanguinity is an impediment | |
| 14744 to marriage are the good of the offspring, the curbing of concupiscence, and the extension of friendship, as stated above | |
| 14745 | |
| 14746 <a id="XP_Q54_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q54_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, which are equally necessary for all time. Therefore the degrees of consanguinity should have equally impeded marriage at | |
| 14747 all times: yet this is not true since consanguinity is now an | |
| 14748 impediment to marriage as far as the fourth degree, whereas formerly it was an impediment as far as the seventh. | |
| 14749 </p> | |
| 14750 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p7"> | |
| 14751 <b>Objection 6:</b> 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 | |
| 14752 had the power of fixing a different number in the degrees which are an impediment to marriage. Thus if certain parties related | |
| 14753 in the fifth degree were married when that degree was an impediment, their union would be incestuous, and yet this same union | |
| 14754 would be a marriage afterwards when the Church withdrew her prohibition. And the | |
| 14755 reverse might happen if certain degrees which were not an impediment were subsequently to be forbidden by the Church. Therefore | |
| 14756 seemingly the power of the Church does not extend to this. | |
| 14757 </p> | |
| 14758 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p8"> | |
| 14759 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, human law should copy the Divine law. Now according to the Divine law which is contained in the Old Law, the prohibition | |
| 14760 of degrees does not apply equally in the ascending and descending lines: since in the Old Law a man was forbidden to marry | |
| 14761 his father's sister but not his brother's daughter. Therefore neither should there remain now a prohibition in respect of | |
| 14762 nephews and uncles. | |
| 14763 </p> | |
| 14764 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p9"> | |
| 14765 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said to His disciples ( | |
| 14766 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q54_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.10.16" target="asv">Lk. 10:16</a>): "He that heareth you heareth Me." Therefore a commandment of the Church has the same force as a commandment of God. Now | |
| 14767 the Church sometimes has forbidden and sometimes allowed certain degrees which the Old Law did not forbid. Therefore those | |
| 14768 degrees are an impediment to marriage. | |
| 14769 </p> | |
| 14770 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p10"> Further, even as of old the marriages of pagans were controlled by the civil law, so now is marriage controlled by the laws | |
| 14771 of the Church. Now formerly the civil law decided which degrees of consanguinity impede marriage, and which do not. Therefore | |
| 14772 this can be done now by a commandment of the Church. | |
| 14773 </p> | |
| 14774 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p11"> | |
| 14775 <b>I answer that,</b> The degrees within which consanguinity has been an impediment to marriage have varied according to various times. For at | |
| 14776 the beginning of the human race father and mother alone were debarred from marrying their children, because then mankind were | |
| 14777 few in number, and then it was necessary for the propagation of the human race to be ensured with very great care, and consequently | |
| 14778 only such persons were to be debarred as were unfitted for marriage even in respect | |
| 14779 of its principal end which is the good of the offspring, as stated above | |
| 14780 <a id="XP_Q54_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q54_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Afterwards however, the human race having multiplied, more persons were excluded by the law of Moses, for they already began | |
| 14781 to curb concupiscence. Wherefore as Rabbi Moses says (Doc. Perp. iii, 49) all those persons were debarred from marrying one | |
| 14782 another who are wont to live together in one household, because if a lawful carnal intercourse were possible between them, | |
| 14783 this would prove a | |
| 14784 very great incentive to lust. Yet the Old Law permitted other degrees of consanguinity, in fact to a certain extent it commanded | |
| 14785 them; to wit that each man should take a wife from his kindred, in order to avoid confusion of inheritances: because at that | |
| 14786 time the Divine worship was handed down as the inheritance of the race. But afterwards more degrees were forbidden by the | |
| 14787 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 | |
| 14788 by a carnal birth but by a spiritual grace: wherefore it was necessary that men should be yet more withdrawn from carnal things | |
| 14789 by devoting themselves to things spiritual, and that love should have a yet wider play. Hence in olden times marriage was | |
| 14790 forbidden even within the more remote degrees of consanguinity, in order that consanguinity and affinity might be the sources | |
| 14791 of a wider natural friendship; and this was reasonably extended to the seventh degree, both because beyond this it was | |
| 14792 difficult to have any recollection of the common stock, and because this was in keeping with the sevenfold grace of the Holy | |
| 14793 Ghost. Afterwards, however, towards these latter times the prohibition of the Church has been restricted to the fourth degree, | |
| 14794 because it became useless and dangerous to extend the prohibition to more remote degrees of consanguinity. Useless, because | |
| 14795 charity waxed cold in many hearts so that they had scarcely a greater bond of friendship with their more remote kindred | |
| 14796 than with strangers: and it was dangerous because through the prevalence of concupiscence and neglect men took no account | |
| 14797 of so numerous a kindred, and thus the prohibition of the more remote degrees became for many a snare leading to damnation. | |
| 14798 Moreover there is a certain fittingness in the restriction of the above prohibition to the fourth degree. First because men | |
| 14799 are wont to live until the fourth generation, so that consanguinity cannot lapse into oblivion, wherefore God threatened | |
| 14800 ( | |
| 14801 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q54_A4-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.5" target="asv">Ex. 20:5</a>) to visit the parent's sins on their children to the third and fourth generation. Secondly, because in each generation the | |
| 14802 blood, the identity of which causes consanguinity, receives a further addition of new blood, and the more another blood is | |
| 14803 added the less there is of the old. And because there are four elements, each of which is the more easily mixed with another, | |
| 14804 according as it is more rarefied it follows that at the first admixture the identity of blood | |
| 14805 disappears as regards the first element which is most subtle; at the second admixture, as regards the second element; at the | |
| 14806 third, as to the third element; at the fourth, as to the fourth element. Thus after the fourth generation it is fitting for | |
| 14807 the carnal union to be repeated. | |
| 14808 </p> | |
| 14809 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p12"> | |
| 14810 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Even as God does not join together those who are joined together against the Divine command, so does He not join together | |
| 14811 those who are joined together against the commandment of the Church, which has the same binding force as a commandment of | |
| 14812 God. | |
| 14813 </p> | |
| 14814 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p13"> | |
| 14815 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Matrimony is not only a sacrament but also fulfills an office; wherefore it is more subject to the control of the Church's | |
| 14816 ministers than baptism which is a sacrament only: because just as human contracts and offices are controlled by human laws, | |
| 14817 so are spiritual contracts and offices controlled by the law of the Church. | |
| 14818 </p> | |
| 14819 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p14"> | |
| 14820 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the tie of consanguinity is natural, it is not natural that consanguinity forbid carnal intercourse, except as regards | |
| 14821 certain degrees, as stated above | |
| 14822 <a id="XP_Q54_A4-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q54_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Wherefore the Church's commandment does not cause certain people to be kin or not kin, because they remain equally kin at | |
| 14823 all times: but it makes carnal intercourse to be lawful or unlawful at different times for different degrees of consanguinity. | |
| 14824 </p> | |
| 14825 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p15"> | |
| 14826 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The reasons assigned are given as indicating aptness and congruousness rather than causality and necessity. | |
| 14827 </p> | |
| 14828 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p16"> | |
| 14829 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The reason for the impediment of consanguinity is not the same at different times: wherefore that which it was useful to | |
| 14830 allow at one time, it was beneficial to forbid at another. | |
| 14831 </p> | |
| 14832 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p17"> | |
| 14833 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> A commandment does not affect the past but the future. Wherefore if the fifth degree which is now allowed were to be forbidden | |
| 14834 at any time, those in the fifth degree who are married would not have to separate, because no impediment supervening to marriage | |
| 14835 can annul it; and consequently a union which was a marriage from the first would not be made incestuous by a commandment of | |
| 14836 the Church. In like manner, if a degree which is now forbidden were to be | |
| 14837 allowed, such a union would not become a marriage on account of the Church's commandment by reason of the former contract, | |
| 14838 because they could separate if they wished. Nevertheless, they could contract anew, and this would be a new union. | |
| 14839 </p> | |
| 14840 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p18"> | |
| 14841 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> In prohibiting the degrees of consanguinity the Church considers chiefly the point of view of affection. And since the reason | |
| 14842 for affection towards one's brother's son is not less but even greater than the reasons for affection towards one's father's | |
| 14843 brother, inasmuch as the son is more akin to the father than the father to the son (Ethic. viii, 12), therefore did the Church | |
| 14844 equally prohibit the degrees of consanguinity in uncles and nephews. On the | |
| 14845 other hand the Old Law in debarring certain persons looked chiefly to the danger of concupiscence arising from cohabitation; | |
| 14846 and debarred those persons who were in closer intimacy with one another on account of their living together. Now it is more | |
| 14847 usual for a niece to live with her uncle than an aunt with her nephew: because a daughter is more identified with her father, | |
| 14848 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 | |
| 14849 of the same parent. Hence there was not the same reason for debarring a niece and an aunt. | |
| 14850 </p> | |
| 14851 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p19"></p> | |
| 14852 <p id="XP_Q54_A4-p20"></p> | |
| 14853 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14854 <a href="summa.XP_Q55.html"></a> | |
| 14855 </div> | |
| 14856 <a href="summa.XP_Q53_A4.html"></a> | |
| 14857 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14858 </div> | |
| 14859 <div id="XP_Q55" class="div3"> | |
| 14860 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A4.html"></a> | |
| 14861 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14862 <h3 id="XP_Q55-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENT OF AFFINITY (ELEVEN ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 14863 <p id="XP_Q55-p1"></p> | |
| 14864 <p id="XP_Q55-p2"> We must consider next the impediment of affinity. Under this head there are eleven points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 14865 <p id="XP_Q55-p3"> (1) Whether affinity results from matrimony?</p> | |
| 14866 <p id="XP_Q55-p4"> (2) Whether it remains after the death of husband or wife?</p> | |
| 14867 <p id="XP_Q55-p5"> (3) Whether it is caused through unlawful intercourse?</p> | |
| 14868 <p id="XP_Q55-p6"> (4) Whether it arises from a betrothal?</p> | |
| 14869 <p id="XP_Q55-p7"> (5) Whether affinity is caused through affinity?</p> | |
| 14870 <p id="XP_Q55-p8"> (6) Whether affinity is an impediment to marriage?</p> | |
| 14871 <p id="XP_Q55-p9"> (7) Whether affinity in itself admits of degrees?</p> | |
| 14872 <p id="XP_Q55-p10"> (8) Whether its degrees extend as far as the degrees of consanguinity?</p> | |
| 14873 <p id="XP_Q55-p11"> (9) Whether marriages of persons related to one another by consanguinity or affinity should always be dissolved by divorce?</p> | |
| 14874 <p id="XP_Q55-p12"> (10) Whether the process for the dissolution of like marriages should always be by way of accusation?</p> | |
| 14875 <p id="XP_Q55-p13"> (11) Whether witnesses should be called in such a case?</p> | |
| 14876 <div id="XP_Q55_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 14877 <a href="summa.XP_Q55.html"></a> | |
| 14878 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14879 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A1-p0.1">Whether a person contracts affinity through the marriage of a blood-relation?</h4> | |
| 14880 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 14881 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p2"> | |
| 14882 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a person does not contract affinity through the marriage of a blood-relation. For "the cause of a thing | |
| 14883 being so is yet more so." Now the wife is not connected with her husband's kindred except by reason of the husband. Since | |
| 14884 then she does not contract affinity with her husband, neither does she contract it with her husband's kindred. | |
| 14885 </p> | |
| 14886 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p3"> | |
| 14887 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if certain things be separate from one another and something be connected with one of them, it does not follow that | |
| 14888 it is connected with the other. Now a person's blood relations are separate from one another. Therefore it does not follow, | |
| 14889 if a certain woman be married to a certain man, that she is therefore connected with all his kindred. | |
| 14890 </p> | |
| 14891 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p4"> | |
| 14892 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, relations result from certain things being united together. Now the kindred of the husband do not become united | |
| 14893 together by the fact of his taking a wife. Therefore they do not acquire any relationship of affinity. | |
| 14894 </p> | |
| 14895 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p5"> | |
| 14896 <b>On the contrary,</b> Husband and wife are made one flesh. Therefore if the husband is related in the flesh to all his kindred, for the same reason | |
| 14897 his wife will be related to them all. | |
| 14898 </p> | |
| 14899 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p6"> Further, this is proved by the authorities quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 41).</p> | |
| 14900 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p7"> | |
| 14901 <b>I answer that,</b> A certain natural friendship is founded on natural fellowship. Now natural fellowship, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. | |
| 14902 viii, 12), arises in two ways; first, from carnal procreation; secondly, from connection with orderly carnal procreation, | |
| 14903 wherefore he says (Ethic. viii, 12) that the friendship of a husband towards his wife is natural. Consequently even as a person | |
| 14904 through being connected with another by carnal procreation is bound to him by a tie of | |
| 14905 natural friendship, so does one person become connected with another through carnal intercourse. But there is a difference | |
| 14906 in this, that one who is connected with another through carnal procreation, as a son with his father, shares in the same common | |
| 14907 stock and blood, so that a son is connected with his father's kindred by the same kind of tie as the father was, the tie, | |
| 14908 namely of consanguinity, albeit in a different degree on account of his being more distant from the stock: whereas one who | |
| 14909 is | |
| 14910 connected with another through carnal intercourse does not share in the same stock, but is as it were an extraneous addition | |
| 14911 thereto: whence arises another kind of tie known by the name of "affinity." This is expressed in the verse: | |
| 14912 </p> | |
| 14913 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p8"> Marriage makes a new kind of connection,</p> | |
| 14914 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p9"> While birth makes a new degree,</p> | |
| 14915 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p10">because, to wit, the person begotten is in the same kind of relationship, but in a different degree, whereas through carnal | |
| 14916 intercourse he enters into a new kind of relationship. | |
| 14917 </p> | |
| 14918 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p11"> | |
| 14919 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although a cause is more potent than its effect, it does not always follow that the same name is applicable to the cause | |
| 14920 as to the effect, because sometimes that which is in the effect, is found in the cause not in the same but in a higher way; | |
| 14921 wherefore it is not applicable to both cause and effect under the same name or under the same aspect, as is the case with | |
| 14922 all equivocal effective causes. Thus, then, the union of husband and wife is stronger | |
| 14923 than the union of the wife with her husband's kindred, and yet it ought not to be named affinity, but matrimony which is a | |
| 14924 kind of unity; even as a man is identical with himself, but not with his kinsman. | |
| 14925 </p> | |
| 14926 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p12"> | |
| 14927 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Blood-relations are in a way separate, and in a way connected: and it happens in respect of their connection that a person | |
| 14928 who is connected with one of them is in some way connected with all of them. But on account of their separation and distance | |
| 14929 from one another it happens that a person who is connected with one of them in one way is connected with another in another | |
| 14930 way, either as to the kind of connection or as to the degree. | |
| 14931 </p> | |
| 14932 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p13"> | |
| 14933 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Further, a relation results sometimes from a movement in each extreme, for instance fatherhood and sonship, and a relation | |
| 14934 of this kind is really in both extremes. Sometimes it results from the movement of one only, and this happens in two ways. | |
| 14935 In one way when a relation results from the movement of one extreme without any movement previous or concomitant of the other | |
| 14936 extreme; as in the Creator and the creature, the sensible and the sense, knowledge | |
| 14937 and the knowable object: and then the relation is in one extreme really and in the other logically only. In another way when | |
| 14938 the relation results from the movement of one extreme without any concomitant movement, but not without a previous movement | |
| 14939 of the other; thus there results equality between two men by the increase of one, without the other either increasing or decreasing | |
| 14940 then, although previously he reached his actual quantity by some movement or change, so that this relation is founded | |
| 14941 really in both extremes. It is the same with consanguinity and affinity, because the relation of brotherhood which results | |
| 14942 in a grown child on the birth of a boy, is caused without any movement of the former's at the time, but by virtue of that | |
| 14943 previous movement of his wherein he was begotten; wherefore at the time it happens that there results in him the aforesaid | |
| 14944 relation through the movement of another. Likewise because this man descends through his own birth from the same stock as | |
| 14945 the | |
| 14946 husband, there results in him affinity with the latter's wife, without any new change in him. | |
| 14947 </p> | |
| 14948 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 14949 <p id="XP_Q55_A1-p15"></p> | |
| 14950 <a href="summa.XP_Q55.html"></a> | |
| 14951 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A2.html"></a> | |
| 14952 </div> | |
| 14953 <div id="XP_Q55_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 14954 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14955 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A3.html"></a> | |
| 14956 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A2-p0.1">Whether affinity remains after the death of husband or wife?</h4> | |
| 14957 <p id="XP_Q55_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 14958 <p id="XP_Q55_A2-p2"> | |
| 14959 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that affinity does not remain after the death of husband or wife, between the blood-relations of husband and | |
| 14960 wife or "vice versa." Because if the cause cease the effect ceases. Now the cause of affinity was the marriage, which ceases | |
| 14961 after the husband's death, since then "the woman . . . is loosed from the law of the husband" ( | |
| 14962 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q55_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.2" target="asv">Rom. 7:2</a>). Therefore the aforesaid affinity ceases also. | |
| 14963 </p> | |
| 14964 <p id="XP_Q55_A2-p3"> | |
| 14965 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, consanguinity is the cause of affinity. Now the consanguinity of the husband with his blood-relations ceases at | |
| 14966 his death. Therefore, the wife's affinity with them ceases also. | |
| 14967 </p> | |
| 14968 <p id="XP_Q55_A2-p4"> | |
| 14969 <b>On the contrary,</b> Affinity is caused by consanguinity. Now consanguinity binds persons together for all time as long as they live. Therefore | |
| 14970 affinity does so also: and consequently affinity (between two persons) is not dissolved through the dissolution of the marriage | |
| 14971 by the death of a third person. | |
| 14972 </p> | |
| 14973 <p id="XP_Q55_A2-p5"> | |
| 14974 <b>I answer that,</b> A relation ceases in two ways: in one way through the corruption of its subject, in another way by the removal of its cause; | |
| 14975 thus likeness ceases when one of the like subjects dies, or when the quality that caused the likeness is removed. Now there | |
| 14976 are certain relations which have for their cause an action, or a passion or movement (Metaph. v, 20): and some of these are | |
| 14977 caused by movement, through something being moved actually; such is the relation between | |
| 14978 mover and moved: some of them are caused through something being adapted to movement, for instance the relations between the | |
| 14979 motive power and the movable, or between master and servant; and some of them result from something, having been moved previously, | |
| 14980 such as the relation between father and son, for the relation between them is caused not by (the con) being begotten now, | |
| 14981 but by his having been begotten. Now aptitude for movement and for being moved is transitory; whereas the fact of having | |
| 14982 been moved is everlasting, since what has been never ceases having been. Consequently fatherhood and sonship are never dissolved | |
| 14983 through the removal of the cause, but only through the corruption of the subject, that is of one of the subjects. The same | |
| 14984 applies to affinity, for this is caused by certain persons having been joined together not by their being actually joined. | |
| 14985 Wherefore it is not done away, as long as the persons between whom affinity has been contracted survive, although the person | |
| 14986 die through whom it was contracted. | |
| 14987 </p> | |
| 14988 <p id="XP_Q55_A2-p6"> | |
| 14989 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The marriage tie causes affinity not only by reason of actual union, but also by reason of the union having been effected | |
| 14990 in the past. | |
| 14991 </p> | |
| 14992 <p id="XP_Q55_A2-p7"> | |
| 14993 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Consanguinity is not the chief cause of affinity, but union with a blood-relation, not only because that union is now, but | |
| 14994 because it has been. Hence the argument does not prove. | |
| 14995 </p> | |
| 14996 <p id="XP_Q55_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 14997 <p id="XP_Q55_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 14998 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A1.html"></a> | |
| 14999 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A3.html"></a> | |
| 15000 </div> | |
| 15001 <div id="XP_Q55_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 15002 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A2.html"></a> | |
| 15003 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A4.html"></a> | |
| 15004 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A3-p0.1">Whether unlawful intercourse causes affinity?</h4> | |
| 15005 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 15006 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p2"> | |
| 15007 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that unlawful intercourse does not cause affinity. For affinity is an honorable thing. Now honorable things | |
| 15008 do not result from that which is dishonorable. Therefore affinity cannot be caused by a dishonorable intercourse. | |
| 15009 </p> | |
| 15010 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p3"> | |
| 15011 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, where there is consanguinity there cannot be affinity; since affinity is a relationship between persons that results | |
| 15012 from carnal intercourse and is altogether void of blood-relationship. Now if unlawful intercourse were a cause of affinity, | |
| 15013 it would sometimes happen that a man would contract affinity with his blood-relations and with himself: for instance when | |
| 15014 a man is guilty of incest with a blood-relation. Therefore affinity is not caused by | |
| 15015 unlawful intercourse. | |
| 15016 </p> | |
| 15017 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p4"> | |
| 15018 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, unlawful intercourse is according to nature or against nature. Now affinity is not caused by unnatural unlawful | |
| 15019 intercourse as decided by law (can. Extraordinaria, xxxv, qu. 2,3). Therefore it is not caused only by unlawful intercourse | |
| 15020 according to nature. | |
| 15021 </p> | |
| 15022 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p5"> | |
| 15023 <b>On the contrary,</b> He who is joined to a harlot is made one body ( | |
| 15024 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q55_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.16" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:16</a>). Now this is the reason why marriage caused affinity. Therefore unlawful intercourse does so for the same reason. | |
| 15025 </p> | |
| 15026 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p6"> Further, carnal intercourse is the cause of affinity, as shown by the definition of affinity, which definition is as follows: | |
| 15027 Affinity is the relationship of persons which results from carnal intercourse and is altogether void of blood-relationship. | |
| 15028 But there is carnal copulation even in unlawful intercourse. Therefore unlawful intercourse causes affinity. | |
| 15029 </p> | |
| 15030 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p7"> | |
| 15031 <b>I answer that,</b> According to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12) the union of husband and wife is said to be natural chiefly on account of | |
| 15032 the procreation of offspring, and secondly on account of the community of works: the former of which belongs to marriage by | |
| 15033 reason of carnal copulation, and the latter, in so far as marriage is a partnership directed to a common life. Now the former | |
| 15034 is to be found in every carnal union where there is a mingling of seeds, since such a union | |
| 15035 may be productive of offspring, but the latter may be wanting. Consequently since marriage caused affinity, in so far as it | |
| 15036 was a carnal mingling, it follows that also an unlawful intercourse causes affinity in so far as it has something of natural | |
| 15037 copulation. | |
| 15038 </p> | |
| 15039 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p8"> | |
| 15040 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In an unlawful intercourse there is something natural which is common to fornication and marriage, and in this respect it | |
| 15041 causes affinity. There is also something which is inordinate whereby it differs from marriage, and in this respect it does | |
| 15042 not cause affinity. Hence affinity remains honorable, although its cause is in a way dishonorable. | |
| 15043 </p> | |
| 15044 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p9"> | |
| 15045 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There is no reason why diverse relations should not be in the same subject by reason of different things. Consequently there | |
| 15046 can be affinity and consanguinity between two persons, not only on account of unlawful but also on account of lawful intercourse: | |
| 15047 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 | |
| 15048 the above definition the words "which is altogether void of | |
| 15049 blood-relationship" apply to affinity as such. Nor does it follow that a man by having intercourse with his blood-relation | |
| 15050 contracts affinity with himself, since affinity, like consanguinity, requires diversity of subjects, as likeness does. | |
| 15051 </p> | |
| 15052 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p10"> | |
| 15053 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In unnatural copulation there is no mingling of seeds that makes generation possible: wherefore a like intercourse does not | |
| 15054 cause affinity. | |
| 15055 </p> | |
| 15056 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 15057 <p id="XP_Q55_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 15058 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A2.html"></a> | |
| 15059 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A4.html"></a> | |
| 15060 </div> | |
| 15061 <div id="XP_Q55_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 15062 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A3.html"></a> | |
| 15063 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A5.html"></a> | |
| 15064 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A4-p0.1">Whether affinity is caused by betrothal?</h4> | |
| 15065 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 15066 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p2"> | |
| 15067 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that affinity cannot be caused by betrothal. For affinity is a lasting tie: whereas a betrothal is sometimes | |
| 15068 broken off. Therefore it cannot cause affinity. | |
| 15069 </p> | |
| 15070 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p3"> | |
| 15071 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further if the hymen be penetrated without the deed being consummated, affinity is not contracted. Yet this is much more | |
| 15072 akin to carnal intercourse than a betrothal. Therefore betrothal does not cause affinity. | |
| 15073 </p> | |
| 15074 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p4"> | |
| 15075 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, betrothal is nothing but a promise of future marriage. Now sometimes there is a promise of future marriage without | |
| 15076 affinity being contracted, for instance if it take place before the age of seven years; or if a man having a perpetual impediment | |
| 15077 of impotence promise a woman future marriage; or if a like promise be made between persons to whom marriage is rendered unlawful | |
| 15078 by a vow; or in any other way whatever. Therefore betrothal cannot cause | |
| 15079 affinity. | |
| 15080 </p> | |
| 15081 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p5"> | |
| 15082 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Alexander (cap. Ad audiendem, De spons. et matrim.) forbade a certain woman to marry a certain man, because she had | |
| 15083 been betrothed to his brother. Now this would not be the case unless affinity were contracted by betrothal. Therefore, etc. | |
| 15084 </p> | |
| 15085 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p6"> | |
| 15086 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as a betrothal has not the conditions of a perfect marriage, but is a preparation for marriage, so betrothal causes | |
| 15087 not affinity as marriage does, but something like affinity. This is called "the justice of public honesty," which is an impediment | |
| 15088 to marriage even as affinity and consanguinity are, and according to the same degrees, and is defined thus: "The justice of | |
| 15089 public honesty is a relationship arising out of betrothal, and derives its force from | |
| 15090 ecclesiastical institution by reason of its honesty." This indicates the reason of its name as well as its cause, namely that | |
| 15091 this relationship was instituted by the Church on account of its honesty. | |
| 15092 </p> | |
| 15093 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p7"> | |
| 15094 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Betrothal, by reason not of itself but of the end to which it is directed, causes this kind of affinity known as "the justice | |
| 15095 of public honesty": wherefore just as marriage is a lasting tie, so is the aforesaid kind of affinity. | |
| 15096 </p> | |
| 15097 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p8"> | |
| 15098 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In carnal intercourse man and woman become one flesh by the mingling of seeds. Wherefore it is not every invasion or penetration | |
| 15099 of the hymen that causes affinity to be contracted, but only such as is followed by a mingling of seeds. But marriage causes | |
| 15100 affinity not only on account of carnal intercourse, but also by reason of the conjugal fellowship, in respect of which also | |
| 15101 marriage is according to nature. Consequently affinity results from the | |
| 15102 marriage contract itself expressed in words of the present and before its consummation, and in like manner there results from | |
| 15103 betrothal, which is a promise of conjugal fellowship, something akin to affinity, namely the justice of public honesty. | |
| 15104 </p> | |
| 15105 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p9"> | |
| 15106 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> All those impediments which void a betrothal prevent affinity being contracted through a promise of marriage. Hence whether | |
| 15107 he who actually promises marriage be lacking in age, or be under a solemn vow of continence or any like impediment, no affinity | |
| 15108 nor anything akin to it results because the betrothal is void. If however, a minor, laboring under insensibility or malefice, | |
| 15109 having a perpetual impediment, is betrothed before the age of puberty and | |
| 15110 after the age of seven years, with a woman who is of age, from such a contract there results the impediment called "justice | |
| 15111 of public honesty," because at the time the impediment was not actual, since at that age the boy who is insensible is equally | |
| 15112 impotent in respect of the act in question. | |
| 15113 </p> | |
| 15114 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p10"></p> | |
| 15115 <p id="XP_Q55_A4-p11"></p> | |
| 15116 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A3.html"></a> | |
| 15117 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A5.html"></a> | |
| 15118 </div> | |
| 15119 <div id="XP_Q55_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 15120 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A4.html"></a> | |
| 15121 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A6.html"></a> | |
| 15122 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A5-p0.1">Whether affinity is a cause of affinity?</h4> | |
| 15123 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 15124 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p2"> | |
| 15125 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that affinity also is a cause of affinity. For Pope Julius I says (cap. Contradicimus 35, qu. iii): "No man | |
| 15126 may marry his wife's surviving blood-relation": and it is said in the next chapter (cap. Porro duorum) that "the wives of | |
| 15127 two cousins are forbidden to marry, one after the other, the same husband." But this is only on account of affinity being | |
| 15128 contracted through union with a person related by affinity. Therefore affinity is a cause of | |
| 15129 affinity. | |
| 15130 </p> | |
| 15131 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p3"> | |
| 15132 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, carnal intercourse makes persons akin even as carnal procreation, since the degrees of affinity and consanguinity | |
| 15133 are reckoned equally. But consanguinity causes affinity. Therefore affinity does also. | |
| 15134 </p> | |
| 15135 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p4"> | |
| 15136 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, things that are the same with one and the same are the same with one another. But the wife contracts the same relations | |
| 15137 with all her husband's kindred. Therefore all her husband's kindred are made one with all who are related by affinity to the | |
| 15138 wife, and thus affinity is the cause of affinity. | |
| 15139 </p> | |
| 15140 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p5"> | |
| 15141 <b>Objection 4:</b> On the contrary, If affinity is caused by affinity a man who has connection with two women can marry neither of them, because | |
| 15142 then the one would be related to the other by affinity. But this is false. Therefore affinity does not cause affinity. | |
| 15143 </p> | |
| 15144 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p6"> | |
| 15145 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, if affinity arose out of affinity a man by marrying another man's widow would contract affinity with all her first | |
| 15146 husband's kindred, since she is related to them by affinity. But this cannot be the case because he would become especially | |
| 15147 related by affinity to her deceased husband. Therefore, etc. | |
| 15148 </p> | |
| 15149 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p7"> | |
| 15150 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, consanguinity is a stronger tie than affinity. But the blood-relations of the wife do not become blood-relations | |
| 15151 of the husband. Much less, therefore, does affinity to the wife cause affinity to her blood-relations, and thus the same conclusion | |
| 15152 follows. | |
| 15153 </p> | |
| 15154 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p8"> | |
| 15155 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two ways in which one thing proceeds from another: in one way a thing proceeds from another in likeness of species, | |
| 15156 as a man is begotten of a man: in another way one thing proceeds from another, not in likeness of species; and this process | |
| 15157 is always towards a lower species, as instanced in all equivocal agents. The first kind of procession, however often it be | |
| 15158 repeated, the same species always remains: thus if one man be begotten of another by an | |
| 15159 act of the generative power, of this man also another man will be begotten, and so on. But the second kind of procession, | |
| 15160 just as in the first instance it produces another species, so it makes another species as often as it is repeated. Thus by | |
| 15161 movement from a point there proceeds a line and not a point, because a point by being moved makes a line; and from a line | |
| 15162 moved lineally, there proceeds not a line but a surface, and from a surface a body, and in this way the procession can go | |
| 15163 no | |
| 15164 further. Now in the procession of kinship we find two kinds whereby this tie is caused: one is by carnal procreation, and | |
| 15165 this always produces the same species of relationship; the other is by the marriage union, and this produces a different kind | |
| 15166 of relationship from the beginning: thus it is clear that a married woman is related to her husband's blood-relations not | |
| 15167 by blood but by affinity. Wherefore if this kind of process be repeated, the result will be not affinity but another kind | |
| 15168 of | |
| 15169 relationship; and consequently a married party contracts with the affines of the other party a relation not of affinity but | |
| 15170 of some other kind which is called affinity of the second kind. And again if a person through marriage contracts relationship | |
| 15171 with an affine of the second kind, it will not be affinity of the second kind, but of a third kind, as indicated in the verse | |
| 15172 quoted above | |
| 15173 <a id="XP_Q55_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q55_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Formerly these two kinds were included in the prohibition, under the head of | |
| 15174 the justice of public honesty rather than under the head of affinity, because they fall short of true affinity, in the same | |
| 15175 way as the relationship arising out of betrothal. Now however they have ceased to be included in the prohibition, which now | |
| 15176 refers only to the first kind of affinity in which true affinity consists. | |
| 15177 </p> | |
| 15178 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p9"> | |
| 15179 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A husband contracts affinity of the first kind with his wife's male blood-relation, and affinity of the second kind with | |
| 15180 the latter's wife: wherefore if the latter man dies the former cannot marry his widow on account of the second kind of affinity. | |
| 15181 Again if a man A marry a widow B, C, a relation of her former husband being connected with B by the first kind of affinity, | |
| 15182 contracts affinity of the second kind with her husband A; and D, the wife of this | |
| 15183 relation C being connected, by affinity of the second kind, with B, this man's wife contracts affinity of the third kind with | |
| 15184 her husband A. And since the third kind of affinity was included in the prohibition on account of a certain honesty more than | |
| 15185 by reason of affinity, the canon (cap. Porro duorum 35, qu. iii) says: "The justice of public honesty forbids the wives of | |
| 15186 two cousins to be married to the same man, the one after the other." But this prohibition is done away with. | |
| 15187 </p> | |
| 15188 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p10"> | |
| 15189 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although carnal intercourse is a cause of people being connected with one another, it is not the same kind of connection. | |
| 15190 </p> | |
| 15191 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p11"> | |
| 15192 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The wife contracts the same connection with her husband's relatives as to the degree but not as to the kind of connection. | |
| 15193 </p> | |
| 15194 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p12"> Since however the arguments in the contrary sense would seem to show that no tie is caused by affinity, we must reply to | |
| 15195 them lest the time-honored prohibition of the Church seem unreasonable. | |
| 15196 </p> | |
| 15197 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p13"> | |
| 15198 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As stated above, a woman does not contract affinity of the first kind with the man to whom she is united in the flesh, wherefore | |
| 15199 she does not contract affinity of the second kind with a woman known by the same man; and consequently if a man marry one | |
| 15200 of these women, the other does not contract affinity of the third kind with him. And so the laws of bygone times did not forbid | |
| 15201 the same man to marry successively two women known by one man. | |
| 15202 </p> | |
| 15203 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p14"> | |
| 15204 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As a man is not connected with his wife by affinity of the first kind, so he does not contract affinity of the second kind | |
| 15205 with the second husband of the same wife. Wherefore the argument does not prove. | |
| 15206 </p> | |
| 15207 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p15"> | |
| 15208 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> One person is not connected with me through another, except they be connected together. Hence through a woman who is affine | |
| 15209 to me, no person becomes connected with me, except such as is connected with her. Now this cannot be except through carnal | |
| 15210 procreation from her, or through connection with her by marriage: and according to the olden legislation, I contracted some | |
| 15211 kind of connection through her in both ways: because her son even by another husband | |
| 15212 becomes affine to me in the same kind and in a different degree of affinity, as appears from the rule given above: and again | |
| 15213 her second husband becomes affine to me in the second kind of affinity. But her other blood-relations are not connected with | |
| 15214 him, but she is connected with them, either as with father or mother, inasmuch as she descends from them, or, as with her | |
| 15215 brothers, as proceeding from the same principle; wherefore the brother or father of my affine does not become affine to me | |
| 15216 in | |
| 15217 any kind of affinity. | |
| 15218 </p> | |
| 15219 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p16"></p> | |
| 15220 <p id="XP_Q55_A5-p17"></p> | |
| 15221 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A4.html"></a> | |
| 15222 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A6.html"></a> | |
| 15223 </div> | |
| 15224 <div id="XP_Q55_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 15225 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A5.html"></a> | |
| 15226 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A7.html"></a> | |
| 15227 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A6-p0.1">Whether affinity is an impediment to marriage?</h4> | |
| 15228 <p id="XP_Q55_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 15229 <p id="XP_Q55_A6-p2"> | |
| 15230 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that affinity is not an impediment to marriage. For nothing is an impediment to marriage except what is contrary | |
| 15231 thereto. But affinity is not contrary to marriage since it is caused by it. Therefore it is not an impediment to marriage. | |
| 15232 </p> | |
| 15233 <p id="XP_Q55_A6-p3"> | |
| 15234 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by marriage the wife becomes a possession of the husband. Now the husband's kindred inherit his possessions after | |
| 15235 his death. Therefore they can succeed to his wife, although she is affine to them, as shown above | |
| 15236 <a id="XP_Q55_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q55_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. Therefore affinity is not an impediment to marriage. | |
| 15237 </p> | |
| 15238 <p id="XP_Q55_A6-p4"> | |
| 15239 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 15240 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q55_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.18.8" target="asv">Lev. 18:8</a>): "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's wife." Now she is only affine. Therefore affinity is an impediment | |
| 15241 to marriage. | |
| 15242 </p> | |
| 15243 <p id="XP_Q55_A6-p5"> | |
| 15244 <b>I answer that,</b> Affinity that precedes marriage hinders marriage being contracted and voids the contract, for the same reason as consanguinity. | |
| 15245 For just as there is a certain need for blood-relations to live together, so is there for those who are connected by affinity: | |
| 15246 and just as there is a tie of friendship between blood-relations, so is there between those who are affine to one another. | |
| 15247 If, however, affinity supervene to matrimony, it cannot void the marriage, as stated | |
| 15248 above ( | |
| 15249 <a id="XP_Q55_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q50_A7.html">Q[50], A[7]</a>). | |
| 15250 </p> | |
| 15251 <p id="XP_Q55_A6-p6"> | |
| 15252 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Affinity is not contrary to the marriage which causes it, but to a marriage being contracted with an affine, in so far as | |
| 15253 the latter would hinder the extension of friendship and the curbing of concupiscence, which are sought in marriage. | |
| 15254 </p> | |
| 15255 <p id="XP_Q55_A6-p7"> | |
| 15256 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The husband's possessions do not become one with him as the wife is made one flesh with him. Wherefore just as consanguinity | |
| 15257 is an impediment to marriage or union with the husband according to the flesh, so is one forbidden to marry the husband's | |
| 15258 wife. | |
| 15259 </p> | |
| 15260 <p id="XP_Q55_A6-p8"></p> | |
| 15261 <p id="XP_Q55_A6-p9"></p> | |
| 15262 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A5.html"></a> | |
| 15263 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A7.html"></a> | |
| 15264 </div> | |
| 15265 <div id="XP_Q55_A7" class="div4"> | |
| 15266 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A6.html"></a> | |
| 15267 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A8.html"></a> | |
| 15268 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A7-p0.1">Whether affinity in itself admits of degrees?</h4> | |
| 15269 <p id="XP_Q55_A7-p1"></p> | |
| 15270 <p id="XP_Q55_A7-p2"> | |
| 15271 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that affinity in itself admits of degrees. For any kind of propinquity can itself be the subject of degrees. | |
| 15272 Now affinity is a kind of propinquity. Therefore it has degrees in itself apart from the degrees of consanguinity by which | |
| 15273 it is caused. | |
| 15274 </p> | |
| 15275 <p id="XP_Q55_A7-p3"> | |
| 15276 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 41) that the child of a second marriage could not take a consort from within | |
| 15277 the degrees of affinity of the first husband. But this would not be the case unless the son of an affine were also affine. | |
| 15278 Therefore affinity like consanguinity admits itself of degrees. | |
| 15279 </p> | |
| 15280 <p id="XP_Q55_A7-p4"> | |
| 15281 <b>On the contrary,</b> Affinity is caused by consanguinity. Therefore all the degrees of affinity are caused by the degrees of consanguinity: and | |
| 15282 so it has no degrees of itself. | |
| 15283 </p> | |
| 15284 <p id="XP_Q55_A7-p5"> | |
| 15285 <b>I answer that,</b> A thing does not of itself admit of being divided except in reference to something belonging to it by reason of its genus: | |
| 15286 thus animal is divided into rational and irrational and not into white and black. Now carnal procreation has a direct relation | |
| 15287 to consanguinity, because the tie of consanguinity is immediately contracted through it; whereas it has no relation to affinity | |
| 15288 except through consanguinity which is the latter's cause. Wherefore since the | |
| 15289 degrees of relationship are distinguished in reference to carnal procreation, the distinction of degrees is directly and immediately | |
| 15290 referable to consanguinity, and to affinity through consanguinity. Hence the general rule in seeking the degrees of affinity | |
| 15291 is that in whatever degree of consanguinity I am related to the husband, in that same degree of affinity I am related to the | |
| 15292 wife. | |
| 15293 </p> | |
| 15294 <p id="XP_Q55_A7-p6"> | |
| 15295 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The degrees in propinquity of relationship can only be taken in reference to ascent and descent of propagation, to which | |
| 15296 affinity is compared only through consanguinity. Wherefore affinity has no direct degrees, but derives them according to the | |
| 15297 degrees of consanguinity. | |
| 15298 </p> | |
| 15299 <p id="XP_Q55_A7-p7"> | |
| 15300 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Formerly it used to be said that the son of my affine by a second marriage was affine to me, not directly but accidentally | |
| 15301 as it were: wherefore he was forbidden to marry on account of the justice of public honesty rather than affinity. And for | |
| 15302 this reason this prohibition is now revoked. | |
| 15303 </p> | |
| 15304 <p id="XP_Q55_A7-p8"></p> | |
| 15305 <p id="XP_Q55_A7-p9"></p> | |
| 15306 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A6.html"></a> | |
| 15307 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A8.html"></a> | |
| 15308 </div> | |
| 15309 <div id="XP_Q55_A8" class="div4"> | |
| 15310 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A7.html"></a> | |
| 15311 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A9.html"></a> | |
| 15312 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A8-p0.1">Whether the degrees of affinity extend in the same way as the degrees of consanguinity?</h4> | |
| 15313 <p id="XP_Q55_A8-p1"></p> | |
| 15314 <p id="XP_Q55_A8-p2"> | |
| 15315 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the degrees of affinity do not extend in the same way as the degrees of consanguinity. For the tie of | |
| 15316 affinity is less strong than the tie of consanguinity, since affinity arises from consanguinity in diversity of species, as | |
| 15317 from an equivocal cause. Now the stronger the tie the longer it lasts. Therefore the tie of affinity does not last to the | |
| 15318 same number of degrees as consanguinity. | |
| 15319 </p> | |
| 15320 <p id="XP_Q55_A8-p3"> | |
| 15321 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, human law should imitate Divine law. Now according to the Divine law certain degrees of consanguinity were forbidden, | |
| 15322 in which degrees affinity was not an impediment to marriage: as instanced in a brother's wife whom a man could marry although | |
| 15323 he could not marry her sister. Therefore now too the prohibition of affinity and consanguinity should not extend to the same | |
| 15324 degrees. | |
| 15325 </p> | |
| 15326 <p id="XP_Q55_A8-p4"> | |
| 15327 <b>On the contrary,</b> A woman is connected with me by affinity from the very fact that she is married to a blood-relation of mine. Therefore in | |
| 15328 whatever degree her husband is related to me by blood she is related to me in that same degree by affinity: and so the degrees | |
| 15329 of affinity should be reckoned in the same number as the degrees of consanguinity. | |
| 15330 </p> | |
| 15331 <p id="XP_Q55_A8-p5"> | |
| 15332 <b>I answer that,</b> Since the degrees of affinity are reckoned according to the degrees of consanguinity, the degrees of affinity must needs | |
| 15333 be the same in number as those of consanguinity. Nevertheless, affinity being a lesser tie than consanguinity, both formerly | |
| 15334 and now, a dispensation is more easily granted in the more remote degrees of affinity than in the remote degrees of consanguinity. | |
| 15335 </p> | |
| 15336 <p id="XP_Q55_A8-p6"> | |
| 15337 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The fact that the tie of affinity is less than the tie of consanguinity causes a difference in the kind of relationship but | |
| 15338 not in the degrees. Hence this argument is not to the point. | |
| 15339 </p> | |
| 15340 <p id="XP_Q55_A8-p7"> | |
| 15341 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A man could not take his deceased brother's wife except, in the case when the latter died without issue, in order to raise | |
| 15342 up seed to his brother. This was requisite at a time when religious worship was propagated by means of the propagation of | |
| 15343 the flesh, which is not the case now. Hence it is clear that he did not marry her in his own person as it were, but as supplying | |
| 15344 the place of his brother. | |
| 15345 </p> | |
| 15346 <p id="XP_Q55_A8-p8"></p> | |
| 15347 <p id="XP_Q55_A8-p9"></p> | |
| 15348 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A7.html"></a> | |
| 15349 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A9.html"></a> | |
| 15350 </div> | |
| 15351 <div id="XP_Q55_A9" class="div4"> | |
| 15352 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A8.html"></a> | |
| 15353 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A10.html"></a> | |
| 15354 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A9-p0.1">Whether a marriage contracted by persons with the degrees of affinity or consanguinity should always be annulled?</h4> | |
| 15355 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p1"></p> | |
| 15356 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p2"> | |
| 15357 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a marriage contracted by persons within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity ought not always to be | |
| 15358 annulled by divorce. For "what God hath joined together let no man put asunder" ( | |
| 15359 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q55_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.6" target="asv">Mat. 19:6</a>). Since then it is understood that what the Church does God does, and since the Church sometimes through ignorance joins | |
| 15360 such persons together, it would seem that if subsequently this came to knowledge they ought not to be separated. | |
| 15361 </p> | |
| 15362 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p3"> | |
| 15363 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the tie of marriage is less onerous than the tie of ownership. Now after a long time a man may acquire by prescription | |
| 15364 the ownership of a thing of which he was not the owner. Therefore by length of time a marriage becomes good in law, although | |
| 15365 it was not so before. | |
| 15366 </p> | |
| 15367 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p4"> | |
| 15368 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, of like things we judge alike. Now if a marriage ought to be annulled on account of consanguinity, in the case when | |
| 15369 two brothers marry two sisters, if one be separated on account of consanguinity, the other ought to be separated for the same | |
| 15370 reason. and yet this is not seemly. Therefore a marriage ought not to be annulled on account of affinity or consanguinity. | |
| 15371 </p> | |
| 15372 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p5"> | |
| 15373 <b>On the contrary,</b> Consanguinity and affinity forbid the contracting of a marriage and void the contract. Therefore if affinity or consanguinity | |
| 15374 be proved, the parties should be separated even though they have actually contracted marriage. | |
| 15375 </p> | |
| 15376 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p6"> | |
| 15377 <b>I answer that,</b> Since all copulation apart from lawful marriage is a mortal sin, which the Church uses all her endeavors to prevent, it belongs | |
| 15378 to her to separate those between whom there cannot be valid marriage, especially those related by blood or by affinity, who | |
| 15379 cannot without incest be united in the flesh. | |
| 15380 </p> | |
| 15381 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p7"> | |
| 15382 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the Church is upheld by God's gift and authority, yet in so far as she is an assembly of men there results in her | |
| 15383 acts something of human frailty which is not Divine. Therefore a union effected in the presence of the Church who is ignorant | |
| 15384 of an impediment is not indissoluble by Divine authority, but is brought about contrary to Divine authority through man's | |
| 15385 error, which being an error of fact excuses from sin, as long as it remains. Hence | |
| 15386 when the impediment comes to the knowledge of the Church, she ought to sever the aforesaid union. | |
| 15387 </p> | |
| 15388 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p8"> | |
| 15389 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That which cannot be done without sin is not ratified by any prescription, for as Innocent III says (Conc. Later. iv, can. | |
| 15390 50: cap. Non debent, De consang. et affinit.), "length of time does not diminish sin but increases it": nor can it in any | |
| 15391 way legitimize a marriage which could not take place between unlawful persons. | |
| 15392 </p> | |
| 15393 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p9"> | |
| 15394 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In contentious suits between two persons the verdict does not prejudice a third party, wherefore although the one brother's | |
| 15395 marriage with the one sister is annulled on account of consanguinity, the Church does not therefore annul the other marriage | |
| 15396 against which no action is taken. Yet in the tribunal of the conscience the other brother ought not on this account always | |
| 15397 to be bound to put away his wife, because such accusations frequently proceed from | |
| 15398 ill-will, and are proved by false witnesses. Hence he is not bound to form his conscience on what has been done about the | |
| 15399 other marriage: but seemingly one ought to draw a distinction, because either he has certain knowledge of the impediment of | |
| 15400 his marriage, or he has an opinion about it, or he has neither. In the first case, he can neither seek nor pay the debt, in | |
| 15401 the second, he must pay, but not ask, in the third he can both pay and ask. | |
| 15402 </p> | |
| 15403 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p10"></p> | |
| 15404 <p id="XP_Q55_A9-p11"></p> | |
| 15405 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A8.html"></a> | |
| 15406 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A10.html"></a> | |
| 15407 </div> | |
| 15408 <div id="XP_Q55_A10" class="div4"> | |
| 15409 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A9.html"></a> | |
| 15410 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A11.html"></a> | |
| 15411 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A10-p0.1">Whether it is necessary to proceed by way of accusation for the annulment of a marriage contracted by persons related to each | |
| 15412 other by affinity or consanguinity? | |
| 15413 </h4> | |
| 15414 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p1"></p> | |
| 15415 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p2"> | |
| 15416 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one ought not to proceed by way of accusation in order to sever a marriage contracted between persons | |
| 15417 related by affinity or consanguinity. Because accusation is preceded by inscription* whereby a man binds himself to suffer | |
| 15418 the punishment of retaliation, if he fail to prove his accusation. [*The accuser was bound by Roman Law to endorse (se inscribere) | |
| 15419 the writ of accusation; Cf. | |
| 15420 <a id="XP_Q55_A10-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q33_A7.html">SS, Q[33], A[7]</a>]. But this is not | |
| 15421 required when a matrimonial separation is at issue. Therefore accusation has no place then. | |
| 15422 </p> | |
| 15423 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p3"> | |
| 15424 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in a matrimonial lawsuit only the relatives are heard, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 41). But in accusations | |
| 15425 even strangers are heard. Therefore in a suit for matrimonial separation the process is not by way of accusation. | |
| 15426 </p> | |
| 15427 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p4"> | |
| 15428 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if a marriage ought to be denounced this should be done especially where it is least difficult to sever the tie. | |
| 15429 Now this is when only the betrothal has been contracted, and then it is not the marriage that is denounced. Therefore accusation | |
| 15430 should never take place at any other time. | |
| 15431 </p> | |
| 15432 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p5"> | |
| 15433 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a man is not prevented from accusing by the fact that he does not accuse at once. But this happens in marriage, | |
| 15434 for if he was silent at first when the marriage was being contracted, he cannot denounce the marriage afterwards without laying | |
| 15435 himself open to suspicion. Therefore, etc. | |
| 15436 </p> | |
| 15437 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p6"> | |
| 15438 <b>On the contrary,</b> Whatever is unlawful can be denounced. But the marriage of relatives by affinity and consanguinity is unlawful. Therefore | |
| 15439 it can be denounced. | |
| 15440 </p> | |
| 15441 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p7"> | |
| 15442 <b>I answer that,</b> Accusation is instituted lest the guilty be tolerated as though they were innocent. Now just as it happens through ignorance | |
| 15443 of fact that a guilty man is reputed innocent, so it happens through ignorance of a circumstance that a certain fact is deemed | |
| 15444 lawful whereas it is unlawful. Wherefore just as a man is sometimes accused, so is a fact sometimes an object of accusation. | |
| 15445 It is in this way that a marriage is denounced, when through ignorance of an | |
| 15446 impediment it is deemed lawful, whereas it is unlawful. | |
| 15447 </p> | |
| 15448 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p8"> | |
| 15449 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The punishment of retaliation takes place when a person is accused of a crime, because then action is taken that he may be | |
| 15450 punished. But when it is a deed that is accused, action is taken not for the punishment of the doer, but in order to prevent | |
| 15451 what is unlawful. Hence in a matrimonial suit the accuser does not bind himself to a punishment. Moreover, the accusation | |
| 15452 may be made either in words or in writing, provided the person who denounces the | |
| 15453 marriage denounced, and the impediment for which it is denounced, be expressed. | |
| 15454 </p> | |
| 15455 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p9"> | |
| 15456 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Strangers cannot know of the consanguinity except from the relatives, since these know with greater probability. Hence when | |
| 15457 these are silent, a stranger is liable to be suspected of acting from ill-will unless he wish the relatives to prove his assertion. | |
| 15458 Wherefore a stranger is debarred from accusing when there are relatives who are silent, and by whom he cannot prove his accusation. | |
| 15459 On the other hand the relatives, however nearly related they be, | |
| 15460 are not debarred from accusing, when the marriage is denounced on account of a perpetual impediment, which prevents the contracting | |
| 15461 of the marriage and voids the contract. When, however, the accusation is based on a denial of the contract having taken place, | |
| 15462 the parents should be debarred from witnessing as being liable to suspicion, except those of the party that is inferior in | |
| 15463 rank and wealth, for they, one is inclined to think, would be willing for the marriage to stand. | |
| 15464 </p> | |
| 15465 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p10"> | |
| 15466 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If the marriage is not yet contracted and there is only a betrothal, there can be no accusation, for what is not, cannot | |
| 15467 be accused. But the impediment can be denounced lest the marriage be contracted. | |
| 15468 </p> | |
| 15469 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p11"> | |
| 15470 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> He who is silent at first is sometimes heard afterwards if he wish to denounce the marriage, and sometimes he is repulsed. | |
| 15471 This is made clear by the Decretal (cap. Cum in tua, De his qui matrim. accus. possunt.) which runs as follows: "If an accuser | |
| 15472 present himself after the marriage has been contracted, since he did not declare himself when according to custom, the banns | |
| 15473 were published in church, we may rightly ask whether he should be allowed to | |
| 15474 voice his accusation. In this matter we deem that a distinction should be made, so that if he who lodges information against | |
| 15475 persons already married was absent from the diocese at the time of the aforesaid publication, or if for some other reason | |
| 15476 this could not come to his knowledge, for instance if through exceeding stress of weakness and fever he was not in possession | |
| 15477 of his faculties, or was of so tender years as to be too young to understand such matters, or if he were hindered by some | |
| 15478 other lawful cause, his accusation should be heard. otherwise without doubt he should be repulsed as open to suspicion, unless | |
| 15479 he swear that the information lodged by him came to his knowledge subsequently and that he is not moved by ill-will to make | |
| 15480 his accusation." | |
| 15481 </p> | |
| 15482 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p12"></p> | |
| 15483 <p id="XP_Q55_A10-p13"></p> | |
| 15484 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A9.html"></a> | |
| 15485 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A11.html"></a> | |
| 15486 </div> | |
| 15487 <div id="XP_Q55_A11" class="div4"> | |
| 15488 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A10.html"></a> | |
| 15489 <a href="summa.XP_Q56.html"></a> | |
| 15490 <h4 id="XP_Q55_A11-p0.1">Whether in a suit of this kind one should proceed by hearing witnesses in the same way as in other suits?</h4> | |
| 15491 <p id="XP_Q55_A11-p1"></p> | |
| 15492 <p id="XP_Q55_A11-p2"> | |
| 15493 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in such a suit one ought not to proceed by hearing witnesses, in the same way as in other suits where | |
| 15494 any witnesses may be called provided they be unexceptionable. But here strangers are not admitted, although they be unexceptionable. | |
| 15495 Therefore, etc. | |
| 15496 </p> | |
| 15497 <p id="XP_Q55_A11-p3"> | |
| 15498 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, witnesses who are suspected of private hatred or love are debarred from giving evidence. Now relatives are especially | |
| 15499 open to suspicion of love for one party, and hatred for the other. Therefore their evidence should not be taken. | |
| 15500 </p> | |
| 15501 <p id="XP_Q55_A11-p4"> | |
| 15502 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, marriage is a more favorable suit than those others in which purely corporeal questions are at stake. Now in these | |
| 15503 the same person cannot be both accuser and witness. Neither therefore can this be in a matrimonial suit; and so it would appear | |
| 15504 that it is not right to proceed by hearing witnesses in a suit of this kind. | |
| 15505 </p> | |
| 15506 <p id="XP_Q55_A11-p5"> | |
| 15507 <b>On the contrary,</b> Witnesses are called in a suit in order to give the judge evidence concerning matters of doubt. Now evidence should be afforded | |
| 15508 the judge in this suit as in other suits, since he must not pronounce a hasty judgment on what is not proven. Therefore here | |
| 15509 as in other lawsuits witnesses should be called. | |
| 15510 </p> | |
| 15511 <p id="XP_Q55_A11-p6"> | |
| 15512 <b>I answer that,</b> In this kind of lawsuit as in others, truth must be unveiled by witnesses: yet, as the lawyers say, there are many things | |
| 15513 peculiar to this suit; namely that "the same person can be accuser and witness; that evidence is not taken 'on oath of calumny,' | |
| 15514 since it is a quasi-spiritual lawsuit; that relatives are allowed as witnesses; that the juridical order is not perfectly | |
| 15515 observed, since if the denunciation has been made, and the suit is uncontested, the | |
| 15516 defendant may be excommunicated if contumacious; that hearsay evidence is admitted; and that witnesses may be called after | |
| 15517 the publication of the names of the witnesses." All this is in order to prevent the sin that may occur in such a union (cap. | |
| 15518 Quoties aliqui; cap. Super eo, De test. et attest.; cap. Literas, De juram. calumn.). | |
| 15519 </p> | |
| 15520 <p id="XP_Q55_A11-p7"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 15521 <p id="XP_Q55_A11-p8"></p> | |
| 15522 <p id="XP_Q55_A11-p9"></p> | |
| 15523 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A10.html"></a> | |
| 15524 <a href="summa.XP_Q56.html"></a> | |
| 15525 </div> | |
| 15526 <a href="summa.XP_Q54_A4.html"></a> | |
| 15527 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A1.html"></a> | |
| 15528 </div> | |
| 15529 <div id="XP_Q56" class="div3"> | |
| 15530 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A11.html"></a> | |
| 15531 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A1.html"></a> | |
| 15532 <h3 id="XP_Q56-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENT OF SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 15533 <p id="XP_Q56-p1"></p> | |
| 15534 <p id="XP_Q56-p2"> We must now consider the impediment of spiritual relationship: under which head there are five points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 15535 <p id="XP_Q56-p3"> (1) Whether spiritual relationship is an impediment to marriage?</p> | |
| 15536 <p id="XP_Q56-p4"> (2) From what cause is it contracted?</p> | |
| 15537 <p id="XP_Q56-p5"> (3) Between whom?</p> | |
| 15538 <p id="XP_Q56-p6"> (4) Whether it passes from husband to wife?</p> | |
| 15539 <p id="XP_Q56-p7"> (5) Whether it passes to the father's carnal children?</p> | |
| 15540 <div id="XP_Q56_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 15541 <a href="summa.XP_Q56.html"></a> | |
| 15542 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A2.html"></a> | |
| 15543 <h4 id="XP_Q56_A1-p0.1">Whether spiritual relationship is an impediment to marriage?</h4> | |
| 15544 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 15545 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p2"> | |
| 15546 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that spiritual relationship is not an impediment to marriage. For nothing is an impediment to marriage save | |
| 15547 what is contrary to a marriage good. Now spiritual relationship is not contrary to a marriage good. Therefore it is not an | |
| 15548 impediment to marriage. | |
| 15549 </p> | |
| 15550 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p3"> | |
| 15551 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a perpetual impediment to marriage cannot stand together with marriage. But spiritual relationship sometimes stands | |
| 15552 together with marriage, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 42), as when a man in a case of necessity baptizes his own child, | |
| 15553 for then he contracts a spiritual relationship with his wife, and yet the marriage is not dissolved. Therefore spiritual relationship | |
| 15554 is not an impediment to marriage. | |
| 15555 </p> | |
| 15556 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p4"> | |
| 15557 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, union of the spirit does not pass to the flesh. But marriage is a union of the flesh. Therefore since spiritual | |
| 15558 relationship is a union of the spirit, it cannot become an impediment to marriage. | |
| 15559 </p> | |
| 15560 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p5"> | |
| 15561 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, contraries have not the same effects. Now spiritual relationship is apparently contrary to disparity of worship, | |
| 15562 since spiritual relationship is a kinship resulting from the giving of a sacrament or the intention of so doing [*See next | |
| 15563 Article, ad 3]: whereas disparity of worship consists in the lack of a sacrament, as stated above ( | |
| 15564 <a id="XP_Q56_A1-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q50_A1.html">Q[50], A[1]</a>). Since then disparity of worship is an impediment to matrimony, it would seem that | |
| 15565 spiritual relationship has not this effect. | |
| 15566 </p> | |
| 15567 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p6"> | |
| 15568 <b>On the contrary,</b> The holier the bond, the more is it to be safeguarded. Now a spiritual bond is holier than a bodily tie: and since the tie | |
| 15569 of bodily kinship is an impediment to marriage, it follows that spiritual relationship should also be an impediment. | |
| 15570 </p> | |
| 15571 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p7"> Further, in marriage the union of souls ranks higher than union of bodies, for it precedes it. Therefore with much more reason | |
| 15572 can a spiritual relationship hinder marriage than bodily relationship does. | |
| 15573 </p> | |
| 15574 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p8"> | |
| 15575 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as by carnal procreation man receives natural being, so by the sacraments he receives the spiritual being of grace. | |
| 15576 Wherefore just as the tie that is contracted by carnal procreation is natural to man, inasmuch as he is a natural being, so | |
| 15577 the tie that is contracted from the reception of the sacraments is after a fashion natural to man, inasmuch as he is a member | |
| 15578 of the Church. Therefore as carnal relationship hinders marriage, even so does spiritual | |
| 15579 relationship by command of the Church. We must however draw a distinction in reference to spiritual relationship, since either | |
| 15580 it precedes or follows marriage. If it precedes, it hinders the contracting of marriage and voids the contract. If it follows, | |
| 15581 it does not dissolve the marriage bond: but we must draw a further distinction in reference to the marriage act. For either | |
| 15582 the spiritual relationship is contracted in a case of necessity, as when a father baptizes his child who is at the point | |
| 15583 of death---and then it is not an obstacle to the marriage act on either side---or it is contracted without any necessity and | |
| 15584 through ignorance, in which case if the person whose action has occasioned the relationship acted with due caution, it is | |
| 15585 the same with him as in the former case---or it is contracted purposely and without any necessity, and then the person whose | |
| 15586 action has occasioned the relationship, loses the right to ask for the debt; but is bound to pay if asked, because the fault | |
| 15587 of | |
| 15588 the one party should not be prejudicial to the other. | |
| 15589 </p> | |
| 15590 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p9"> | |
| 15591 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although spiritual relationship does not hinder any of the chief marriage goods, it hinders one of the secondary goods, namely | |
| 15592 the extension of friendship, because spiritual relationship is by itself a sufficient reason for friendship: wherefore intimacy | |
| 15593 and friendship with other persons need to be sought by means of marriage. | |
| 15594 </p> | |
| 15595 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p10"> | |
| 15596 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Marriage is a lasting bond, wherefore no supervening impediment can sever it. Hence it happens sometimes that marriage and | |
| 15597 an impediment to marriage stand together, but not if the impediment precedes. | |
| 15598 </p> | |
| 15599 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p11"> | |
| 15600 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In marriage there is not only a bodily but also a spiritual union: and consequently kinship of spirit proves an impediment | |
| 15601 thereto, without spiritual kinship having to pass into a bodily relationship. | |
| 15602 </p> | |
| 15603 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p12"> | |
| 15604 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> There is nothing unreasonable in two things that are contrary to one another being contrary to the same thing, as great and | |
| 15605 small are contrary to equal. Thus disparity of worship and spiritual relationship are opposed to marriage, because in one | |
| 15606 the distance is greater, and in the other less, than required by marriage. Hence there is an impediment to marriage in either | |
| 15607 case. | |
| 15608 </p> | |
| 15609 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 15610 <p id="XP_Q56_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 15611 <a href="summa.XP_Q56.html"></a> | |
| 15612 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A2.html"></a> | |
| 15613 </div> | |
| 15614 <div id="XP_Q56_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 15615 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A1.html"></a> | |
| 15616 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A3.html"></a> | |
| 15617 <h4 id="XP_Q56_A2-p0.1">Whether spiritual relationship is contracted by baptism only?</h4> | |
| 15618 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 15619 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p2"> | |
| 15620 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that spiritual relationship is contracted by Baptism only. For as bodily kinship is to bodily birth, so is | |
| 15621 spiritual kinship to spiritual birth. Now Baptism alone is called spiritual birth. Therefore spiritual kinship is contracted | |
| 15622 by Baptism only, even as only by carnal birth is carnal kinship contracted. | |
| 15623 </p> | |
| 15624 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p3"> | |
| 15625 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a character is imprinted in order as in Confirmation. But spiritual relationship does not result from receiving | |
| 15626 orders. Therefore it does not result from Confirmation but only from Baptism. | |
| 15627 </p> | |
| 15628 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p4"> | |
| 15629 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sacraments are more excellent than sacramentals. Now spiritual relationship does not result from certain sacraments, | |
| 15630 for instance from Extreme Unction. Much less therefore does it result from catechizing, as some maintain. | |
| 15631 </p> | |
| 15632 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p5"> | |
| 15633 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, many other sacramentals are attached to Baptism besides catechizing. Therefore spiritual relationship is not contracted | |
| 15634 from catechism any more than from the others. | |
| 15635 </p> | |
| 15636 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p6"> | |
| 15637 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, prayer is no less efficacious than instruction of catechism for advancement in good. But spiritual relationship | |
| 15638 does not result from prayer. Therefore it does not result from catechism. | |
| 15639 </p> | |
| 15640 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p7"> | |
| 15641 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the instruction given to the baptized by preaching to them avails no less than preaching to those who are not yet | |
| 15642 baptized. But no spiritual relationship results from preaching. Neither therefore does it result from catechism. | |
| 15643 </p> | |
| 15644 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p8"> | |
| 15645 <b>Objection 7:</b> On the other hand, It is written ( | |
| 15646 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q56_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:15</a>): "In Christ Jesus by the gospel I have begotten you." Now spiritual birth causes spiritual relationship. Therefore spiritual | |
| 15647 relationship results from the preaching of the gospel and instruction, and not only from Baptism. | |
| 15648 </p> | |
| 15649 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p9"> | |
| 15650 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, as original sin is taken away by Baptism, so is actual sin taken away by Penance. Therefore just as Baptism causes | |
| 15651 spiritual relationship, so also does Penance. | |
| 15652 </p> | |
| 15653 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p10"> | |
| 15654 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, "father" denotes relationship. Now a man is called another's spiritual father in respect of Penance, teaching, pastoral | |
| 15655 care and many other like things. Therefore spiritual relationship is contracted from many other sources besides Baptism and | |
| 15656 Confirmation. | |
| 15657 </p> | |
| 15658 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p11"> | |
| 15659 <b>I answer that,</b> There are three opinions on this question. Some say that as spiritual regeneration is bestowed by the sevenfold grace of | |
| 15660 the Holy Ghost, it is caused by means of seven things, beginning with the first taste of blessed salt and ending with Confirmation | |
| 15661 given by the bishop: and they say that spiritual relationship is contracted by each of these seven things. But this does not | |
| 15662 seem reasonable, for carnal relationship is not contracted except by a perfect act of | |
| 15663 generation. Wherefore affinity is not contracted except there be mingling of seeds, from which it is possible for carnal generation | |
| 15664 to follow. Now spiritual generation is not perfected except by a sacrament: wherefore it does not seem fitting for spiritual | |
| 15665 relationship to be contracted otherwise than through a sacrament. Hence others say that spiritual relationship is only contracted | |
| 15666 through three sacraments, namely catechism, Baptism and Confirmation, but these do not apparently know the | |
| 15667 meaning of what they say, since catechism is not a sacrament but a sacramental. Wherefore others say that it is contracted | |
| 15668 through two sacraments only, namely Confirmation and Baptism, and this is the more common opinion. Some however of these say | |
| 15669 that catechism is a weak impediment, since it hinders the contracting of marriage but does not void the contract. | |
| 15670 </p> | |
| 15671 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p12"> | |
| 15672 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Carnal birth is twofold. The first is in the womb, wherein that which is born is a weakling and cannot come forth without | |
| 15673 danger: and to this birth regeneration by Baptism is likened; wherein a man is regenerated as though yet needing to be fostered | |
| 15674 in the womb of the Church. The second is birth from out of the womb, when that which was born in the womb is so far strengthened | |
| 15675 that it can without danger face the outer world which has a natural | |
| 15676 corruptive tendency. To this is likened Confirmation, whereby man being strengthened goes forth abroad to confess the name | |
| 15677 of Christ. Hence spiritual relationship is fittingly contracted through both these sacraments. | |
| 15678 </p> | |
| 15679 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p13"> | |
| 15680 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The effect of the sacrament of order is not regeneration but the bestowal of power, for which reason it is not conferred | |
| 15681 on women, and consequently no impediment to marriage can arise therefrom. Hence this kind of relationship does not count. | |
| 15682 </p> | |
| 15683 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p14"> | |
| 15684 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In catechism one makes a profession of future Baptism, just as in betrothal one enters an engagement of future marriage. | |
| 15685 Wherefore just as in betrothal a certain kind of propinquity is contracted, so is there in catechism, whereby marriage is | |
| 15686 rendered at least unlawful, as some say; but not in the other sacraments. | |
| 15687 </p> | |
| 15688 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p15"> | |
| 15689 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> There is not made a profession of faith in the other sacramentals of Baptism, as in catechism: wherefore the comparison fails. | |
| 15690 </p> | |
| 15691 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p16"> The same answer applies to the Fifth and Sixth Objections.</p> | |
| 15692 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p17"> | |
| 15693 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The Apostle had instructed them in the faith by a kind of catechism; and consequently his instruction was directed to their | |
| 15694 spiritual birth. | |
| 15695 </p> | |
| 15696 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p18"> | |
| 15697 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> Properly speaking a spiritual relationship is not contracted through the sacrament of Penance. Wherefore a priest's son can | |
| 15698 marry a woman whose confession the priest has heard, else in the whole parish he could not find a woman whom he could marry. | |
| 15699 Nor does it matter that by Penance actual sin is taken away, for this is not a kind of birth, but a kind of healing. Nevertheless | |
| 15700 Penance occasions a kind of bond between the woman penitent and the priest, | |
| 15701 that has a resemblance to spiritual relationship, so that if he have carnal intercourse with her, he sins as grievously as | |
| 15702 if she were his spiritual daughter. The reason of this is that the relations between priest and penitent are most intimate, | |
| 15703 and consequently in order to remove the occasion of sin this prohibition [*Can. Omnes quos, and seqq., Caus. xxx] was made. | |
| 15704 </p> | |
| 15705 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p19"> | |
| 15706 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> A spiritual father is so called from his likeness to a carnal father. Now as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 2) a carnal | |
| 15707 father gives his child three things, being nourishment and instruction: and consequently a person's spiritual father is so | |
| 15708 called from one of these three things. Nevertheless he has not, through being his spiritual father, a spiritual relationship | |
| 15709 with him, unless he is like a (carnal) father as to generation which is the way to | |
| 15710 being. This solution may also be applied to the foregoing Eighth Objection. | |
| 15711 </p> | |
| 15712 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p20"></p> | |
| 15713 <p id="XP_Q56_A2-p21"></p> | |
| 15714 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A1.html"></a> | |
| 15715 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A3.html"></a> | |
| 15716 </div> | |
| 15717 <div id="XP_Q56_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 15718 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A2.html"></a> | |
| 15719 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A4.html"></a> | |
| 15720 <h4 id="XP_Q56_A3-p0.1">Whether spiritual relationship is contracted between the person baptized and the person who raises him from the sacred font?</h4> | |
| 15721 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 15722 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p2"> | |
| 15723 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that spiritual relationship is not contracted between the person baptized and the person who raises him from | |
| 15724 the sacred font. For in carnal generation carnal relationship is contracted only on the part of the person of whose seed the | |
| 15725 child is born; and not on the part of the person who receives the child after birth. Therefore neither is spiritual relationship | |
| 15726 contracted between the receiver and the received at the sacred font. | |
| 15727 </p> | |
| 15728 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p3"> | |
| 15729 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he who raises a person from the sacred font is called {anadochos} by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii): and it is part | |
| 15730 of his office to instruct the child. But instruction is not a sufficient cause of spiritual relationship, as stated above | |
| 15731 | |
| 15732 <a id="XP_Q56_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q56_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore no relationship is contracted between him and the person whom he raises from the sacred font. | |
| 15733 </p> | |
| 15734 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p4"> | |
| 15735 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it may happen that someone raises a person from the sacred font before he himself is baptized. Now spiritual relationship | |
| 15736 is not contracted in such a case, since one who is not baptized is not capable of spirituality. Therefore raising a person | |
| 15737 from the sacred font is not sufficient to contract a spiritual relationship. | |
| 15738 </p> | |
| 15739 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p5"> | |
| 15740 <b>On the contrary,</b> There is the definition of spiritual relationship quoted above | |
| 15741 <a id="XP_Q56_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q56_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, as also the authorities mentioned in the text (Sent. iv, D, 42). | |
| 15742 </p> | |
| 15743 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p6"> | |
| 15744 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as in carnal generation a person is born of a father and mother, so in spiritual generation a person is born again a | |
| 15745 son of God as Father, and of the Church as Mother. Now while he who confers the sacrament stands in the place of God, whose | |
| 15746 instrument and minister he is, he who raises a baptized person from the sacred font, or holds the candidate for Confirmation, | |
| 15747 stands in the place of the Church. Therefore spiritual relationship is contracted with | |
| 15748 both. | |
| 15749 </p> | |
| 15750 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p7"> | |
| 15751 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Not only the father, of whose seed the child is born, is related carnally to the child, but also the mother who provides | |
| 15752 the matter, and in whose womb the child is begotten. So too the godparent who in place of the Church offers and raises the | |
| 15753 candidate for Baptism and holds the candidate for Confirmation contracts spiritual relationship. | |
| 15754 </p> | |
| 15755 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p8"> | |
| 15756 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> He contracts spiritual relationship not by reason of the instruction it is his duty to give, but on account of the spiritual | |
| 15757 birth in which he co-operates. | |
| 15758 </p> | |
| 15759 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p9"> | |
| 15760 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A person who is not baptized cannot raise anyone from the sacred font, since he is not a member of the Church whom the godparent | |
| 15761 in Baptism represents: although he can baptize, because he is a creature of God Whom the baptizer represents. And yet he cannot | |
| 15762 contract a spiritual relationship, since he is void of spiritual life to which man is first born by receiving Baptism. | |
| 15763 </p> | |
| 15764 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p10"></p> | |
| 15765 <p id="XP_Q56_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 15766 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A2.html"></a> | |
| 15767 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A4.html"></a> | |
| 15768 </div> | |
| 15769 <div id="XP_Q56_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 15770 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A3.html"></a> | |
| 15771 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A5.html"></a> | |
| 15772 <h4 id="XP_Q56_A4-p0.1">Whether spiritual relationship passes from husband to wife?</h4> | |
| 15773 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 15774 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p2"> | |
| 15775 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that spiritual relationship does not pass from husband to wife. For spiritual and bodily union are disparate | |
| 15776 and differ generically. Therefore carnal union which is between husband and wife cannot be the means of contracting a spiritual | |
| 15777 relationship. | |
| 15778 </p> | |
| 15779 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p3"> | |
| 15780 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the godfather and godmother have more in common in the spiritual birth that is the cause of spiritual relationship, | |
| 15781 than a husband, who is godfather, has with his wife. Now godfather and godmother do not hereby contract spiritual relationship. | |
| 15782 Therefore neither does a wife contract a spiritual relationship through her husband being godfather to someone. | |
| 15783 </p> | |
| 15784 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p4"> | |
| 15785 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it may happen that the husband is baptized, and his wife not, for instance when he is converted from unbelief without | |
| 15786 his wife being converted. Now spiritual relationship cannot be contracted by one who is not baptized. Therefore it does not | |
| 15787 always pass from husband to wife. | |
| 15788 </p> | |
| 15789 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p5"> | |
| 15790 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, husband and wife together can raise a person from the sacred font, since no law forbids it. If therefore spiritual | |
| 15791 relationship passed from husband to wife, it would follow that each of them is twice godfather or godmother of the same individual: | |
| 15792 which is absurd. | |
| 15793 </p> | |
| 15794 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p6"> | |
| 15795 <b>On the contrary,</b> Spiritual goods are more communicable than bodily goods. But the bodily consanguinity of the husband passes to his wife by | |
| 15796 affinity. Much more therefore does spiritual relationship. | |
| 15797 </p> | |
| 15798 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p7"> | |
| 15799 <b>I answer that,</b> A may become co-parent with B in two ways. First, by the act of another (B), who baptizes A's child, or raises him in Baptism. | |
| 15800 In this way spiritual relationship does not pass from husband to wife, unless perchance it be his wife's child, for then she | |
| 15801 contracts spiritual relationship directly, even as her husband. Secondly, by his own act, for instance when he raises B's | |
| 15802 child from the sacred font, and thus spiritual relationship passes to the wife if he has | |
| 15803 already had carnal knowledge of her, but not if the marriage be not yet consummated, since they are not as yet made one flesh: | |
| 15804 and this is by way of a kind of affinity; wherefore it would seem on the same grounds to pass to a woman of whom he has carnal | |
| 15805 knowledge, though she be not his wife. Hence the verse: "I may not marry my own child's godmother, nor the mother of my godchild: | |
| 15806 but I may marry the godmother of my wife's child." | |
| 15807 </p> | |
| 15808 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p8"> | |
| 15809 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> From the fact that corporal and spiritual union differ generically we may conclude that the one is not the other, but not | |
| 15810 that the one cannot cause the other, since things of different genera sometimes cause one another either directly or indirectly. | |
| 15811 </p> | |
| 15812 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p9"> | |
| 15813 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The godfather and godmother of the same person are not united in that person's spiritual birth save accidentally, since one | |
| 15814 of them would be self-sufficient for the purpose. Hence it does not follow from this that any spiritual relationship results | |
| 15815 between them whereby they are hindered from marrying one another. Hence the verse: | |
| 15816 </p> | |
| 15817 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p10"> "Of two co-parents one is always spiritual, the other carnal: this rule is infallible."</p> | |
| 15818 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p11"> On the other hand, marriage by itself makes husband and wife one flesh: wherefore the comparison fails.</p> | |
| 15819 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p12"> | |
| 15820 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If the wife be not baptized, the spiritual relationship will not reach her, because she is not a fit subject, and not because | |
| 15821 spiritual relationship cannot pass from husband to wife through marriage. | |
| 15822 </p> | |
| 15823 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p13"> | |
| 15824 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Since no spiritual relationship results between godfather and godmother, nothing prevents husband and wife from raising together | |
| 15825 someone from the sacred font. Nor is it absurd that the wife become twice godmother of the same person from different causes, | |
| 15826 just as it is possible for her to be connected in carnal relationship both by affinity and consanguinity to the same person. | |
| 15827 </p> | |
| 15828 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 15829 <p id="XP_Q56_A4-p15"></p> | |
| 15830 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A3.html"></a> | |
| 15831 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A5.html"></a> | |
| 15832 </div> | |
| 15833 <div id="XP_Q56_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 15834 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A4.html"></a> | |
| 15835 <a href="summa.XP_Q57.html"></a> | |
| 15836 <h4 id="XP_Q56_A5-p0.1">Whether spiritual relationship passes to the godfather's carnal children?</h4> | |
| 15837 <p id="XP_Q56_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 15838 <p id="XP_Q56_A5-p2"> | |
| 15839 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that spiritual relationship does not pass to the godfather's carnal children. For no degrees are assigned to | |
| 15840 spiritual relationship. Yet there would be degrees if it passed from father to son, since the person begotten involves a change | |
| 15841 of degree, as stated above ( | |
| 15842 <a id="XP_Q56_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q55_A5.html">Q[55], A[5]</a>). Therefore it does not pass to the godfather's carnal sons. | |
| 15843 </p> | |
| 15844 <p id="XP_Q56_A5-p3"> | |
| 15845 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, father and son are related in the same degree as brother and brother. If therefore spiritual relationship passes | |
| 15846 from father to son, it will equally pass from brother to brother: and this is false. | |
| 15847 </p> | |
| 15848 <p id="XP_Q56_A5-p4"> | |
| 15849 <b>On the contrary,</b> This is proved by authority quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 42). | |
| 15850 </p> | |
| 15851 <p id="XP_Q56_A5-p5"> | |
| 15852 <b>I answer that,</b> A son is something of his father and not conversely (Ethic. viii, 12): wherefore spiritual relationship passes from father | |
| 15853 to his carnal son and not conversely. Thus it is clear that there are three spiritual relationships: one called spiritual | |
| 15854 fatherhood between godfather and godchild; another called co-paternity between the godparent and carnal parent of the same | |
| 15855 person; and the third is called spiritual brotherhood, between godchild and the carnal | |
| 15856 children of the same parent. Each of these hinders the contracting of marriage and voids the contract. | |
| 15857 </p> | |
| 15858 <p id="XP_Q56_A5-p6"> | |
| 15859 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The addition of a person by carnal generation entails a degree with regard to a person connected by the same kind of relationship, | |
| 15860 but not with regard to one connected by another kind of relationship. Thus a son is connected with his father's wife in the | |
| 15861 same degree as his father, but by another kind of relationship. Now spiritual relationship differs in kind from carnal. Wherefore | |
| 15862 a godson is not related to his godfather's carnal son in the same | |
| 15863 degree as the latter's father is related to him, through whom the spiritual relationship is contracted. Consequently it does | |
| 15864 not follow that spiritual relationship admits of degrees. | |
| 15865 </p> | |
| 15866 <p id="XP_Q56_A5-p7"> | |
| 15867 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A man is not part of his brother as a son is of his father. But a wife is part of her husband, since she is made one with | |
| 15868 him in body. Consequently the relationship does not pass from brother to brother, whether the brother be born before or after | |
| 15869 spiritual brotherhood. | |
| 15870 </p> | |
| 15871 <p id="XP_Q56_A5-p8"></p> | |
| 15872 <p id="XP_Q56_A5-p9"></p> | |
| 15873 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A4.html"></a> | |
| 15874 <a href="summa.XP_Q57.html"></a> | |
| 15875 </div> | |
| 15876 <a href="summa.XP_Q55_A11.html"></a> | |
| 15877 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A1.html"></a> | |
| 15878 </div> | |
| 15879 <div id="XP_Q57" class="div3"> | |
| 15880 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A5.html"></a> | |
| 15881 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A1.html"></a> | |
| 15882 <h3 id="XP_Q57-p0.1">OF LEGAL RELATIONSHIP, WHICH IS BY ADOPTION (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 15883 <p id="XP_Q57-p1"></p> | |
| 15884 <p id="XP_Q57-p2"> We must now consider legal relationship which is by adoption. Under this head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 15885 <p id="XP_Q57-p3"> (1) What is adoption?</p> | |
| 15886 <p id="XP_Q57-p4"> (2) Whether one contracts through it a tie that is an impediment to marriage?</p> | |
| 15887 <p id="XP_Q57-p5"> (3) Between which persons is this tie contracted.</p> | |
| 15888 <div id="XP_Q57_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 15889 <a href="summa.XP_Q57.html"></a> | |
| 15890 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A2.html"></a> | |
| 15891 <h4 id="XP_Q57_A1-p0.1">Whether adoption is rightly defined?</h4> | |
| 15892 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 15893 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p2"> | |
| 15894 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that adoption is not rightly defined: "Adoption is the act by which a person lawfully takes for his child or | |
| 15895 grandchild and so on one who does not belong to him." For the child should be subject to its father. Now, sometimes the person | |
| 15896 adopted does not come under the power of the adopter. Therefore adoption is not always the taking of someone as a child. | |
| 15897 </p> | |
| 15898 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p3"> | |
| 15899 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "Parents should lay up for their children" ( | |
| 15900 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q57_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:14</a>). But the adoptive father does not always necessarily lay up for his adopted child, since sometimes the adopted does not | |
| 15901 inherit the goods of the adopter. Therefore adoption is not the taking of someone as a child. | |
| 15902 </p> | |
| 15903 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p4"> | |
| 15904 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, adoption, whereby someone is taken as a child, is likened to natural procreation whereby a child is begotten naturally. | |
| 15905 Therefore whoever is competent to beget a child naturally is competent to adopt. But this is untrue, since neither one who | |
| 15906 is not his own master, nor one who is not twenty-five years of age, nor a woman can adopt, and yet they can beget a child | |
| 15907 naturally. Therefore, properly speaking, adoption is not the taking of someone as a | |
| 15908 child. | |
| 15909 </p> | |
| 15910 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p5"> | |
| 15911 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, to take as one's child one who is not one's own seems necessary in order to supply the lack of children begotten | |
| 15912 naturally. Now one who is unable to beget, through being a eunuch or impotent, suffers especially from the absence of children | |
| 15913 of his own begetting. Therefore he is especially competent to adopt someone as his child. But he is not competent to adopt. | |
| 15914 Therefore adoption is not the taking of someone as one's child. | |
| 15915 </p> | |
| 15916 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p6"> | |
| 15917 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, in spiritual relationship, where someone is taken as a child without carnal procreation, it is of no consequence | |
| 15918 whether an older person become the father of a younger, or "vice versa," since a youth can baptize an old man and "vice versa." | |
| 15919 Therefore, if by adoption a person is taken as a child without being carnally begotten, it would make no difference whether | |
| 15920 an older person adopted a younger, or a younger an older person; which is not true. | |
| 15921 Therefore the same conclusion follows. | |
| 15922 </p> | |
| 15923 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p7"> | |
| 15924 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, there is no difference of degree between adopted and adopter. Therefore whoever is adopted, is adopted as a child; | |
| 15925 and consequently it is not right to say that one may be adopted as a grandchild. | |
| 15926 </p> | |
| 15927 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p8"> | |
| 15928 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, adoption is a result of love, wherefore God is said to have adopted us as children through charity. Now we should | |
| 15929 have greater charity towards those who are connected with us than towards strangers. Therefore adoption should be not of a | |
| 15930 stranger but of someone connected with us. | |
| 15931 </p> | |
| 15932 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p9"> | |
| 15933 <b>I answer that,</b> Art imitates nature and supplies the defect of nature where nature is deficient. Hence just as a man begets by natural procreation, | |
| 15934 so by positive law which is the art of what is good and just, one person can take to himself another as a child in likeness | |
| 15935 to one that is his child by nature, in order to take the place of the children he has lost, this being the chief reason why | |
| 15936 adoption was introduced. And since taking implies a term "wherefrom," for which | |
| 15937 reason the taker is not the thing taken, it follows that the person taken as a child must be a stranger. Accordingly, just | |
| 15938 as natural procreation has a term "whereto," namely the form which is the end of generation, and a term "wherefrom," namely | |
| 15939 the contrary form, so legal generation has a term "whereto," namely a child or grandchild, and a term "wherefrom," namely, | |
| 15940 a stranger. Consequently the above definition includes the genus of adoption, for it is described as a "lawful taking," and | |
| 15941 the | |
| 15942 term "wherefrom," since it is said to be the taking of "a stranger," and the term "whereto," because it says, "as a child | |
| 15943 or grandchild ." | |
| 15944 </p> | |
| 15945 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p10"> | |
| 15946 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sonship of adoption is an imitation of natural sonship. Wherefore there are two species of adoption, one which imitates | |
| 15947 natural sonship perfectly, and this is called "arrogatio," whereby the person adopted is placed under the power of the adopter; | |
| 15948 and one who is thus adopted inherits from his adopted father if the latter die intestate, nor can his father legally deprive | |
| 15949 him of a fourth part of his inheritance. But no one can adopt in this way | |
| 15950 except one who is his own master, one namely who has no father or, if he has, is of age. There can be no adoption of this | |
| 15951 kind without the authority of the sovereign. The other kind of adoption imitates natural sonship imperfectly, and is called | |
| 15952 "simple adoption," and by this the adopted does not come under the power of the adopter: so that it is a disposition to perfect | |
| 15953 adoption, rather than perfect adoption itself. In this way even one who is not his own master can adopt, without the consent | |
| 15954 of the sovereign and with the authority of a magistrate: and one who is thus adopted does not inherit the estate of the adopter, | |
| 15955 nor is the latter bound to bequeath to him any of his goods in his will, unless he will. | |
| 15956 </p> | |
| 15957 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p11"> This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.</p> | |
| 15958 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p12"> | |
| 15959 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Natural procreation is directed to the production of the species; wherefore anyone in whom the specific nature is not hindered | |
| 15960 is competent to be able to beget naturally. But adoption is directed to hereditary succession, wherefore those alone are competent | |
| 15961 to adopt who have the power to dispose of their estate. Consequently one who is not his own master, or who is less than twenty-five | |
| 15962 years of age, or a woman, cannot adopt anyone, except by special | |
| 15963 permission of the sovereign. | |
| 15964 </p> | |
| 15965 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p13"> | |
| 15966 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> An inheritance cannot pass to posterity through one who has a perpetual impediment from begetting: hence for this very reason | |
| 15967 it ought to pass to those who ought to succeed to him by right of relationship; and consequently he cannot adopt, as neither | |
| 15968 can he beget. Moreover greater is sorrow for children lost than for children one has never had. Wherefore those who are impeded | |
| 15969 from begetting need no solace for their lack of children as those who have | |
| 15970 had and have lost them, or could have had them but have them not by reason of some accidental impediment. | |
| 15971 </p> | |
| 15972 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p14"> | |
| 15973 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Spiritual relationship is contracted through a sacrament whereby the faithful are born again in Christ, in Whom there is | |
| 15974 no difference between male and female, bondman and free, youth and old age ( | |
| 15975 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q57_A1-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.28" target="asv">Gal. 3:28</a>; | |
| 15976 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q57_A1-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Col.3.11" target="asv"> Col. 3:11</a>). Wherefore anyone can indifferently become another's godfather. But adoption aims at hereditary succession and a certain | |
| 15977 subjection of the adopted to the adopter: and it is not fitting that | |
| 15978 older persons should be subjected to younger in the care of the household. Consequently a younger person cannot adopt an older; | |
| 15979 but according to law the adopted person must be so much younger than the adopter, that he might have been the child of his | |
| 15980 natural begetting. | |
| 15981 </p> | |
| 15982 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p15"> | |
| 15983 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> One may lose one's grandchildren and so forth even as one may lose one's children. Wherefore since adoption was introduced | |
| 15984 as a solace for children lost, just as someone may be adopted in place of a child, so may someone be adopted in place of a | |
| 15985 grandchild and so on. | |
| 15986 </p> | |
| 15987 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p16"> | |
| 15988 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> A relative ought to succeed by right of relationship; and therefore such a person is not competent to be chosen to succeed | |
| 15989 by adoption. And if a relative, who is not competent to inherit the estate, be adopted, he is adopted not as a relative, but | |
| 15990 as a stranger lacking the right of succeeding to the adopter's goods. | |
| 15991 </p> | |
| 15992 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p17"></p> | |
| 15993 <p id="XP_Q57_A1-p18"></p> | |
| 15994 <a href="summa.XP_Q57.html"></a> | |
| 15995 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A2.html"></a> | |
| 15996 </div> | |
| 15997 <div id="XP_Q57_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 15998 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A1.html"></a> | |
| 15999 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16000 <h4 id="XP_Q57_A2-p0.1">Whether a tie that is an impediment to marriage is contracted through adoption?</h4> | |
| 16001 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 16002 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p2"> | |
| 16003 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there is not contracted through adoption a tie that is an impediment to marriage. For spiritual care is | |
| 16004 more excellent than corporeal care. But no tie of relationship is contracted through one's being subjected to another's spiritual | |
| 16005 care: else all those who dwell in the parish would be related to the parish priest and would be unable to marry his son. Neither | |
| 16006 therefore can this result from adoption which places the adopted under the care of | |
| 16007 the adopter. | |
| 16008 </p> | |
| 16009 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p3"> | |
| 16010 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no tie of relationship results from persons conferring a benefit on another. But adoption is nothing but the conferring | |
| 16011 of a benefit. Therefore no tie of relationship results from adoption. | |
| 16012 </p> | |
| 16013 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p4"> | |
| 16014 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a natural father provides for his child chiefly in three things, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 11,12), | |
| 16015 namely by giving him being, nourishment and education; and hereditary succession is subsequent to these. Now no tie of relationship | |
| 16016 is contracted by one's providing for a person's nourishment and education, else a person would be related to his nourishers, | |
| 16017 tutors and masters, which is false. Therefore neither is any relationship contracted | |
| 16018 through adoption by which one inherits another's estate. | |
| 16019 </p> | |
| 16020 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p5"> | |
| 16021 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Church are not subject to human laws. Now marriage is a sacrament of the Church. Since then | |
| 16022 adoption was introduced by human law, it would seem that a tie contracted from adoption cannot be an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16023 </p> | |
| 16024 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p6"> | |
| 16025 <b>On the contrary,</b> Relationship is an impediment to marriage. Now a kind of relationship results from adoption, namely legal relationship, as | |
| 16026 evidenced by its definition, for "legal relationship is a connection arising out of adoption." Therefore adoption results | |
| 16027 in a tie which is an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16028 </p> | |
| 16029 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p7"> Further, the same is proved by the authorities quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 42).</p> | |
| 16030 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p8"> | |
| 16031 <b>I answer that,</b> The Divine law especially forbids marriage between those persons who have to live together lest, as Rabbi Moses observes | |
| 16032 (Doc. Perp. iii, 49), if it were lawful for them to have carnal intercourse, there should be more room for concupiscence to | |
| 16033 the repression of which marriage is directed. And since the adopted child dwells in the house of his adopted father like one | |
| 16034 that is begotten naturally human laws forbid the contracting of marriage between the like, | |
| 16035 and this prohibition is approved by the Church. Hence it is that legal adoption is an impediment to marriage. This suffices | |
| 16036 for the Replies to the first three Objections, because none of those things entails such a cohabitation as might be an incentive | |
| 16037 to concupiscence. Therefore they do not cause a relationship that is an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16038 </p> | |
| 16039 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p9"> | |
| 16040 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The prohibition of a human law would not suffice to make an impediment to marriage, unless the authority of the Church intervenes | |
| 16041 by issuing the same prohibition. | |
| 16042 </p> | |
| 16043 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p10"></p> | |
| 16044 <p id="XP_Q57_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 16045 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A1.html"></a> | |
| 16046 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16047 </div> | |
| 16048 <div id="XP_Q57_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 16049 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16050 <a href="summa.XP_Q58.html"></a> | |
| 16051 <h4 id="XP_Q57_A3-p0.1">Whether legal relationship is contracted only between the adopting father and the adopted child?</h4> | |
| 16052 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 16053 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p2"> | |
| 16054 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a relationship of this kind is contracted only between the adopting father and the adopted child. For | |
| 16055 it would seem that it ought above all to be contracted between the adopting father and the natural mother of the adopted, | |
| 16056 as happens in spiritual relationship. Yet there is no legal relationship between them. Therefore it is not contracted between | |
| 16057 any other persons besides the adopter and adopted. | |
| 16058 </p> | |
| 16059 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p3"> | |
| 16060 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the relationship that impedes marriage is a perpetual impediment. But there is not a perpetual impediment between | |
| 16061 the adopted son and the naturally begotten daughter of the adopted; because when the adoption terminates at the death of the | |
| 16062 adopter, or when the adopted comes of age, the latter can marry her. Therefore he was not related to her in such a way as | |
| 16063 to prevent him from marrying her. | |
| 16064 </p> | |
| 16065 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p4"> | |
| 16066 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, spiritual relationship passes to no person incapable of being a god-parent; wherefore it does not pass to one who | |
| 16067 is not baptized. Now a woman cannot adopt, as stated above (A[1], ad 2). Therefore legal relationship does not pass from husband | |
| 16068 to wife. | |
| 16069 </p> | |
| 16070 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p5"> | |
| 16071 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, spiritual relationship is stronger than legal. But spiritual relationship does not pass to a grandchild. Neither, | |
| 16072 therefore, does legal relationship. | |
| 16073 </p> | |
| 16074 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p6"> | |
| 16075 <b>On the contrary,</b> Legal relationship is more in agreement with carnal union or procreation than spiritual relationship is. But spiritual relationship | |
| 16076 passes to another person. Therefore legal relationship does so also. | |
| 16077 </p> | |
| 16078 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p7"> Further, the same is proved by the authorities quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 42).</p> | |
| 16079 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p8"> | |
| 16080 <b>I answer that,</b> Legal relationship is of three kinds. The first is in the descending order as it were, and is contracted between the adoptive | |
| 16081 father and the adopted child, the latter's child grandchild and so on; the second is between the adopted child and the naturally | |
| 16082 begotten child; the third is like a kind of affinity, and is between the adoptive father and the wife of the adopted son, | |
| 16083 or contrariwise between the adopted son and the wife of the adoptive father. | |
| 16084 Accordingly the first and third relationships are perpetual impediments to marriage: but the second is not, but only so long | |
| 16085 as the adopted person remains under the power of the adoptive father, wherefore when the father dies or when the child comes | |
| 16086 of age, they can be married. | |
| 16087 </p> | |
| 16088 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p9"> | |
| 16089 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By spiritual generation the son is not withdrawn from the father's power, as in the case of adoption, so that the godson | |
| 16090 remains the son of both at the same time, whereas the adopted son does not. Hence no relationship is contracted between the | |
| 16091 adoptive father and the natural mother or father, as was the case in spiritual relationship. | |
| 16092 </p> | |
| 16093 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p10"> | |
| 16094 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Legal relationship is an impediment to marriage on account of the parties dwelling together: hence when the need for dwelling | |
| 16095 together ceases, it is not unreasonable that the aforesaid tie cease, for instance when he ceases to be under the power of | |
| 16096 the same father. But the adoptive father and his wife always retain a certain authority over their adopted son and his wife, | |
| 16097 wherefore the tie between them remains. | |
| 16098 </p> | |
| 16099 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p11"> | |
| 16100 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even a woman can adopt by permission of the sovereign, wherefore legal relationship passes also to her. Moreover the reason | |
| 16101 why spiritual relationship does not pass to a non-baptized person is not because such a person cannot be a god-parent but | |
| 16102 because he is not a fit subject of spirituality. | |
| 16103 </p> | |
| 16104 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p12"> | |
| 16105 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> By spiritual relationship the son is not placed under the power and care of the godfather, as in legal relationship: because | |
| 16106 it is necessary that whatever is in the son's power pass under the power of the adoptive father. Wherefore if a father be | |
| 16107 adopted the children and grandchildren who are in the power of the person adopted are adopted also. | |
| 16108 </p> | |
| 16109 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 16110 <p id="XP_Q57_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 16111 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16112 <a href="summa.XP_Q58.html"></a> | |
| 16113 </div> | |
| 16114 <a href="summa.XP_Q56_A5.html"></a> | |
| 16115 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A1.html"></a> | |
| 16116 </div> | |
| 16117 <div id="XP_Q58" class="div3"> | |
| 16118 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16119 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A1.html"></a> | |
| 16120 <h3 id="XP_Q58-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENTS OF IMPOTENCE, SPELL, FRENZY OR MADNESS, INCEST AND DEFECTIVE AGE (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 16121 <p id="XP_Q58-p1"></p> | |
| 16122 <p id="XP_Q58-p2"> We must now consider five impediments to marriage, namely the impediments of impotence, spell, frenzy or madness, incest, | |
| 16123 and defective age. Under this head there are five points of inquiry: | |
| 16124 </p> | |
| 16125 <p id="XP_Q58-p3"> (1) Whether impotence is an impediment to marriage?</p> | |
| 16126 <p id="XP_Q58-p4"> (2) Whether a spell is?</p> | |
| 16127 <p id="XP_Q58-p5"> (3) Whether frenzy or madness is?</p> | |
| 16128 <p id="XP_Q58-p6"> (4) Whether incest is?</p> | |
| 16129 <p id="XP_Q58-p7"> (5) Whether defective age is?</p> | |
| 16130 <div id="XP_Q58_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 16131 <a href="summa.XP_Q58.html"></a> | |
| 16132 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16133 <h4 id="XP_Q58_A1-p0.1">Whether impotence is an impediment to marriage?</h4> | |
| 16134 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 16135 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p2"> | |
| 16136 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that impotence is not an impediment to marriage. For carnal copulation is not essential to marriage, since | |
| 16137 marriage is more perfect when both parties observe continency by vow. But impotence deprives marriage of nothing save carnal | |
| 16138 copulation. Therefore it is not a diriment impediment to the marriage contract. | |
| 16139 </p> | |
| 16140 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p3"> | |
| 16141 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as impotence prevents carnal copulation so does frigidity. But frigidity is not reckoned an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16142 Therefore neither should impotence be reckoned as such. | |
| 16143 </p> | |
| 16144 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p4"> | |
| 16145 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, all old people are frigid. Yet old people can marry. Therefore, etc. | |
| 16146 </p> | |
| 16147 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p5"> | |
| 16148 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if the woman knows the man to be frigid when she marries him, the marriage is valid. Therefore frigidity, considered | |
| 16149 in itself, is not an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16150 </p> | |
| 16151 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p6"> | |
| 16152 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, calidity may prove a sufficient incentive to carnal copulation with one who is not a virgin, but not with one who | |
| 16153 is, because it happens to be so weak as to pass away quickly, and is therefore insufficient for the deflowering of a virgin. | |
| 16154 Or again it may move a man sufficiently in regard to a beautiful woman, but insufficiently in regard to an uncomely one. Therefore | |
| 16155 it would seem that frigidity, although it be an impediment in regard to one, is not | |
| 16156 an impediment absolutely. | |
| 16157 </p> | |
| 16158 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p7"> | |
| 16159 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, generally speaking woman is more frigid than man. But women are not debarred from marriage. Neither therefore should | |
| 16160 men be debarred on account of frigidity. | |
| 16161 </p> | |
| 16162 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p8"> | |
| 16163 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated (Extra, De Frigidis et Malefic., cap. Quod Sedem): "Just as a boy who is incapable of marital intercourse is | |
| 16164 unfit to marry, so also those who are impotent are deemed most unfit for the marriage contract." Now persons affected with | |
| 16165 frigidity are the like. Therefore, etc. | |
| 16166 </p> | |
| 16167 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p9"> Further, no one can bind himself to the impossible. Now in marriage man binds himself to carnal copulation; because it is | |
| 16168 for this purpose that he gives the other party power over his body. Therefore a frigid person, being incapable of carnal copulation, | |
| 16169 cannot marry. | |
| 16170 </p> | |
| 16171 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p10"> | |
| 16172 <b>I answer that,</b> In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, | |
| 16173 the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it | |
| 16174 be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt. This impediment is called by the general name of impotence as regards coition, | |
| 16175 and can arise either from an intrinsic and natural cause, or from an extrinsic and | |
| 16176 accidental cause, for instance spell, of which we shall speak later | |
| 16177 <a id="XP_Q58_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q58_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. If it be due to a natural cause, this may happen in two ways. For either it is temporary, and can be remedied by medicine, | |
| 16178 or by the course of time, and then it does not void a marriage: or it is perpetual and then it voids marriage, so that the | |
| 16179 party who labors under this impediment remains for ever without hope of marriage, while the other may "marry to whom she will | |
| 16180 . . . in the Lord" | |
| 16181 ( | |
| 16182 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q58_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.39" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:39</a>). In order to ascertain whether the impediment be perpetual or not, the Church has appointed a fixed time, namely three years, | |
| 16183 for putting the matter to a practical proof: and if after three years, during which both parties have honestly endeavored | |
| 16184 to fulfil their marital intercourse, the marriage remain unconsummated, the Church adjudges the marriage to be dissolved. | |
| 16185 And yet the Church is sometimes mistaken in this, because three years are sometimes | |
| 16186 insufficient to prove impotence to be perpetual. Wherefore if the Church find that she has been mistaken, seeing that the | |
| 16187 subject of the impediment has completed carnal copulation with another or with the same person, she reinstates the former | |
| 16188 marriage and dissolves the subsequent one, although the latter has been contracted with her permission. [*"Nowadays it is | |
| 16189 seldom necessary to examine too closely into this matter, as all cases arising from it are treated as far as possible under | |
| 16190 the form | |
| 16191 of dispensations of non-consummated marriages." Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, article Canonical Impediments.] | |
| 16192 </p> | |
| 16193 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p11"> | |
| 16194 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the act of carnal copulation is not essential to marriage, ability to fulfill the act is essential, because marriage | |
| 16195 gives each of the married parties power over the other's body in relation to marital intercourse. | |
| 16196 </p> | |
| 16197 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p12"> | |
| 16198 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Excessive calidity can scarcely be a perpetual impediment. If, however, it were to prove an impediment to marital intercourse | |
| 16199 for three years it would be adjudged to be perpetual. Nevertheless, since frigidity is a greater and more frequent impediment | |
| 16200 (for it not only hinders the mingling of seeds but also weakens the members which co-operate in the union of bodies), it is | |
| 16201 accounted an impediment rather than calidity, since all natural defects are | |
| 16202 reduced to frigidity. | |
| 16203 </p> | |
| 16204 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p13"> | |
| 16205 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although old people have not sufficient calidity to procreate, they have sufficient to copulate. Wherefore they are allowed | |
| 16206 to marry, in so far as marriage is intended as a remedy, although it does not befit them as fulfilling an office of nature. | |
| 16207 </p> | |
| 16208 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p14"> | |
| 16209 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In all contracts it is agreed on all hands that anyone who is unable to satisfy an obligation is unfit to make a contract | |
| 16210 which requires the fulfilling of that obligation. Now this inability is of two kinds. First, because a person is unable to | |
| 16211 fulfill the obligation "de jure," and such inability renders the contract altogether void, whether the party with whom he | |
| 16212 contracts knows of this or not. Secondly, because he is unable to fulfill "de facto"; | |
| 16213 and then if the party with whom he contracts knows of this and, notwithstanding, enters the contract, this shows that the | |
| 16214 latter seeks some other end from the contract, and the contract stands. But if he does not know of it the contract is void. | |
| 16215 Consequently frigidity which causes such an impotence that a man cannot "de facto" pay the marriage debt, as also the condition | |
| 16216 of slavery, whereby a man cannot "de facto" give his service freely, are impediments to marriage, when the one married party | |
| 16217 does not know that the other is unable to pay the marriage debt. But an impediment whereby a person cannot pay the marriage | |
| 16218 debt "de jure," for instance consanguinity, voids the marriage contract, whether the other party knows of it or not. For this | |
| 16219 reason the Master holds (Sent. iv, D, 34) that these two impediments, frigidity and slavery, make it not altogether unlawful | |
| 16220 for their subjects to marry. | |
| 16221 </p> | |
| 16222 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p15"> | |
| 16223 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A man cannot have a perpetual natural impediment in regard to one person and not in regard to another. But if he cannot fulfill | |
| 16224 the carnal act with a virgin, while he can with one who is not a virgin, the hymeneal membrane may be broken by a medical | |
| 16225 instrument, and thus he may have connection with her. Nor would this be contrary to nature, for it would be done not for pleasure | |
| 16226 but for a remedy. Dislike for a woman is not a natural cause, but an | |
| 16227 accidental extrinsic cause: and therefore we must form the same judgment in its regard as about spells, of which we shall | |
| 16228 speak further on | |
| 16229 <a id="XP_Q58_A1-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q58_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. | |
| 16230 </p> | |
| 16231 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p16"> | |
| 16232 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The male is the agent in procreation, and the female is the patient, wherefore greater calidity is required in the male than | |
| 16233 in the female for the act of procreation. Hence the frigidity which renders the man impotent would not disable the woman. | |
| 16234 Yet there may be a natural impediment from another cause, namely stricture, and then we must judge of stricture in the woman | |
| 16235 in the same way as of frigidity in the man. | |
| 16236 </p> | |
| 16237 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p17"></p> | |
| 16238 <p id="XP_Q58_A1-p18"></p> | |
| 16239 <a href="summa.XP_Q58.html"></a> | |
| 16240 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16241 </div> | |
| 16242 <div id="XP_Q58_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 16243 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A1.html"></a> | |
| 16244 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16245 <h4 id="XP_Q58_A2-p0.1">Whether a spell can be an impediment to marriage?</h4> | |
| 16246 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 16247 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p2"> | |
| 16248 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a spell cannot be an impediment to marriage. For the spells in question are caused by the operation of | |
| 16249 demons. But the demons have no more power to prevent the marriage act than other bodily actions; and these they cannot prevent, | |
| 16250 for thus they would upset the whole world if they hindered eating and walking and the like. Therefore they cannot hinder marriage | |
| 16251 by spells. | |
| 16252 </p> | |
| 16253 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p3"> | |
| 16254 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, God's work is stronger than the devil's. But a spell is the work of the devil. Therefore it cannot hinder marriage | |
| 16255 which is the work of God. | |
| 16256 </p> | |
| 16257 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p4"> | |
| 16258 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no impediment, unless it be perpetual, voids the marriage contract. But a spell cannot be a perpetual impediment, | |
| 16259 for since the devil has no power over others than sinners, the spell will be removed if the sin be cast out, or by another | |
| 16260 spell, or by the exorcisms of the Church which are employed for the repression of the demon's power. Therefore a spell cannot | |
| 16261 be an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16262 </p> | |
| 16263 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p5"> | |
| 16264 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, carnal copulation cannot be hindered, unless there be an impediment to the generative power which is its principle. | |
| 16265 But the generative power of one man is equally related to all women. Therefore a spell cannot be an impediment in respect | |
| 16266 of one woman without being so also in respect of all. | |
| 16267 </p> | |
| 16268 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p6"> | |
| 16269 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated in the Decretals (XXXIII, qu. 1, cap. iv): "If by sorcerers or witches . . . ," and further on, "if they be | |
| 16270 incurable, they must be separated." | |
| 16271 </p> | |
| 16272 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p7"> Further, the demons' power is greater than man's: "There is no power upon earth that can be compared with him who was made | |
| 16273 to fear no one" ( | |
| 16274 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q58_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Job.41.24" target="asv">Job 41:24</a>). Now through the action of man, a person may be rendered incapable of carnal copulation by some power or by castration; | |
| 16275 and this is an impediment to marriage. Therefore much more can this be done by the power of a demon. | |
| 16276 </p> | |
| 16277 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p8"> | |
| 16278 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have asserted that witchcraft is nothing in the world but an imagining of men who ascribed to spells those natural effects | |
| 16279 the causes of which are hidden. But this is contrary to the authority of holy men who state that the demons have power over | |
| 16280 men's bodies and imaginations, when God allows them: wherefore by their means wizards can work certain signs. Now this opinion | |
| 16281 grows from the root of unbelief or incredulity, because they do not believe that | |
| 16282 demons exist save only in the imagination of the common people, who ascribe to the demon the terrors which a man conjures | |
| 16283 from his thoughts, and because, owing to a vivid imagination, certain shapes such as he has in his thoughts become apparent | |
| 16284 to the senses, and then he believes that he sees the demons. But such assertions are rejected by the true faith whereby we | |
| 16285 believe that angels fell from heaven, and that the demons exist, and that by reason of their subtle nature they are able to | |
| 16286 do | |
| 16287 many things which we cannot; and those who induce them to do such things are called wizards. | |
| 16288 </p> | |
| 16289 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p9"> Wherefore others have maintained that witchcraft can set up an impediment to carnal copulation, but that no such impediment | |
| 16290 is perpetual: hence it does not void the marriage contract, and they say that the laws asserting this have been revoked. But | |
| 16291 this is contrary to actual facts and to the new legislation which agrees with the old. | |
| 16292 </p> | |
| 16293 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p10"> We must therefore draw a distinction: for the inability to copulate caused by witchcraft is either perpetual and then it | |
| 16294 voids marriage, or it is not perpetual and then it does not void marriage. And in order to put this to practical proof the | |
| 16295 Church has fixed the space of three years in the same way as we have stated with regard to frigidity | |
| 16296 <a id="XP_Q58_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q58_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. There is, however this difference between a spell and frigidity, that a person who is impotent through | |
| 16297 frigidity is equally impotent in relation to one as to another, and consequently when the marriage is dissolved, he is not | |
| 16298 permitted to marry another woman. whereas through witchcraft a man may be rendered impotent in relation to one woman and not | |
| 16299 to another, and consequently when the Church adjudges the marriage to be dissolved, each party is permitted to seek another | |
| 16300 partner in marriage. | |
| 16301 </p> | |
| 16302 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p11"> | |
| 16303 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The first corruption of sin whereby man became the slave of the devil was transmitted to us by the act of the generative | |
| 16304 power, and for this reason God allows the devil to exercise his power of witchcraft in this act more than in others. Even | |
| 16305 so the power of witchcraft is made manifest in serpents more than in other animals according to | |
| 16306 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q58_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.3" target="asv">Gn. 3</a>, since the devil tempted the woman through a serpent. | |
| 16307 </p> | |
| 16308 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p12"> | |
| 16309 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> God's work may be hindered by the devil's work with God's permission; not that the devil is stronger than God so as to destroy | |
| 16310 His works by violence. | |
| 16311 </p> | |
| 16312 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p13"> | |
| 16313 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some spells are so perpetual that they can have no human remedy, although God might afford a remedy by coercing the demon, | |
| 16314 or the demon by desisting. For, as wizards themselves admit, it does not always follow that what was done by one kind of witchcraft | |
| 16315 can be destroyed by another kind, and even though it were possible to use witchcraft as a remedy, it would nevertheless be | |
| 16316 reckoned to be perpetual, since nowise ought one to invoke the demon's help | |
| 16317 by witchcraft. Again, if the devil has been given power over a person on account of sin, it does not follow that his power | |
| 16318 ceases with the sin, because the punishment sometimes continues after the fault has been removed. And again, the exorcisms | |
| 16319 of the Church do not always avail to repress the demons in all their molestations of the body, if God will it so, but they | |
| 16320 always avail against those assaults of the demons against which they are chiefly instituted. | |
| 16321 </p> | |
| 16322 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p14"> | |
| 16323 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Witchcraft sometimes causes an impediment in relation to all, sometimes in relation to one only: because the devil is a voluntary | |
| 16324 cause not acting from natural necessity. Moreover, the impediment resulting from witchcraft may result from an impression | |
| 16325 made by the demon on a man's imagination, whereby he is deprived of the concupiscence that moves him in regard to a particular | |
| 16326 woman and not to another. | |
| 16327 </p> | |
| 16328 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p15"></p> | |
| 16329 <p id="XP_Q58_A2-p16"></p> | |
| 16330 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A1.html"></a> | |
| 16331 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16332 </div> | |
| 16333 <div id="XP_Q58_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 16334 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16335 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A4.html"></a> | |
| 16336 <h4 id="XP_Q58_A3-p0.1">Whether madness is an impediment to marriage?</h4> | |
| 16337 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 16338 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p2"> | |
| 16339 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that madness is not an impediment to marriage. For spiritual marriage which is contracted in Baptism is more | |
| 16340 excellent than carnal marriage. But mad persons can be baptized. Therefore they can also marry. | |
| 16341 </p> | |
| 16342 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p3"> | |
| 16343 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, frigidity is an impediment to marriage because it impedes carnal copulation, which is not impeded by madness. Therefore | |
| 16344 neither is marriage impeded thereby. | |
| 16345 </p> | |
| 16346 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p4"> | |
| 16347 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, marriage is not voided save by a perpetual impediment. But one cannot tell whether madness is a perpetual impediment. | |
| 16348 Therefore it does not void marriage. | |
| 16349 </p> | |
| 16350 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p5"> | |
| 16351 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the impediments that hinder marriage are sufficiently contained in the verses given above ( | |
| 16352 <a id="XP_Q58_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q50.html">Q[50])</a>. But they contain no mention of madness. Therefore, etc. | |
| 16353 </p> | |
| 16354 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p6"> | |
| 16355 <b>On the contrary,</b> Madness removes the use of reason more than error does. But error is an impediment to marriage. Therefore madness is also. | |
| 16356 </p> | |
| 16357 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p7"> Further, mad persons are not fit for making contracts. But marriage is a contract. Therefore, etc.</p> | |
| 16358 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p8"> | |
| 16359 <b>I answer that,</b> The madness is either previous or subsequent to marriage. If subsequent, it nowise voids the marriage, but if it be previous, | |
| 16360 then the mad person either has lucid intervals, or not. If he has, then although it is not safe for him to marry during that | |
| 16361 interval, since he would not know how to educate his children, yet if he marries, the marriage is valid. But if he has no | |
| 16362 lucid intervals, or marries outside a lucid interval, then, since there can be no consent | |
| 16363 without use of reason, the marriage will be invalid. | |
| 16364 </p> | |
| 16365 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p9"> | |
| 16366 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The use of reason is not necessary for Baptism as its cause, in which way it is necessary for matrimony. Hence the comparison | |
| 16367 fails. We have, however, spoken of the Baptism of mad persons ( | |
| 16368 <a id="XP_Q58_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html">TP, Q[68], A[12]</a>). | |
| 16369 </p> | |
| 16370 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p10"> | |
| 16371 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Madness impedes marriage on the part of the latter's cause which is the consent, although not on the part of the act as frigidity | |
| 16372 does. Yet the Master treats of it together with frigidity, because both are defects of nature (Sent. iv, D, 34). | |
| 16373 </p> | |
| 16374 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p11"> | |
| 16375 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A passing impediment which hinders the cause of marriage, namely the consent, voids marriage altogether. But an impediment | |
| 16376 that hinders the act must needs be perpetual in order to void the marriage. | |
| 16377 </p> | |
| 16378 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p12"> | |
| 16379 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This impediment is reducible to error, since in either case there is lack of consent on the part of the reason. | |
| 16380 </p> | |
| 16381 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 16382 <p id="XP_Q58_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 16383 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16384 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A4.html"></a> | |
| 16385 </div> | |
| 16386 <div id="XP_Q58_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 16387 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16388 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A5.html"></a> | |
| 16389 <h4 id="XP_Q58_A4-p0.1">Whether marriage is annulled by the husband committing incest with his wife's sister?</h4> | |
| 16390 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 16391 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p2"> | |
| 16392 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that marriage is not annulled by the husband committing incest with his wife's sister. For the wife should | |
| 16393 not be punished for her husband's sin. Yet she would be punished if the marriage were annulled. Therefore, etc. | |
| 16394 </p> | |
| 16395 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p3"> | |
| 16396 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is a greater sin to know one's own relative, than to know the relative of one's wife. But the former sin is not | |
| 16397 an impediment to marriage. Therefore neither is the second. | |
| 16398 </p> | |
| 16399 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p4"> | |
| 16400 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if this is inflicted as a punishment of the sin, it would seem, if the incestuous husband marry even after his wife's | |
| 16401 death, that they ought to be separated: which is not true. | |
| 16402 </p> | |
| 16403 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p5"> | |
| 16404 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, this impediment is not mentioned among those enumerated above ( | |
| 16405 <a id="XP_Q58_A4-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q50.html">Q[50])</a>. Therefore it does not void the marriage contract. | |
| 16406 </p> | |
| 16407 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p6"> | |
| 16408 <b>On the contrary,</b> By knowing his wife's sister he contracts affinity, with his wife. But affinity voids the marriage contract. Therefore the | |
| 16409 aforesaid incest does also. | |
| 16410 </p> | |
| 16411 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p7"> Further, by whatsoever a man sinneth, by the same also is he punished. Now such a man sins against marriage. Therefore he | |
| 16412 ought to be punished by being deprived of marriage. | |
| 16413 </p> | |
| 16414 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p8"> | |
| 16415 <b>I answer that,</b> If a man has connection with the sister or other relative of his wife before contracting marriage, even after his betrothal, | |
| 16416 the marriage should be broken off on account of the resultant affinity. If, however, the connection take place after the marriage | |
| 16417 has been contracted and consummated, the marriage must not be altogether dissolved: but the husband loses his right to marital | |
| 16418 intercourse, nor can he demand it without sin. And yet he must grant it if | |
| 16419 asked, because the wife should not be punished for her husband's sin. But after the death of his wife he ought to remain without | |
| 16420 any hope of marriage, unless he receive a dispensation on account of his frailty, through fear of unlawful intercourse. If, | |
| 16421 however, he marry without a dispensation, he sins by contravening the law of the Church, but his marriage is not for this | |
| 16422 reason to be annulled. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections, for incest is accounted an impediment to marriage | |
| 16423 not so much for its being a sin as on account of the affinity which it causes. For this reason it is not mentioned with the | |
| 16424 other impediments, but is included in the impediment of affinity. | |
| 16425 </p> | |
| 16426 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p9"></p> | |
| 16427 <p id="XP_Q58_A4-p10"></p> | |
| 16428 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16429 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A5.html"></a> | |
| 16430 </div> | |
| 16431 <div id="XP_Q58_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 16432 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A4.html"></a> | |
| 16433 <a href="summa.XP_Q59.html"></a> | |
| 16434 <h4 id="XP_Q58_A5-p0.1">Whether defective age is an impediment to marriage?</h4> | |
| 16435 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 16436 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p2"> | |
| 16437 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that deficient age is not an impediment to marriage. For according to the laws children are under the care | |
| 16438 of a guardian until their twenty-fifth year. Therefore it would seem that before that age their reason is not sufficiently | |
| 16439 mature to give consent, and consequently that ought seemingly to be the age fixed for marrying. Yet marriage can be contracted | |
| 16440 before that age. Therefore lack of the appointed age is not an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16441 </p> | |
| 16442 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p3"> | |
| 16443 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as the tie of religion is perpetual so is the marriage tie. Now according to the new legislation (cap. Non | |
| 16444 Solum, De regular. et transeunt.) no one can be professed before the fourteenth year of age. Therefore neither could a person | |
| 16445 marry if defective age were an impediment. | |
| 16446 </p> | |
| 16447 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p4"> | |
| 16448 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as consent is necessary for marriage on the part of the man, so is it on the part of the woman. Now a woman | |
| 16449 can marry before the age of fourteen. Therefore a man can also. | |
| 16450 </p> | |
| 16451 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p5"> | |
| 16452 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, inability to copulate, unless it be perpetual and not known, is not an impediment to marriage. But lack of age is | |
| 16453 neither perpetual nor unknown. Therefore it is not an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16454 </p> | |
| 16455 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p6"> | |
| 16456 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it is not included under any of the aforesaid impediments ( | |
| 16457 <a id="XP_Q58_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q50.html">Q[50])</a>, and consequently would seem not to be an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16458 </p> | |
| 16459 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p7"> | |
| 16460 <b>On the contrary,</b> A Decretal (cap. Quod Sedem, De frigid et malefic.) says that "a boy who is incapable of marriage intercourse is unfit to | |
| 16461 marry." But in the majority of cases he cannot pay the marriage debt before the age of fourteen (De Animal. vii). Therefore, | |
| 16462 etc. | |
| 16463 </p> | |
| 16464 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p8"> Further, "There is a fixed limit of size and growth for all things in nature" according to the Philosopher (De Anima ii, | |
| 16465 4): and consequently it would seem that, since marriage is natural, it must have a fixed age by defect of which it is impeded. | |
| 16466 </p> | |
| 16467 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p9"> | |
| 16468 <b>I answer that,</b> Since marriage is effected by way of a contract, it comes under the ordinance of positive law like other contracts. Consequently | |
| 16469 according to law (cap. Tua, De sponsal. impub.) it is determined that marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion | |
| 16470 when each party is capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage, and of mutual fulfilment of the marriage debt, and that | |
| 16471 marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now for the most part this age is | |
| 16472 the fourteenth year in males and the twelfth year in women: but since the ordinances of positive law are consequent upon what | |
| 16473 happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason | |
| 16474 are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age, the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore if the parties who marry before | |
| 16475 the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age, their marriage is none the less perpetually | |
| 16476 indissoluble. | |
| 16477 </p> | |
| 16478 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p10"> | |
| 16479 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In matters to which nature inclines there is not required such a development of reason in order to deliberate, as in other | |
| 16480 matters: and therefore it is possible after deliberation to consent to marriage before one is able to manage one's own affairs | |
| 16481 in other matters without a guardian. | |
| 16482 </p> | |
| 16483 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p11"> | |
| 16484 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The same answer applies, since the religious vow is about matters outside the inclination of nature, and which offer greater | |
| 16485 difficulty than marriage. | |
| 16486 </p> | |
| 16487 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p12"> | |
| 16488 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is said that woman comes to the age of puberty sooner than man does (De Animal. ix); hence there is no parallel between | |
| 16489 the two. | |
| 16490 </p> | |
| 16491 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p13"> | |
| 16492 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In this case there is an impediment not only as to inability to copulate, but also on account of the defect of the reason, | |
| 16493 which is not yet qualified to give rightly that consent which is to endure in perpetuity. | |
| 16494 </p> | |
| 16495 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p14"> | |
| 16496 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The impediment arising from defective age, like that which arises from madness, is reducible to the impediment of error; | |
| 16497 because a man has not yet the full use of his free-will. | |
| 16498 </p> | |
| 16499 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p15"></p> | |
| 16500 <p id="XP_Q58_A5-p16"></p> | |
| 16501 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A4.html"></a> | |
| 16502 <a href="summa.XP_Q59.html"></a> | |
| 16503 </div> | |
| 16504 <a href="summa.XP_Q57_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16505 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A1.html"></a> | |
| 16506 </div> | |
| 16507 <div id="XP_Q59" class="div3"> | |
| 16508 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A5.html"></a> | |
| 16509 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A1.html"></a> | |
| 16510 <h3 id="XP_Q59-p0.1">OF DISPARITY OF WORSHIP AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO MARRIAGE (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 16511 <p id="XP_Q59-p1"></p> | |
| 16512 <p id="XP_Q59-p2"> We must now consider disparity of worship as an impediment to marriage. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 16513 <p id="XP_Q59-p3"> (1) Whether a believer can marry an unbeliever?</p> | |
| 16514 <p id="XP_Q59-p4"> (2) Whether there is marriage between unbelievers?</p> | |
| 16515 <p id="XP_Q59-p5"> (3) Whether a husband being converted to the faith can remain with his wife if she be unwilling to be converted?</p> | |
| 16516 <p id="XP_Q59-p6"> (4) Whether he may leave his unbelieving wife?</p> | |
| 16517 <p id="XP_Q59-p7"> (5) Whether after putting her away he may take another wife?</p> | |
| 16518 <p id="XP_Q59-p8"> (6) Whether a husband may put aside his wife on account of other sins as he may for unbelief?</p> | |
| 16519 <div id="XP_Q59_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 16520 <a href="summa.XP_Q59.html"></a> | |
| 16521 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16522 <h4 id="XP_Q59_A1-p0.1">Whether a believer can marry an unbeliever?</h4> | |
| 16523 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 16524 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p2"> | |
| 16525 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a believer can marry an unbeliever. For Joseph married an Egyptian woman, and Esther married Assuerus: | |
| 16526 and in both marriages there was disparity of worship, since one was an unbeliever and the other a believer. Therefore disparity | |
| 16527 of worship previous to marriage is not an impediment thereto. | |
| 16528 </p> | |
| 16529 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p3"> | |
| 16530 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Old Law teaches the same faith as the New. But according to the Old Law there could be marriage between a believer | |
| 16531 and an unbeliever, as evidenced by | |
| 16532 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.10" target="asv"> Dt. 21:10 </a>seqq.: "If thou go out to the fight . . . and seest in the number of the captives a beautiful woman and lovest her, and wilt | |
| 16533 have her to wife . . . thou shalt go in unto her, and shalt sleep with her, and she shall be thy wife." Therefore it is lawful | |
| 16534 also under the New | |
| 16535 Law. | |
| 16536 </p> | |
| 16537 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p4"> | |
| 16538 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, betrothal is directed to marriage. Now there can be a betrothal between a believer and an unbeliever in the case | |
| 16539 where a condition is made of the latter's future conversion. Therefore under the same condition there can be marriage between | |
| 16540 them. | |
| 16541 </p> | |
| 16542 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p5"> | |
| 16543 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, every impediment to marriage is in some way contrary to marriage. But unbelief is not contrary to marriage, since | |
| 16544 marriage fulfills an office of nature whose dictate faith surpasses. Therefore disparity of worship is not an impediment to | |
| 16545 marriage. | |
| 16546 </p> | |
| 16547 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p6"> | |
| 16548 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, there is sometime disparity of worship even between two persons who are baptized, for instance when, after Baptism, | |
| 16549 a person falls into heresy. Yet if such a person marry a believer, it is nevertheless a valid marriage. Therefore disparity | |
| 16550 of worship is not an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16551 </p> | |
| 16552 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p7"> | |
| 16553 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 16554 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:14</a>): "What concord hath light with darkness? [*Vulg.: 'What fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ | |
| 16555 with Belial?']" Now there is the greatest concord between husband and wife. Therefore one who is in the light of faith cannot | |
| 16556 marry one who is in the darkness of unbelief. | |
| 16557 </p> | |
| 16558 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p8"> Further, it is written ( | |
| 16559 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.2.11" target="asv">Malachi 2:11</a>): "Juda hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god." But such | |
| 16560 had not been the case if they could have married validly. Therefore disparity of worship is an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16561 </p> | |
| 16562 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p9"> | |
| 16563 <b>I answer that,</b> The chief good of marriage is the offspring to be brought up to the worship of God. Now since education is the work of father | |
| 16564 and mother in common, each of them intends to bring up the child to the worship of God according to their own faith. Consequently | |
| 16565 if they be of different faith, the intention of the one will be contrary to the intention of the other, and therefore there | |
| 16566 cannot be a fitting marriage between them. For this reason disparity of faith | |
| 16567 previous to marriage is an impediment to the marriage contract. | |
| 16568 </p> | |
| 16569 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p10"> | |
| 16570 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the Old Law it was allowable to marry with certain unbelievers, and forbidden with others. It was however especially forbidden | |
| 16571 with regard to inhabitants of the land of Canaan, both because the Lord had commanded them to be slain on account of their | |
| 16572 obstinacy, and because it was fraught with a greater danger, lest to wit they should pervert to idolatry those whom they married | |
| 16573 or their children, since the Israelites were more liable to adopt their | |
| 16574 rites and customs through dwelling among them. But it was permitted in regard to other unbelievers, especially when there | |
| 16575 could be no fear of their being drawn into idolatry. And thus Joseph, Moses, and Esther married unbelievers. But under the | |
| 16576 New Law which is spread throughout the whole world the prohibition extends with equal reason to all unbelievers. Hence disparity | |
| 16577 of worship previous to marriage is an impediment to its being contracted and voids the contract. | |
| 16578 </p> | |
| 16579 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p11"> | |
| 16580 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This law either refers to other nations with whom they could lawfully marry, or to the case when the captive woman was willing | |
| 16581 to be converted to the faith and worship of God. | |
| 16582 </p> | |
| 16583 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p12"> | |
| 16584 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Present is related to present in the same way as future to future. Wherefore just as when marriage is contracted in the present, | |
| 16585 unity of worship is required in both contracting parties, so in the case of a betrothal, which is a promise of future marriage, | |
| 16586 it suffices to add the condition of future unity of worship. | |
| 16587 </p> | |
| 16588 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p13"> | |
| 16589 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It has been made clear that disparity of worship is contrary to marriage in respect of its chief good, which is the good | |
| 16590 of the offspring. | |
| 16591 </p> | |
| 16592 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p14"> | |
| 16593 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Matrimony is a sacrament: and therefore so far as the sacramental essentials are concerned, it requires purity with regard | |
| 16594 to the sacrament of faith, namely Baptism, rather than with regard to interior faith. For which reason also this impediment | |
| 16595 is not called disparity of faith, but disparity of worship which concerns outward service, as stated above (Sent. iii, D, | |
| 16596 9 | |
| 16597 <a id="XP_Q59_A1-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q1_A1.html">, Q[1], A[1]</a>, qu. 1). Consequently if a believer marry a | |
| 16598 baptized heretic, the marriage is valid, although he sins by marrying her if he knows her to be a heretic: even so he would | |
| 16599 sin were he to marry an excommunicate woman, and yet the marriage would not be void: whereas on the other hand if a catechumen | |
| 16600 having right faith but not having been baptized were to marry a baptized believer, the marriage would not be valid. | |
| 16601 </p> | |
| 16602 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p15"></p> | |
| 16603 <p id="XP_Q59_A1-p16"></p> | |
| 16604 <a href="summa.XP_Q59.html"></a> | |
| 16605 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16606 </div> | |
| 16607 <div id="XP_Q59_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 16608 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A1.html"></a> | |
| 16609 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16610 <h4 id="XP_Q59_A2-p0.1">Whether there can be marriage between unbelievers?</h4> | |
| 16611 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 16612 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p2"> | |
| 16613 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there can be no marriage between unbelievers. For matrimony is a sacrament of the Church. Now Baptism | |
| 16614 is the door of the sacraments. Therefore unbelievers, since they are not baptized, cannot marry any more than they can receive | |
| 16615 other sacraments. | |
| 16616 </p> | |
| 16617 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p3"> | |
| 16618 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, two evils are a greater impediment to good than one. But the unbelief of only one party is an impediment to marriage. | |
| 16619 Much more, therefore, is the unbelief of both, and consequently there can be no marriage between unbelievers. | |
| 16620 </p> | |
| 16621 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p4"> | |
| 16622 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as there is disparity of worship between believer and unbeliever, so can there be between two unbelievers, | |
| 16623 for instance if one be a heathen and the other a Jew. Now disparity of worship is an impediment to marriage, as stated above | |
| 16624 | |
| 16625 <a id="XP_Q59_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q59_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore there can be no valid marriage at least between unbelievers of different worship. | |
| 16626 </p> | |
| 16627 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p5"> | |
| 16628 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in marriage there is real chastity. But according to Augustine (De Adult. Conjug. i, 18) there is no real chastity | |
| 16629 between an unbeliever and his wife, and these words are quoted in the Decretals (XXVIII, qu. i, can. Sic enim.). Neither therefore | |
| 16630 is there a true marriage. | |
| 16631 </p> | |
| 16632 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p6"> | |
| 16633 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, true marriage excuses carnal intercourse from sin. But marriage contracted between unbelievers cannot do this, since | |
| 16634 "the whole life of unbelievers is a sin," as a gloss observes on | |
| 16635 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.23" target="asv"> Rom. 14:23, </a> "All that is not of faith is sin." Therefore there is no true marriage between unbelievers. | |
| 16636 </p> | |
| 16637 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p7"> | |
| 16638 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 16639 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:12</a>): "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away." But she is | |
| 16640 not called his wife except by reason of marriage. Therefore marriage between unbelievers is a true marriage. | |
| 16641 </p> | |
| 16642 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p8"> Further, the removal of what comes after does not imply the removal of what comes first. Now marriage belongs to an office | |
| 16643 of nature, which precedes the state of grace, the principle of which is faith. Therefore unbelief does not prevent the existence | |
| 16644 of marriage between unbelievers. | |
| 16645 </p> | |
| 16646 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p9"> | |
| 16647 <b>I answer that,</b> Marriage was instituted chiefly for the good of the offspring, not only as to its begetting---since this can be effected | |
| 16648 even without marriage---but also as to its advancement to a perfect state, because everything intends naturally to bring its | |
| 16649 effect to perfection. Now a twofold perfection is to be considered in the offspring. one is the perfection of nature, not | |
| 16650 only as regards the body but also as regards the soul, by those means which are of the natural | |
| 16651 law. The other is the perfection of grace: and the former perfection is material and imperfect in relation to the latter. | |
| 16652 Consequently, since those things which are for the sake of the end are proportionate to the end, the marriage that tends to | |
| 16653 the first perfection is imperfect and material in comparison with that which tends to the second perfection. And since the | |
| 16654 first perfection can be common to unbelievers and believers, while the second belongs only to believers, it follows that between | |
| 16655 unbelievers there is marriage indeed, but not perfected by its ultimate perfection as there is between believers. | |
| 16656 </p> | |
| 16657 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p10"> | |
| 16658 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Marriage was instituted not only as a sacrament, but also as an office of nature. And therefore, although marriage is not | |
| 16659 competent to unbelievers, as a sacrament dependent on the dispensation of the Church's ministers, it is nevertheless competent | |
| 16660 to them as fulfilling an office of nature. And yet even a marriage of this kind is a sacrament after the manner of a habit, | |
| 16661 although it is not actually since they do not marry actually in the faith of the | |
| 16662 Church. | |
| 16663 </p> | |
| 16664 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p11"> | |
| 16665 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Disparity of worship is an impediment to marriage, not by reason of unbelief, but on account of the difference of faith. | |
| 16666 For disparity of worship hinders not only the second perfection of the offspring, but also the first, since the parents endeavor | |
| 16667 to draw their children in different directions, which is not the case when both are unbelievers. | |
| 16668 </p> | |
| 16669 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p12"> | |
| 16670 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As already stated (ad 1) there is marriage between unbelievers, in so far as marriage fulfills an office of nature. Now those | |
| 16671 things that pertain to the natural law are determinable by positive law: and therefore if any law among unbelievers forbid | |
| 16672 the contracting of marriage with unbelievers of a different rite, the disparity of worship will be an impediment to their | |
| 16673 intermarrying. They are not, however, forbidden by Divine law, because before God, | |
| 16674 however much one may stray from the faith, this makes no difference to one's being removed from grace: nor is it forbidden | |
| 16675 by any law of the Church who has not to judge of those who are without. | |
| 16676 </p> | |
| 16677 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p13"> | |
| 16678 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The chastity and other virtues of unbelievers are said not to be real, because they cannot attain the end of real virtue, | |
| 16679 which is real happiness. Thus we say it is not a real wine if it has not the effect of wine. | |
| 16680 </p> | |
| 16681 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p14"> | |
| 16682 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> An unbeliever does not sin in having intercourse with his wife, if he pays her the marriage debt, for the good of the offspring, | |
| 16683 or for the troth whereby he is bound to her: since this is an act of justice and of temperance which observes the due circumstance | |
| 16684 in pleasure of touch; even as neither does he sin in performing acts of other civic virtues. Again, the reason why the whole | |
| 16685 life of unbelievers is said to be a sin is not that they sin in every | |
| 16686 act, but because they cannot be delivered from the bondage of sin by that which they do. | |
| 16687 </p> | |
| 16688 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p15"></p> | |
| 16689 <p id="XP_Q59_A2-p16"></p> | |
| 16690 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A1.html"></a> | |
| 16691 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16692 </div> | |
| 16693 <div id="XP_Q59_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 16694 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16695 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A4.html"></a> | |
| 16696 <h4 id="XP_Q59_A3-p0.1">Whether the husband, being converted to the faith, may remain with his wife is she be unwilling to be converted?</h4> | |
| 16697 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 16698 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p2"> | |
| 16699 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that when a husband is converted to the faith he cannot remain with his wife who is an unbeliever and is unwilling | |
| 16700 to be converted, and whom he had married while he was yet an unbeliever. For where the danger is the same one should take | |
| 16701 the same precautions. Now a believer is forbidden to marry an unbeliever for fear of being turned away from the faith. Since | |
| 16702 then if the believer remain with the unbeliever whom he had married previously, the | |
| 16703 danger is the same, in fact greater, for neophytes are more easily perverted than those who have been brought up in the faith, | |
| 16704 it would seem that a believer, after being converted, cannot remain with an unbeliever. | |
| 16705 </p> | |
| 16706 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p3"> | |
| 16707 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "An unbeliever cannot remain united to her who has been received into the Christian faith" (Decretals, XXVIII, qu. | |
| 16708 1, can. Judaei). Therefore a believer is bound to put away a wife who does not believe. | |
| 16709 </p> | |
| 16710 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p4"> | |
| 16711 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a marriage contracted between believers is more perfect than one contracted between unbelievers. Now, if believers | |
| 16712 marry within the degrees forbidden by the Church, their marriage is void. Therefore the same applies to unbelievers, and thus | |
| 16713 a believing husband cannot remain with an unbelieving wife, at any rate, if as an unbeliever he married her within the forbidden | |
| 16714 degrees. | |
| 16715 </p> | |
| 16716 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p5"> | |
| 16717 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, sometimes an unbeliever has several wives recognized by his law. If, then, he can remain with those whom he married | |
| 16718 while yet an unbeliever, it would seem that even after his conversion he can retain several wives. | |
| 16719 </p> | |
| 16720 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p6"> | |
| 16721 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it may happen that after divorcing his first wife he has married a second, and that he is converted during this | |
| 16722 latter marriage. It would seem therefore that at least in this case he cannot remain with this second wife. | |
| 16723 </p> | |
| 16724 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p7"> | |
| 16725 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle counsels him to remain ( | |
| 16726 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:12</a>). | |
| 16727 </p> | |
| 16728 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p8"> Further, no impediment that supervenes upon a true marriage dissolves it. Now it was a true marriage when they were both | |
| 16729 unbelievers. Therefore when one of them is converted, the marriage is not annulled on that account; and thus it would seem | |
| 16730 that they may lawfully remain together. | |
| 16731 </p> | |
| 16732 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p9"> | |
| 16733 <b>I answer that,</b> The faith of a married person does not dissolve but perfects the marriage. Wherefore, since there is true marriage between | |
| 16734 unbelievers, as stated above (A[2], ad 1), the marriage tie is not broken by the fact that one of them is converted to the | |
| 16735 faith, but sometimes while the marriage tie remains, the marriage is dissolved as to cohabitation and marital intercourse, | |
| 16736 wherein unbelief and adultery are on a par, since both are against the good of the offspring. | |
| 16737 Consequently, the husband has the same power to put away an unbelieving wife or to remain with her, as he has to put away | |
| 16738 an adulterous wife or to remain with her. For an innocent husband is free to remain with an adulterous wife in the hope of | |
| 16739 her amendment, but not if she be obstinate in her sin of adultery, lest he seem to approve of her disgrace; although even | |
| 16740 if there be hope of her amendment he is free to put her away. In like manner the believer after his conversion may remain | |
| 16741 with the | |
| 16742 unbeliever in the hope of her conversion, if he see that she is not obstinate in her unbelief, and he does well in remaining | |
| 16743 with her, though not bound to do so: and this is what the Apostle counsels ( | |
| 16744 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:12</a>). | |
| 16745 </p> | |
| 16746 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p10"> | |
| 16747 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is easier to prevent a thing being done than to undo what is rightly done. Hence there are many things that impede the | |
| 16748 contracting of marriage if they precede it, which nevertheless cannot dissolve it if they follow it. Such is the case with | |
| 16749 affinity ( | |
| 16750 <a id="XP_Q59_A3-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q55_A6.html">Q[55], A[6]</a>): and it is the same with disparity of worship. | |
| 16751 </p> | |
| 16752 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p11"> | |
| 16753 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the early Church at the time of the apostles, both Jews and Gentiles were everywhere converted to the faith: and consequently | |
| 16754 the believing husband could then have a reasonable hope for his wife's conversion, even though she did not promise to be converted. | |
| 16755 Afterwards, however, as time went on the Jews became more obstinate than the Gentiles, because the Gentiles still continued | |
| 16756 to come to the faith, for instance, at the time of the martyrs, and at | |
| 16757 the time of Constantine and thereabouts. Wherefore it was not safe then for a believer to cohabit with an unbelieving Jewish | |
| 16758 wife, nor was there hope for her conversion as for that of a Gentile wife. Consequently, then, the believer could, after his | |
| 16759 conversion, cohabit with his wife if she were a Gentile, but not if she were a Jewess, unless she promised to be converted. | |
| 16760 This is the sense of that decree. Now, however, they are on a par, namely Gentiles and Jews, because both are obstinate; and | |
| 16761 therefore unless the unbelieving wife be willing to be converted, he is not allowed to cohabit with her, be she Gentile or | |
| 16762 Jew. | |
| 16763 </p> | |
| 16764 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p12"> | |
| 16765 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Non-baptized unbelievers are not bound by the laws of the Church, but they are bound by the ordinances of the Divine law. | |
| 16766 Hence unbelievers who have married within the degrees forbidden by the Divine law, whether both or one of them be converted | |
| 16767 to the faith, cannot continue in a like marriage. But if they have married within the degrees forbidden by a commandment of | |
| 16768 the Church, they can remain together if both be converted, or if one be converted and | |
| 16769 there be hope of the other's conversion. | |
| 16770 </p> | |
| 16771 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p13"> | |
| 16772 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> To have several wives is contrary to the natural law by which even unbelievers are bound. Wherefore an unbeliever is not | |
| 16773 truly married save to her whom he married first. Consequently if he be converted with all his wives, he may remain with the | |
| 16774 first, and must put the others away. If, however, the first refuse to be converted, and one of the others be converted, he | |
| 16775 has the same right to marry her again as he would have to marry another. We shall treat | |
| 16776 of this matter further on | |
| 16777 <a id="XP_Q59_A3-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q59_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. | |
| 16778 </p> | |
| 16779 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p14"> | |
| 16780 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> To divorce a wife is contrary to the law of nature, wherefore it is not lawful for an unbeliever to divorce his wife. Hence | |
| 16781 if he be converted after divorcing one and marrying another, the same judgment is to be pronounced in this case as in the | |
| 16782 case of a man who had several wives, because if he wish to be converted he is bound to take the first whom he had divorced | |
| 16783 and to put the other away. | |
| 16784 </p> | |
| 16785 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p15"></p> | |
| 16786 <p id="XP_Q59_A3-p16"></p> | |
| 16787 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A2.html"></a> | |
| 16788 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A4.html"></a> | |
| 16789 </div> | |
| 16790 <div id="XP_Q59_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 16791 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16792 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A5.html"></a> | |
| 16793 <h4 id="XP_Q59_A4-p0.1">Whether a believer can, after his conversion, put away his unbelieving wife if she be willing to cohabit with him without | |
| 16794 insult to the Creator? | |
| 16795 </h4> | |
| 16796 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 16797 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p2"> | |
| 16798 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a believer, after his conversion, cannot put away his unbelieving wife if she be willing to cohabit with | |
| 16799 him without insult to the Creator. For the husband is more bound to his wife than a slave to his master. But a converted slave | |
| 16800 is not freed from the bond of slavery, as appears from | |
| 16801 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.21" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:21</a>; | |
| 16802 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.6.1" target="asv">1 Tim. 6:1.</a> Therefore neither can a believing husband put away his unbelieving wife. | |
| 16803 </p> | |
| 16804 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p3"> | |
| 16805 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one may act to another's prejudice without the latter's consent. Now the unbelieving wife had a right in the | |
| 16806 body of her unbelieving husband. If, then, her husband's conversion to the faith could be prejudicial to the wife, so that | |
| 16807 he would be free to put her away, the husband could not be converted to the faith without his wife's consent, even as he cannot | |
| 16808 receive orders or vow continence without her consent. | |
| 16809 </p> | |
| 16810 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p4"> | |
| 16811 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if a man, whether slave or free, knowingly marry a bondwoman, he cannot put her away on account of her different | |
| 16812 condition. Since, then, the husband, when he married an unbeliever, knew that she was an unbeliever, it would seem that in | |
| 16813 like manner he cannot put her away on account of her unbelief. | |
| 16814 </p> | |
| 16815 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p5"> | |
| 16816 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a father is in duty bound to work for the salvation of his children. But if he were to leave his unbelieving wife, | |
| 16817 the children of their union would remain with the mother, because "the offspring follows the womb," and thus their salvation | |
| 16818 would be imperiled. Therefore he cannot lawfully put away his unbelieving wife. | |
| 16819 </p> | |
| 16820 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p6"> | |
| 16821 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, an adulterous husband cannot put away an adulterous wife, even after he has done penance for his adultery. Therefore | |
| 16822 if an adulterous and an unbelieving husband are to be judged alike, neither can the believer put aside the unbeliever, even | |
| 16823 after his conversion to the faith. | |
| 16824 </p> | |
| 16825 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p7"> | |
| 16826 <b>On the contrary,</b> are the words of the Apostle ( | |
| 16827 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:15,16</a>). | |
| 16828 </p> | |
| 16829 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p8"> Further, spiritual adultery is more grievous than carnal. But a man can put his wife away, as to cohabitation, on account | |
| 16830 of carnal adultery. Much more, therefore, can he do so on account of unbelief, which is spiritual adultery. | |
| 16831 </p> | |
| 16832 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p9"> | |
| 16833 <b>I answer that,</b> Different things are competent and expedient to man according as his life is of one kind or of another. Wherefore he who | |
| 16834 dies to his former life is not bound to those things to which he was bound in his former life. Hence it is that he who vowed | |
| 16835 certain things while living in the world is not bound to fulfill them when he dies to the world by adopting the religious | |
| 16836 life. Now he who is baptized is regenerated in Christ and dies to his former life, since the | |
| 16837 generation of one thing is the corruption of another, and consequently he is freed from the obligation whereby he was bound | |
| 16838 to pay his wife the marriage debt, and is not bound to cohabit with her when she is unwilling to be converted, although in | |
| 16839 a certain case he is free to do so, as stated above | |
| 16840 <a id="XP_Q59_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q59_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, just as a religious is free to fulfill the vows he took in the world, if they be not contrary to his religious profession, | |
| 16841 although he is not bound to do so. | |
| 16842 </p> | |
| 16843 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p10"> | |
| 16844 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Bondage is not inconsistent with the perfection of the Christian religion, which makes a very special profession of humility. | |
| 16845 But the obligation to a wife, or the conjugal bond, is somewhat derogatory to the perfection of Christian life, the highest | |
| 16846 state of which is in the possession of the continent: hence the comparison fails. Moreover one married party is not bound | |
| 16847 to the other as the latter's possession, as a slave to his master, but by way of a | |
| 16848 kind of partnership, which is unfitting between unbeliever and believer as appears from | |
| 16849 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.15" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:15</a>; hence there is no comparison between a slave and a married person. | |
| 16850 </p> | |
| 16851 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p11"> | |
| 16852 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The wife had a right in the body of her husband only as long as he remained in the life wherein he had married, since also | |
| 16853 when the husband dies the wife "is delivered from the law of her husband" ( | |
| 16854 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.3" target="asv">Rom. 7:3</a>). Wherefore if the husband leave her after he has changed his life by dying to his former life, this is nowise prejudicial | |
| 16855 to her. Now he who goes over to the religious life dies but a spiritual death and not a bodily death. Wherefore if the | |
| 16856 marriage be consummated, the husband cannot enter religion without his wife's consent, whereas he can before carnal connection | |
| 16857 when there is only a spiritual connection. On the other hand, he who is baptized is even corporeally buried together with | |
| 16858 Christ unto death; and therefore he is freed from paying the marriage debt even after the marriage has been consummated. | |
| 16859 </p> | |
| 16860 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p12"> We may also reply that it is through her own fault in refusing to be converted that the wife suffers prejudice.</p> | |
| 16861 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p13"> | |
| 16862 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Disparity of worship makes a person simply unfit for lawful marriage, whereas the condition of bondage does not, but only | |
| 16863 where it is unknown. Hence there is no comparison between an unbeliever and a bondswoman. | |
| 16864 </p> | |
| 16865 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p14"> | |
| 16866 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Either the child has reached a perfect age, and then it is free to follow either the believing father or the unbelieving | |
| 16867 mother, or else it is under age, and then it should be given to the believer notwithstanding that it needs the mother's care | |
| 16868 for its education. | |
| 16869 </p> | |
| 16870 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p15"> | |
| 16871 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> By doing penance the adulterer does not enter another life as an unbeliever by being baptized. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 16872 </p> | |
| 16873 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p16"></p> | |
| 16874 <p id="XP_Q59_A4-p17"></p> | |
| 16875 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A3.html"></a> | |
| 16876 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A5.html"></a> | |
| 16877 </div> | |
| 16878 <div id="XP_Q59_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 16879 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A4.html"></a> | |
| 16880 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A6.html"></a> | |
| 16881 <h4 id="XP_Q59_A5-p0.1">Whether the believer who leaves his unbelieving wife can take another wife?</h4> | |
| 16882 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 16883 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p2"> | |
| 16884 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the believer who leaves his unbelieving wife cannot take another wife. For indissolubility is of the nature | |
| 16885 of marriage, since it is contrary to the natural law to divorce one's wife. Now there was true marriage between them as unbelievers. | |
| 16886 Therefore their marriage can nowise be dissolved. But as long as a man is bound by marriage to one woman he cannot marry another. | |
| 16887 Therefore a believer who leaves his unbelieving wife cannot take another | |
| 16888 wife. | |
| 16889 </p> | |
| 16890 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p3"> | |
| 16891 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a crime subsequent to marriage does not dissolve the marriage. Now, if the wife be willing to cohabit without insult | |
| 16892 to the Creator, the marriage tie is not dissolved, since the husband cannot marry another. Therefore the sin of the wife who | |
| 16893 refuses to cohabit without insult to the Creator does not dissolve the marriage so that her husband be free to take another | |
| 16894 wife. | |
| 16895 </p> | |
| 16896 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p4"> | |
| 16897 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, husband and wife are equal in the marriage tie. Since, then, it is unlawful for the unbelieving wife to marry again | |
| 16898 while her husband lives, it would seem that neither can the believing husband do so. | |
| 16899 </p> | |
| 16900 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p5"> | |
| 16901 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the vow of continence is more favorable than the marriage contract. Now seemingly it is not lawful for the believing | |
| 16902 husband to take a vow of continence without the consent of his unbelieving wife, since then the latter would be deprived of | |
| 16903 marriage if she were afterwards converted. Much less therefore is it lawful for him to take another wife. | |
| 16904 </p> | |
| 16905 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p6"> | |
| 16906 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the son who persists in unbelief after his father's conversion loses the right to inherit from his father: and yet | |
| 16907 if he be afterwards converted, the inheritance is restored to him even though another should have entered into possession | |
| 16908 thereof. Therefore it would seem that in like manner, if the unbelieving wife be converted, her husband ought to be restored | |
| 16909 to her even though he should have married another wife: yet this would be impossible if the | |
| 16910 second marriage were valid. Therefore he cannot take another wife. | |
| 16911 </p> | |
| 16912 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p7"> | |
| 16913 <b>On the contrary,</b> Matrimony is not ratified without the sacrament of Baptism. Now what is not ratified can be annulled. Therefore marriage | |
| 16914 contracted in unbelief can be annulled, and consequently, the marriage tie being dissolved, it is lawful for the husband to | |
| 16915 take another wife. | |
| 16916 </p> | |
| 16917 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p8"> Further, a husband ought not to cohabit with an unbelieving wife who refuses to cohabit without insult to the Creator. If | |
| 16918 therefore it were unlawful for him to take another wife he would be forced to remain continent, which would seem unreasonable, | |
| 16919 since then he would be at a disadvantage through his conversion. | |
| 16920 </p> | |
| 16921 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p9"> | |
| 16922 <b>I answer that,</b> When either husband or wife is converted to the faith the other remaining in unbelief, a distinction must be made. For if | |
| 16923 the unbeliever be willing to cohabit without insult to the Creator---that is without drawing the other to unbelief---the believer | |
| 16924 is free to part from the other, but by parting is not permitted to marry again. But if the unbeliever refuse to cohabit without | |
| 16925 insult to the Creator, by making use of blasphemous words and refusing to hear | |
| 16926 Christ's name, then if she strive to draw him to unbelief, the believing husband after parting from her may be united to another | |
| 16927 in marriage. | |
| 16928 </p> | |
| 16929 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p10"> | |
| 16930 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above | |
| 16931 <a id="XP_Q59_A5-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q59_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, the marriage of unbelievers is imperfect, whereas the marriage of believers is perfect and consequently binds more firmly. | |
| 16932 Now the firmer tie always looses the weaker if it is contrary to it, and therefore the subsequent marriage contracted in the | |
| 16933 faith of Christ dissolves the marriage previously contracted in unbelief. Therefore the marriage of unbelievers is not altogether | |
| 16934 firm and ratified, but is | |
| 16935 ratified afterwards by Christ's faith. | |
| 16936 </p> | |
| 16937 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p11"> | |
| 16938 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sin of the wife who refuses to cohabit without insult to the Creator frees the husband from the tie whereby he was bound | |
| 16939 to his wife so as to be unable to marry again during her lifetime. It does not however dissolve the marriage at once, since | |
| 16940 if she were converted from her blasphemy before he married again, her husband would be restored to her. But the marriage is | |
| 16941 dissolved by the second marriage which the believing husband would be unable to | |
| 16942 accomplish unless he were freed from his obligation to his wife by her own fault. | |
| 16943 </p> | |
| 16944 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p12"> | |
| 16945 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> After the believer has married, the marriage tie is dissolved on either side, because the marriage is not imperfect as to | |
| 16946 the bond, although it is sometimes imperfect as to its effect. Hence it is in punishment of the unbelieving wife rather than | |
| 16947 by virtue of the previous marriage that she is forbidden to marry again. If however she be afterwards converted, she may be | |
| 16948 allowed by dispensation to take another husband, should her husband have taken | |
| 16949 another wife. | |
| 16950 </p> | |
| 16951 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p13"> | |
| 16952 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The husband ought not to take a vow of continence nor enter into a second marriage, if after his conversion there be a reasonable | |
| 16953 hope of the conversion of his wife, because the wife's conversion would be more difficult if she knew she was deprived of | |
| 16954 her husband. If however there be no hope of her conversion, he can take Holy orders or enter religion, having first besought | |
| 16955 his wife to be converted. And then if the wife be converted after her husband | |
| 16956 has received Holy orders, her husband must not be restored to her, but she must take it as a punishment of her tardy conversion | |
| 16957 that she is deprived of her husband. | |
| 16958 </p> | |
| 16959 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p14"> | |
| 16960 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The bond of fatherhood is not dissolved by disparity of worship, as the marriage bond is: wherefore there is no comparison | |
| 16961 between an inheritance and a wife. | |
| 16962 </p> | |
| 16963 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p15"></p> | |
| 16964 <p id="XP_Q59_A5-p16"></p> | |
| 16965 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A4.html"></a> | |
| 16966 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A6.html"></a> | |
| 16967 </div> | |
| 16968 <div id="XP_Q59_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 16969 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A5.html"></a> | |
| 16970 <a href="summa.XP_Q60.html"></a> | |
| 16971 <h4 id="XP_Q59_A6-p0.1">Whether other sins dissolve marriage?</h4> | |
| 16972 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 16973 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p2"> | |
| 16974 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that other sins besides unbelief dissolve marriage. For adultery is seemingly more directly opposed to marriage | |
| 16975 than unbelief is. But unbelief dissolves marriage in a certain case so that it is lawful to marry again. Therefore adultery | |
| 16976 has the same effect. | |
| 16977 </p> | |
| 16978 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p3"> | |
| 16979 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as unbelief is spiritual fornication, so is any kind of sin. If, then unbelief dissolves marriage because it | |
| 16980 is spiritual fornication, for the same reason any kind of sin will dissolve marriage. | |
| 16981 </p> | |
| 16982 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p4"> | |
| 16983 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is said ( | |
| 16984 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.30" target="asv">Mat. 5:30</a>): "If thy right hand scandalize thee, pluck it off and cast it from thee," and a gloss of Jerome says that "by the hand and | |
| 16985 the right eye we may understand our brother, wife, relatives and children." Now these become obstacles to us by any kind of | |
| 16986 sin. Therefore marriage can be dissolved on account of any kind of sin. | |
| 16987 </p> | |
| 16988 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p5"> | |
| 16989 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, covetousness is idolatry according to | |
| 16990 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.5" target="asv">Eph. 5:5</a>. Now a wife may be put away on account of idolatry. Therefore in like manner she can be put away on account of covetousness, | |
| 16991 as also on account of other sins graver than covetousness. | |
| 16992 </p> | |
| 16993 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p6"> | |
| 16994 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the Master says this expressly (Sent. iv, D, 30). | |
| 16995 </p> | |
| 16996 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p7"> | |
| 16997 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( | |
| 16998 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.32" target="asv">Mat. 5:32</a>): "Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery." | |
| 16999 </p> | |
| 17000 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p8"> Further, if this were true, divorces would be made all day long, since it is rare to find a marriage wherein one of the parties | |
| 17001 does not fall into sin. | |
| 17002 </p> | |
| 17003 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p9"> | |
| 17004 <b>I answer that,</b> Bodily fornication and unbelief have a special contrariety to the goods of marriage, as stated above | |
| 17005 <a id="XP_Q59_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q59_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Hence they are specially effective in dissolving marriages. Nevertheless it must be observed that marriage is dissolved | |
| 17006 in two ways. In one way as to the marriage tie, and thus marriage cannot be dissolved after it is ratified, neither by unbelief | |
| 17007 nor by adultery. But if it be not ratified, the tie is dissolved, if the one | |
| 17008 party remain in unbelief, and the other being converted to the faith has married again. On the other hand the aforesaid tie | |
| 17009 is not dissolved by adultery, else the unbeliever would be free to give a bill of divorce to his adulterous wife, and having | |
| 17010 put her away, could take another wife, which is false. In another way marriage is dissolved as to the act, and thus it can | |
| 17011 be dissolved on account of either unbelief or fornication. But marriage cannot be dissolved even as to the act on account | |
| 17012 of | |
| 17013 other sins, unless perchance the husband wish to cease from intercourse with his wife in order to punish her by depriving | |
| 17014 her of the comfort of his presence. | |
| 17015 </p> | |
| 17016 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p10"> | |
| 17017 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although adultery is opposed to marriage as fulfilling an office of nature, more directly than unbelief, it is the other | |
| 17018 way about if we consider marriage as a sacrament of the Church, from which source it derives perfect stability, inasmuch as | |
| 17019 it signifies the indissoluble union of Christ with the Church. Wherefore the marriage that is not ratified can be dissolved | |
| 17020 as to the marriage tie on account of unbelief rather than on account of adultery. | |
| 17021 </p> | |
| 17022 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p11"> | |
| 17023 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The primal union of the soul to God is by faith, and consequently the soul is thereby espoused to God as it were, according | |
| 17024 to | |
| 17025 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q59_A6-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.2.20" target="asv"> Osee 2:20, </a> "I will espouse thee to Me in faith." Hence in Holy Writ idolatry and unbelief are specially designated by the name of fornication: | |
| 17026 whereas other sins are called spiritual fornications by a more remote signification. | |
| 17027 </p> | |
| 17028 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p12"> | |
| 17029 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This applies to the case when the wife proves a notable occasion of sin to her husband, so that he has reason to fear his | |
| 17030 being in danger: for then the husband can withdraw from living with her, as stated above | |
| 17031 <a id="XP_Q59_A6-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q59_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. | |
| 17032 </p> | |
| 17033 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p13"> | |
| 17034 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Covetousness is said to be idolatry on account of a certain likeness of bondage, because both the covetous and the idolater | |
| 17035 serve the creature rather than the Creator; but not on account of likeness of unbelief, since unbelief corrupts the intellect | |
| 17036 whereas covetousness corrupts the affections. | |
| 17037 </p> | |
| 17038 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p14"> | |
| 17039 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The words of the Master refer to betrothal, because a betrothal can be rescinded on account of a subsequent crime. Or, if | |
| 17040 he is speaking of marriage, they must be referred to the severing of mutual companionship for a time, as stated above, or | |
| 17041 to the case when the wife is unwilling to cohabit except on the condition of sinning, for instance, if she were to say: "I | |
| 17042 will not remain your wife unless you amass wealth for me by theft," for then he ought to | |
| 17043 leave her rather than thieve. | |
| 17044 </p> | |
| 17045 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p15"></p> | |
| 17046 <p id="XP_Q59_A6-p16"></p> | |
| 17047 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A5.html"></a> | |
| 17048 <a href="summa.XP_Q60.html"></a> | |
| 17049 </div> | |
| 17050 <a href="summa.XP_Q58_A5.html"></a> | |
| 17051 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17052 </div> | |
| 17053 <div id="XP_Q60" class="div3"> | |
| 17054 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A6.html"></a> | |
| 17055 <a href="summa.XP_Q60_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17056 <h3 id="XP_Q60-p0.1">OF WIFE-MURDER (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 17057 <p id="XP_Q60-p1"></p> | |
| 17058 <p id="XP_Q60-p2"> We must now consider wife-murder, under which head there are two points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 17059 <p id="XP_Q60-p3"> (1) Whether in a certain case it is lawful to kill one's wife?</p> | |
| 17060 <p id="XP_Q60-p4"> (2) Whether wife-murder is an impediment to marriage?</p> | |
| 17061 <div id="XP_Q60_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 17062 <a href="summa.XP_Q60.html"></a> | |
| 17063 <a href="summa.XP_Q60_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17064 <h4 id="XP_Q60_A1-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for a man to kill his wife if she be discovered in the act of adultery?</h4> | |
| 17065 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 17066 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p2"> | |
| 17067 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem lawful for a man to kill his wife if she be discovered in the act of adultery. For the Divine law commanded | |
| 17068 adulterous wives to be stoned. Now it is not a sin to fulfill the Divine law. Neither therefore is it a sin to kill one's | |
| 17069 own wife if she be an adulteress. | |
| 17070 </p> | |
| 17071 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p3"> | |
| 17072 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which the law can rightly do, can be rightly done by one whom the law has commissioned to do it. But the law | |
| 17073 can rightly kill an adulterous wife or any other person deserving of death. Since then the law has commissioned the husband | |
| 17074 to kill his wife if she be discovered in the act of adultery, it would seem that he can rightly do so. | |
| 17075 </p> | |
| 17076 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p4"> | |
| 17077 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the husband has greater power over his adulterous wife than over the man who committed adultery with her. Now if | |
| 17078 the husband strike a cleric whom he found with his wife he is not excommunicated. Therefore it would seem lawful for him even | |
| 17079 to kill his own wife if she be discovered in adultery. | |
| 17080 </p> | |
| 17081 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p5"> | |
| 17082 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the husband is bound to correct his wife. But correction is given by inflicting a just punishment. Since then the | |
| 17083 just punishment of adultery is death, because it is a capital sin, it would seem lawful for a husband to kill his adulterous | |
| 17084 wife. | |
| 17085 </p> | |
| 17086 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p6"> | |
| 17087 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 37) that "the Church of God is never bound by the laws of this world, for she has | |
| 17088 none but a spiritual sword." Therefore it would seem that he who wishes to belong to the Church cannot rightly take advantage | |
| 17089 of the law which permits a man to kill his wife. | |
| 17090 </p> | |
| 17091 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p7"> Further, husband and wife are judged on a par. But it is not lawful for a wife to kill her husband if he be discovered in | |
| 17092 adultery. Neither therefore may a husband kill his wife. | |
| 17093 </p> | |
| 17094 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p8"> | |
| 17095 <b>I answer that,</b> It happens in two ways that a husband kills his wife. First, by a civil judgment; and thus there is no doubt that a husband, | |
| 17096 moved by zeal for justice and not by vindictive anger or hatred can, without sin, bring a criminal accusation of adultery | |
| 17097 upon his wife before a secular court, and demand that she receive capital punishment as appointed by the law; just as it is | |
| 17098 lawful to accuse a person of murder or any other crime. Such an accusation however cannot | |
| 17099 be made in an ecclesiastical court, because, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 37), the Church does not wield a material | |
| 17100 sword. Secondly, a husband can kill his wife himself without her being convicted in court, and thus to kill her outside of | |
| 17101 the act of adultery is not lawful, neither according to civil law nor according to the law of conscience, whatever evidence | |
| 17102 he may have of her adultery. The civil law however considers it, as though it were lawful, that he should kill her in the | |
| 17103 very | |
| 17104 act, not by commanding him to do so, but by not inflicting on him the punishment for murder, on account of the very great | |
| 17105 provocation which the husband receives by such a deed to kill his wife. But the Church is not bound in this matter by human | |
| 17106 laws, neither does she acquit him of the debt of eternal punishment, nor of such punishment as may be awarded him by an ecclesiastical | |
| 17107 tribunal for the reason that he is quit of any punishment to be inflicted by a secular court. Therefore in no case is | |
| 17108 it lawful for a husband to kill his wife on his own authority. | |
| 17109 </p> | |
| 17110 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p9"> | |
| 17111 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The law has committed the infliction of this punishment not to private individuals, but to public persons, who are deputed | |
| 17112 to this by their office. Now the husband is not his wife's judge: wherefore he may not kill her, but may accuse her in the | |
| 17113 judge's presence. | |
| 17114 </p> | |
| 17115 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p10"> | |
| 17116 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The civil law has not commissioned the husband to kill his wife by commanding him to do so, for thus he would not sin, just | |
| 17117 as the judge's deputy does not sin by killing the thief condemned to death: but it has permitted this by not punishing it. | |
| 17118 For which reason it has raised certain obstacles to prevent the husband from killing his wife. | |
| 17119 </p> | |
| 17120 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p11"> | |
| 17121 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This does not prove that it is lawful simply, but that it is lawful as regards immunity from a particular kind of punishment, | |
| 17122 since excommunication is also a kind of punishment. | |
| 17123 </p> | |
| 17124 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p12"> | |
| 17125 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> There are two kinds of community: the household, such as a family; and the civil community, such as a city or kingdom. Accordingly, | |
| 17126 he who presides over the latter kind of community, a king for instance, can punish an individual both by correcting and by | |
| 17127 exterminating him, for the betterment of the community with whose care he is charged. But he who presides over a community | |
| 17128 of the first kind, can inflict only corrective punishment, which does not | |
| 17129 extend beyond the limits of amendment, and these are exceeded by the punishment of death. Wherefore the husband who exercises | |
| 17130 this kind of control over his wife may not kill her, but he may accuse or chastise her in some other way. | |
| 17131 </p> | |
| 17132 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 17133 <p id="XP_Q60_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 17134 <a href="summa.XP_Q60.html"></a> | |
| 17135 <a href="summa.XP_Q60_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17136 </div> | |
| 17137 <div id="XP_Q60_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 17138 <a href="summa.XP_Q60_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17139 <a href="summa.XP_Q61.html"></a> | |
| 17140 <h4 id="XP_Q60_A2-p0.1">Whether wife-murder is an impediment to marriage?</h4> | |
| 17141 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 17142 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p2"> | |
| 17143 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that wife-murder is not an impediment to marriage. For adultery is more directly opposed to marriage than murder | |
| 17144 is. Now adultery is not an impediment to marriage. Neither therefore is wife-murder. | |
| 17145 </p> | |
| 17146 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p3"> | |
| 17147 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is a more grievous sin to kill one's mother than one's wife, for it is never lawful to strike one's mother, whereas | |
| 17148 it is sometimes lawful to strike one's wife. But matricide is not an impediment to marriage. Neither therefore is wife-murder. | |
| 17149 </p> | |
| 17150 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p4"> | |
| 17151 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is a greater sin for a man to kill another man's wife on account of adultery than to kill his own wife, inasmuch | |
| 17152 as he has less motive and is less concerned with her correction. But he who kills another man's wife is not hindered from | |
| 17153 marrying. Neither therefore is he who kills his own wife. | |
| 17154 </p> | |
| 17155 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p5"> | |
| 17156 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But the sin of murder can be removed by repentance. Therefore the | |
| 17157 consequent impediment to marriage can be removed also: and consequently it would seem that after he has done penance he is | |
| 17158 not forbidden to marry. | |
| 17159 </p> | |
| 17160 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p6"> | |
| 17161 <b>On the contrary,</b> A canon (caus. xxxiii, qu. ii, can. Interfectores) says: "The slayers of their own wives must be brought back to penance, | |
| 17162 and they are absolutely forbidden to marry." Further, in whatsoever a man sins, in that same must he be punished. But he who | |
| 17163 kills his wife sins against marriage. Therefore he must be punished by being deprived of marriage. | |
| 17164 </p> | |
| 17165 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p7"> | |
| 17166 <b>I answer that,</b> By the Church's decree wife-murder is an impediment to marriage. Sometimes however it forbids the contracting of marriage | |
| 17167 without voiding the contract, when to wit the husband kills his wife on account of adultery or even through hatred; nevertheless | |
| 17168 if there be fear lest he should prove incontinent, he may be dispensed by the Church so as to marry lawfully. Sometimes it | |
| 17169 also voids the contract, as when a man kills his wife in order to marry her with whom he | |
| 17170 has committed adultery, for then the law declares him simply unfit to marry her, so that if he actually marry her his marriage | |
| 17171 is void. He is not however hereby rendered simply unfit by law in relation to other women: wherefore if he should have married | |
| 17172 another, although he sin by disobeying the Church's ordinance, the marriage is nevertheless not voided for this reason. | |
| 17173 </p> | |
| 17174 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p8"> | |
| 17175 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Murder and adultery in certain cases forbid the contracting of marriage and void the contract, as we say here in regard to | |
| 17176 wife-murder, and shall say further on (Sent. iv | |
| 17177 <a id="XP_Q60_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q62_A2.html">, Q[62], A[2]</a>) in regard to adultery. We may also reply that wife-murder is contrary to the substance of wedlock, whereas adultery is contrary | |
| 17178 to the good of fidelity due to marriage. Hence adultery is not more opposed to marriage than wife-murder, and the | |
| 17179 argument is based on a false premiss. | |
| 17180 </p> | |
| 17181 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p9"> | |
| 17182 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Simply speaking it is a more grievous sin to kill one's mother than one's wife, as also more opposed to nature, since a man | |
| 17183 reveres his mother naturally. Consequently he is less inclined to matricide and more prone to wife-murder; and it is to repress | |
| 17184 this proneness that the Church has forbidden marriage to the man who has murdered his wife. | |
| 17185 </p> | |
| 17186 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p10"> | |
| 17187 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Such a man does not sin against marriage as he does who kills his own wife; wherefore the comparison fails. | |
| 17188 </p> | |
| 17189 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p11"> | |
| 17190 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It does not follow that because guilt has been remitted therefore the entire punishment is remitted, as evidenced by irregularity. | |
| 17191 For repentance does not restore a man to his former dignity, although it can restore him to his former state of grace, as | |
| 17192 stated above ( | |
| 17193 <a id="XP_Q60_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q38_A1.html">Q[38], A[1]</a>, ad 3). | |
| 17194 </p> | |
| 17195 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 17196 <p id="XP_Q60_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 17197 <a href="summa.XP_Q60_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17198 <a href="summa.XP_Q61.html"></a> | |
| 17199 </div> | |
| 17200 <a href="summa.XP_Q59_A6.html"></a> | |
| 17201 <a href="summa.XP_Q60_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17202 </div> | |
| 17203 <div id="XP_Q61" class="div3"> | |
| 17204 <a href="summa.XP_Q60_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17205 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17206 <h3 id="XP_Q61-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENT TO MARRIAGE, ARISING FROM A SOLEMN VOW (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 17207 <p id="XP_Q61-p1"></p> | |
| 17208 <p id="XP_Q61-p2"> We must next consider the impediments which supervene to marriage. We shall consider (1) the impediment which affects an | |
| 17209 unconsummated marriage, namely a solemn vow: (2) the impediment which affects a consummated marriage, namely fornication. | |
| 17210 Under the first head there are three points of inquiry: | |
| 17211 </p> | |
| 17212 <p id="XP_Q61-p3"> (1) Whether either party after the marriage has been consummated can enter religion without the other's consent?</p> | |
| 17213 <p id="XP_Q61-p4"> (2) Whether they can enter religion before the consummation of the marriage?</p> | |
| 17214 <p id="XP_Q61-p5"> (3) Whether the wife can take another husband if her former husband has entered religion before the consummation of the marriage?</p> | |
| 17215 <div id="XP_Q61_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 17216 <a href="summa.XP_Q61.html"></a> | |
| 17217 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17218 <h4 id="XP_Q61_A1-p0.1">Whether one party after the marriage has been consummated can enter religion without the other's consent?</h4> | |
| 17219 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 17220 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p2"> | |
| 17221 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that even after the marriage has been consummated one consort can enter religion without the other's consent. | |
| 17222 For the Divine law ought to be more favorable to spiritual things than human law. Now human law has allowed this. Therefore | |
| 17223 much more should the Divine law permit it. | |
| 17224 </p> | |
| 17225 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p3"> | |
| 17226 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the lesser good does not hinder the greater. But the married state is a lesser good than the religious state, according | |
| 17227 to | |
| 17228 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q61_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.38" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:38.</a> Therefore marriage ought not to hinder a man from being able to enter religion. | |
| 17229 </p> | |
| 17230 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p4"> | |
| 17231 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in every form of religious life there is a kind of spiritual marriage. Now it is lawful to pass from a less strict | |
| 17232 religious order to one that is stricter. Therefore it is also allowable to pass from a less strict---namely a carnal---marriage | |
| 17233 to a stricter marriage, namely that of the religious life, even without the wife's consent. | |
| 17234 </p> | |
| 17235 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p5"> | |
| 17236 <b>On the contrary,</b> Married persons are forbidden ( | |
| 17237 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q61_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.5" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:5</a>) to abstain from the use of marriage even for a time without one another's consent, in order to have time for prayer. | |
| 17238 </p> | |
| 17239 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p6"> Further, no one can lawfully do that which is prejudicial to another without the latter's consent. Now the religious vow | |
| 17240 taken by one consort is prejudicial to the other, since the one has power over the other's body. Therefore one of them cannot | |
| 17241 take a religious vow without the other's consent. | |
| 17242 </p> | |
| 17243 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p7"> | |
| 17244 <b>I answer that,</b> No one can make an offering to God of what belongs to another. Wherefore since by a consummated marriage the husband's body | |
| 17245 already belongs to his wife, he cannot by a vow of continence offer it to God without her consent. | |
| 17246 </p> | |
| 17247 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p8"> | |
| 17248 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Human law considers marriage merely as fulfilling an office of nature: whereas the Divine law considers it as a sacrament, | |
| 17249 by reason of which it is altogether indissoluble. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 17250 </p> | |
| 17251 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p9"> | |
| 17252 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is not unreasonable that a greater good be hindered by a lesser which is contrary to it, just as good is hindered by evil. | |
| 17253 </p> | |
| 17254 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p10"> | |
| 17255 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In every form of religious life marriage is contracted with one person, namely Christ; to Whom, however, a person contracts | |
| 17256 more obligations in one religious order than in another. But in carnal marriage and religious marriage the contract is not | |
| 17257 with the same person: wherefore that comparison fails. | |
| 17258 </p> | |
| 17259 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 17260 <p id="XP_Q61_A1-p12"></p> | |
| 17261 <a href="summa.XP_Q61.html"></a> | |
| 17262 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17263 </div> | |
| 17264 <div id="XP_Q61_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 17265 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17266 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A3.html"></a> | |
| 17267 <h4 id="XP_Q61_A2-p0.1">Whether before the marriage has been consummated one consort can enter religion without the other's consent?</h4> | |
| 17268 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 17269 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p2"> | |
| 17270 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that even before the marriage has been consummated one consort cannot enter religion without the other's consent. | |
| 17271 For the indissolubility of marriage belongs to the sacrament of matrimony, inasmuch, namely, as it signifies the union of | |
| 17272 Christ with the Church. Now marriage is a true sacrament before its consummation, and after consent has been expressed in | |
| 17273 words of the present. Therefore it cannot be dissolved by one of them entering religion. | |
| 17274 </p> | |
| 17275 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p3"> | |
| 17276 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by virtue of the consent expressed in words of the present, the one consort has given power over his body to the | |
| 17277 other. Therefore the one can forthwith ask for the marriage debt, and the other is bound to pay: and so the one cannot enter | |
| 17278 religion without the other's consent. | |
| 17279 </p> | |
| 17280 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p4"> | |
| 17281 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is said ( | |
| 17282 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q61_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.6" target="asv">Mat. 19:6</a>): "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." But the union which precedes marital intercourse was made by God. | |
| 17283 Therefore it cannot be dissolved by the will of man. | |
| 17284 </p> | |
| 17285 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p5"> | |
| 17286 <b>On the contrary,</b> According to Jerome [*Prolog. in Joan.] our Lord called John from his wedding. | |
| 17287 </p> | |
| 17288 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p6"> | |
| 17289 <b>I answer that,</b> Before marital intercourse there is only a spiritual bond between husband and wife, but afterwards there is a carnal bond | |
| 17290 between them. Wherefore, just as after marital intercourse marriage is dissolved by carnal death, so by entering religion | |
| 17291 the bond which exists before the consummation of the marriage is dissolved, because religious life is a kind of spiritual | |
| 17292 death, whereby a man dies to the world and lives to God. | |
| 17293 </p> | |
| 17294 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p7"> | |
| 17295 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Before consummation marriage signifies the union of Christ with the soul by grace, which is dissolved by a contrary spiritual | |
| 17296 disposition, namely mortal sin. But after consummation it signifies the union of Christ with the Church, as regards the assumption | |
| 17297 of human nature into the unity of person, which union is altogether indissoluble. | |
| 17298 </p> | |
| 17299 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p8"> | |
| 17300 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Before consummation the body of one consort is not absolutely delivered into the power of the other, but conditionally, provided | |
| 17301 neither consort meanwhile seek the fruit of a better life. But by marital intercourse the aforesaid delivery is completed, | |
| 17302 because then each of them enters into bodily possession of the power transferred to him. Wherefore also before consummation | |
| 17303 they are not bound to pay the marriage debt forthwith after contracting | |
| 17304 marriage by words of the present, but a space of two months is allowed them for three reasons. First that they may deliberate | |
| 17305 meanwhile about entering religion; secondly, to prepare what is necessary for the solemnization of the wedding. thirdly, lest | |
| 17306 the husband think little of a gift he has not longed to possess (cap. Institutum, caus. xxvi, qu. ii). | |
| 17307 </p> | |
| 17308 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p9"> | |
| 17309 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The marriage union, before consummation, is indeed perfect as to its primary being, but is not finally perfect as to its | |
| 17310 second act which is operation. It is like bodily possession and consequently is not altogether indissoluble. | |
| 17311 </p> | |
| 17312 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p10"></p> | |
| 17313 <p id="XP_Q61_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 17314 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17315 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A3.html"></a> | |
| 17316 </div> | |
| 17317 <div id="XP_Q61_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 17318 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17319 <a href="summa.XP_Q62.html"></a> | |
| 17320 <h4 id="XP_Q61_A3-p0.1">Whether the wife may take another husband if her husband has entered religion before the consummation of the marriage?</h4> | |
| 17321 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 17322 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p2"> | |
| 17323 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the wife may not take another husband, if her husband has entered religion before the consummation of | |
| 17324 the marriage. For that which is consistent with marriage does not dissolve the marriage tie. Now the marriage tie still remains | |
| 17325 between those who equally take religious vows. Therefore by the fact that one enters religion, the other is not freed from | |
| 17326 the marriage tie. But as long as she remains tied to one by marriage, she cannot marry | |
| 17327 another. Therefore, etc. | |
| 17328 </p> | |
| 17329 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p3"> | |
| 17330 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, after entering religion and before making his profession the husband can return to the world. If then the wife can | |
| 17331 marry again when her husband enters religion, he also can marry again when he returns to the world: which is absurd. | |
| 17332 </p> | |
| 17333 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p4"> | |
| 17334 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by a new decree (cap. Non solum, de regular. et transeunt.) a profession, if made before the expiry of a year, is | |
| 17335 accounted void. Therefore if he return to his wife after making such a profession, she is bound to receive him. Therefore | |
| 17336 neither by her husband's entry into religion, nor by his taking a vow, does the wife receive the power to marry again. | |
| 17337 </p> | |
| 17338 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p5"> | |
| 17339 <b>On the contrary,</b> No one can bind another to those things which belong to perfection. Now continence is of those things that belong to perfection. | |
| 17340 Therefore a wife is not bound to continence on account of her husband entering religion, and consequently she can marry. | |
| 17341 </p> | |
| 17342 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p6"> | |
| 17343 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as bodily death of the husband dissolves the marriage tie in such a way that the wife may marry whom she will, according | |
| 17344 to the statement of the Apostle ( | |
| 17345 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q61_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.39" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:39</a>); so too after the husband's spiritual death by entering religion, she can marry whom she will. | |
| 17346 </p> | |
| 17347 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p7"> | |
| 17348 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When both consorts take a like vow of continence, neither renounces the marriage tie, wherefore it still remains: but when | |
| 17349 only one takes the vow, then for his own part he renounces the marriage tie, wherefore the other is freed therefrom. | |
| 17350 </p> | |
| 17351 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p8"> | |
| 17352 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A person is not accounted dead to the world by entering religion until he makes his profession, and consequently his wife | |
| 17353 is bound to wait for him until that time. | |
| 17354 </p> | |
| 17355 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p9"> | |
| 17356 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> We must judge of a profession thus made before the time fixed by law, as of a simple vow. Wherefore just as when the husband | |
| 17357 has taken a simple vow his wife is not bound to pay him the marriage debt, and yet has not the power to marry again, so is | |
| 17358 it in this case. | |
| 17359 </p> | |
| 17360 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p10"></p> | |
| 17361 <p id="XP_Q61_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 17362 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17363 <a href="summa.XP_Q62.html"></a> | |
| 17364 </div> | |
| 17365 <a href="summa.XP_Q60_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17366 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17367 </div> | |
| 17368 <div id="XP_Q62" class="div3"> | |
| 17369 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A3.html"></a> | |
| 17370 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17371 <h3 id="XP_Q62-p0.1">OF THE IMPEDIMENT THAT SUPERVENES TO MARRIAGE AFTER ITS CONSUMMATION, NAMELY FORNICATION (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 17372 <p id="XP_Q62-p1"></p> | |
| 17373 <p id="XP_Q62-p2"> We must now consider the impediment that supervenes upon marriage after its consummation, namely fornication, which is an | |
| 17374 impediment to a previous marriage as regards the act, although the marriage tie remains. Under this head there are six points | |
| 17375 of inquiry: | |
| 17376 </p> | |
| 17377 <p id="XP_Q62-p3"> (1) Whether it is lawful for a husband to put his wife away on account of fornication?</p> | |
| 17378 <p id="XP_Q62-p4"> (2) Whether he is bound to do so?</p> | |
| 17379 <p id="XP_Q62-p5"> (3) Whether he may put her away at his own judgment?</p> | |
| 17380 <p id="XP_Q62-p6"> (4) Whether in this matter husband and wife are of equal condition?</p> | |
| 17381 <p id="XP_Q62-p7"> (5) Whether, after being divorced, they must remain unmarried?</p> | |
| 17382 <p id="XP_Q62-p8"> (6) Whether they can be reconciled after being divorced?</p> | |
| 17383 <div id="XP_Q62_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 17384 <a href="summa.XP_Q62.html"></a> | |
| 17385 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17386 <h4 id="XP_Q62_A1-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for a husband to put away his wife on account of fornication?</h4> | |
| 17387 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 17388 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p2"> | |
| 17389 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unlawful for a husband to put away his wife on account of fornication. For we must not return evil for evil. | |
| 17390 But the husband, by putting away his wife on account of fornication, seemingly returns evil for evil. Therefore this is not | |
| 17391 lawful. | |
| 17392 </p> | |
| 17393 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p3"> | |
| 17394 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sin is greater if both commit fornication, than if one only commits it. But if both commit fornication, they | |
| 17395 cannot be divorced on that account. Neither therefore can they be, if only one commits fornication. | |
| 17396 </p> | |
| 17397 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p4"> | |
| 17398 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, spiritual fornication and certain other sins are more grievous than carnal fornication. But separation from bed | |
| 17399 cannot be motived by those sins. Neither therefore can it be done on account of fornication. | |
| 17400 </p> | |
| 17401 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p5"> | |
| 17402 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the unnatural vice is further removed from the marriage goods than fornication is, the manner of which is natural. | |
| 17403 Therefore it ought to have been a cause of separation rather than fornication. | |
| 17404 </p> | |
| 17405 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p6"> | |
| 17406 <b>On the contrary,</b> are the words of | |
| 17407 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.32" target="asv"> Mat. 5:32.</a> | |
| 17408 </p> | |
| 17409 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p7"> Further, one is not bound to keep faith with one who breaks his faith. But a spouse by fornication breaks the faith due to | |
| 17410 the other spouse. Therefore one can put the other away on account of fornication. | |
| 17411 </p> | |
| 17412 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p8"> | |
| 17413 <b>I answer that,</b> Our Lord permitted a man to put away his wife on account of fornication, in punishment of the unfaithful party and in favor | |
| 17414 of the faithful party, so that the latter is not bound to marital intercourse with the unfaithful one. There are however seven | |
| 17415 cases to be excepted in which it is not lawful to put away a wife who has committed fornication, when either the wife is not | |
| 17416 to be blamed, or both parties are equally blameworthy. The first is if the husband | |
| 17417 also has committed fornication; the second is if he has prostituted his wife; the third is if the wife, believing her husband | |
| 17418 dead on account of his long absence, has married again; the fourth is if another man has fraudulently impersonated her husband | |
| 17419 in the marriage-bed; the fifth is if she be overcome by force; the sixth is if he has been reconciled to her by having carnal | |
| 17420 intercourse with her after she has committed adultery; the seventh is if both having been married in the state of | |
| 17421 unbelief, the husband has given his wife a bill of divorce and she has married again; for then if both be converted the husband | |
| 17422 is bound to receive her back again. | |
| 17423 </p> | |
| 17424 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p9"> | |
| 17425 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A husband sins if through vindictive anger he puts away his wife who has committed fornication, but he does not sin if he | |
| 17426 does so in order to avoid losing his good name, lest he seem to share in her guilt, or in order to correct his wife's sin, | |
| 17427 or in order to avoid the uncertainty of her offspring. | |
| 17428 </p> | |
| 17429 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p10"> | |
| 17430 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Divorce on account of fornication is effected by the one accusing the other. And since no one can accuse who is guilty of | |
| 17431 the same crime, a divorce cannot be pronounced when both have committed fornication, although marriage is more sinned against | |
| 17432 when both are guilty of fornication that when only one is. | |
| 17433 </p> | |
| 17434 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p11"> | |
| 17435 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Fornication is directly opposed to the good of marriage, since by it the certainty of offspring is destroyed, faith is broken, | |
| 17436 and marriage ceases to have its signification when the body of one spouse is given to several others. Wherefore other sins, | |
| 17437 though perhaps they be more grievous than fornication, are not motives for a divorce. Since, however, unbelief which is called | |
| 17438 spiritual fornication, is also opposed to the good of marriage consisting in | |
| 17439 the rearing of the offspring to the worship of God, it is also a motive for divorce, yet not in the same way as bodily fornication. | |
| 17440 Because one may take steps for procuring a divorce on account of one act of carnal fornication, not, however, on account of | |
| 17441 one act of unbelief, but on account of inveterate unbelief which is a proof of obstinacy wherein unbelief is perfected. | |
| 17442 </p> | |
| 17443 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p12"> | |
| 17444 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Steps may be taken to procure a divorce on account also of the unnatural vice: but this is not mentioned in the same way, | |
| 17445 both because it is an unmentionable passion, and because it does not so affect the certainty of offspring. | |
| 17446 </p> | |
| 17447 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 17448 <p id="XP_Q62_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 17449 <a href="summa.XP_Q62.html"></a> | |
| 17450 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17451 </div> | |
| 17452 <div id="XP_Q62_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 17453 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17454 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A3.html"></a> | |
| 17455 <h4 id="XP_Q62_A2-p0.1">Whether the husband is bound by precept to put away his wife when she is guilty of fornication?</h4> | |
| 17456 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 17457 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p2"> | |
| 17458 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the husband is bound by precept to put away his wife who is guilty of fornication. For since the husband | |
| 17459 is the head of his wife, he is bound to correct his wife. Now separation from bed is prescribed as a correction of the wife | |
| 17460 who is guilty of fornication. Therefore he is bound to separate from her. | |
| 17461 </p> | |
| 17462 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p3"> | |
| 17463 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he who consents with one who sins mortally, is also guilty of mortal sin. Now the husband who retains a wife guilty | |
| 17464 of fornication would seem to consent with her, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 35). Therefore he sins unless he puts her | |
| 17465 away. | |
| 17466 </p> | |
| 17467 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p4"> | |
| 17468 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( | |
| 17469 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.16" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:16</a>): "He who is joined to a harlot is made one body." Now a man cannot at once be a member of a harlot and a member of Christ | |
| 17470 ( | |
| 17471 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:15</a>). Therefore the husband who is joined to a wife guilty of fornication ceases to be a member of Christ, and therefore sins | |
| 17472 mortally. | |
| 17473 </p> | |
| 17474 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p5"> | |
| 17475 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, just as relationship voids the marriage tie, so does fornication dissolve the marriage-bed. Now after the husband | |
| 17476 becomes cognizant of his consanguinity with his wife, he sins mortally if he has carnal intercourse with her. Therefore he | |
| 17477 also sins mortally if he does so after knowing her to be guilty of fornication. | |
| 17478 </p> | |
| 17479 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p6"> | |
| 17480 <b>Objection 5:</b> On the contrary, A gloss on | |
| 17481 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:11, </a> "Let not the husband put away his wife" says that "Our Lord permitted a wife to be put away on account of fornication." Therefore | |
| 17482 it is not a matter of precept. | |
| 17483 </p> | |
| 17484 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p7"> | |
| 17485 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, one can always pardon the sin that another has committed against oneself. Now the wife, by committing fornication, | |
| 17486 sinned against her husband. Therefore the husband may spare her by not putting her away. | |
| 17487 </p> | |
| 17488 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p8"> | |
| 17489 <b>I answer that,</b> The putting away of a wife guilty of fornication was prescribed in order that the wife might be corrected by means of that | |
| 17490 punishment. Now a corrective punishment is not required when amendment has already taken place. Wherefore, if the wife repent | |
| 17491 of her sin, her husband is not bound to put her away: whereas if she repent not, he is bound to do so, lest he seem to consent | |
| 17492 to her sin, by not having recourse to her due correction. | |
| 17493 </p> | |
| 17494 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p9"> | |
| 17495 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The wife can be corrected for her sin of fornication not only by this punishment but also by words and blows; wherefore if | |
| 17496 she be ready to be corrected otherwise, her husband is not bound to have recourse to the aforesaid punishment in order to | |
| 17497 correct her. | |
| 17498 </p> | |
| 17499 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p10"> | |
| 17500 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The husband seems to consent with her when he retains her, notwithstanding that she persists in her past sin: if, however, | |
| 17501 she has mended her ways, he does not consent with her. | |
| 17502 </p> | |
| 17503 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p11"> | |
| 17504 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> She can no longer be called a harlot since she has repented of her sin. Wherefore her husband, by being joined to her, does | |
| 17505 not become a member of a harlot. We might also reply that he is joined to her not as a harlot but as his wife. | |
| 17506 </p> | |
| 17507 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p12"> | |
| 17508 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> There is no parallel, because the effect of consanguinity is that there is no marriage tie between them, so that carnal intercourse | |
| 17509 between them becomes unlawful. Whereas fornication does not remove the said tie, so that the act remains, in itself, lawful, | |
| 17510 unless it become accidentally unlawful, in so far as the husband seems to consent to his wife's lewdness. | |
| 17511 </p> | |
| 17512 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p13"> | |
| 17513 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> This permission is to be understood as an absence of prohibition: and thus it is not in contradistinction with a precept, | |
| 17514 for that which is a matter of precept is also not forbidden. | |
| 17515 </p> | |
| 17516 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p14"> | |
| 17517 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The wife sins not only against her husband, but also against herself and against God, wherefore her husband cannot entirely | |
| 17518 remit the punishment, unless amendment has followed. | |
| 17519 </p> | |
| 17520 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p15"></p> | |
| 17521 <p id="XP_Q62_A2-p16"></p> | |
| 17522 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17523 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A3.html"></a> | |
| 17524 </div> | |
| 17525 <div id="XP_Q62_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 17526 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17527 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A4.html"></a> | |
| 17528 <h4 id="XP_Q62_A3-p0.1">Whether the husband can on his own judgment put away his wife on account of fornication?</h4> | |
| 17529 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 17530 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p2"> | |
| 17531 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the husband can on his own judgment put away his wife on account of fornication. For when sentence has | |
| 17532 been pronounced by the judge, it is lawful to carry it out without any further judgment. But God, the just Judge, has pronounced | |
| 17533 this judgment, that a husband may put his wife away on account of fornication. Therefore no further judgment is required for | |
| 17534 this. | |
| 17535 </p> | |
| 17536 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p3"> | |
| 17537 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is stated ( | |
| 17538 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.19" target="asv">Mat. 1:19</a>) that Joseph . . . being a just man . . . "was minded to put" Mary "away privately." Therefore it would seem that a husband | |
| 17539 may privately pronounce a divorce without the judgment of the Church. | |
| 17540 </p> | |
| 17541 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p4"> | |
| 17542 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if after becoming cognizant of his wife's fornication a husband has marital intercourse with his wife, he forfeits | |
| 17543 the action which he had against the adulteress. Therefore the refusal of the marriage debt, which pertains to a divorce, ought | |
| 17544 to precede the judgment of the Church. | |
| 17545 </p> | |
| 17546 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p5"> | |
| 17547 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, that which cannot be proved ought not to be submitted to the judgment of the Church. Now the crime of fornication | |
| 17548 cannot be proved, since "the eye of the adulterer observeth darkness" ( | |
| 17549 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Job.24.15" target="asv">Job 24:15</a>). Therefore the divorce in question ought not to be made on the judgment of the Church. | |
| 17550 </p> | |
| 17551 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p6"> | |
| 17552 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, accusation should be preceded by inscription [*Cf. | |
| 17553 <a id="XP_Q62_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q33_A7.html">SS, Q[33], A[7]</a>], whereby a person binds himself under the pain of retaliation, if he fails to bring proof. But this is impossible in this | |
| 17554 matter, because then, in every event the husband would obtain his end, whether he put his wife away, or his wife put him away. | |
| 17555 Therefore she ought not to be summoned by accusation to receive the judgment of the Church. | |
| 17556 </p> | |
| 17557 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p7"> | |
| 17558 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, a man is more bound to his wife than to a stranger. Now a man ought not to refer to the Church the crime of another, | |
| 17559 even though he be a stranger, without previously admonishing him privately ( | |
| 17560 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.18.15" target="asv">Mat. 18:15</a>). Much less therefore may the husband bring his wife's crime before the Church, unless he has previously rebuked her in private. | |
| 17561 </p> | |
| 17562 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p8"> | |
| 17563 <b>On the contrary,</b> No one should avenge himself. But if a husband were by his own judgment to put away his wife on account of fornication, he | |
| 17564 would avenge himself. Therefore this should not be done. | |
| 17565 </p> | |
| 17566 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p9"> Further, no man is prosecutor and judge in the same cause. But the husband is the prosecutor by suing his wife for the offense | |
| 17567 she has committed against him. Therefore he cannot be the judge, and consequently he cannot put her away on his own judgment. | |
| 17568 </p> | |
| 17569 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p10"> | |
| 17570 <b>I answer that,</b> A husband can put away his wife in two ways. First as to bed only, and thus he may put her away on his own judgment, as soon | |
| 17571 as he has evidence of her fornication: nor is he bound to pay her the marriage debt at her demand, unless he be compelled | |
| 17572 by the Church, and by paying it thus he nowise prejudices his own case. Secondly, as to bed and board, and in this way she | |
| 17573 cannot be put away except at the judgment of the Church; and if she has been put away | |
| 17574 otherwise, he must be compelled to cohabit with her unless the husband can at once prove the wife's fornication. Now this | |
| 17575 putting away is called a divorce: and consequently it must be admitted that a divorce cannot be pronounced except at the judgment | |
| 17576 of the Church. | |
| 17577 </p> | |
| 17578 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p11"> | |
| 17579 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sentence is an application of the general law to a particular fact. Wherefore God gave out the law according to which | |
| 17580 the sentence of the court has to be pronounced. | |
| 17581 </p> | |
| 17582 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p12"> | |
| 17583 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Joseph was minded to put away the Blessed Virgin not as suspected of fornication, but because in reverence for her sanctity, | |
| 17584 he feared to cohabit with her. Moreover there is no parallel, because then the sentence at law was not only divorce but also | |
| 17585 stoning, but not now when the case is brought to the Church for judgment. The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what | |
| 17586 has been said. | |
| 17587 </p> | |
| 17588 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p13"> | |
| 17589 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Sometimes when the husband suspects his wife of adultery he watches her secretly that together with witnesses he may discover | |
| 17590 her in the sin of fornication, and so proceed to accusation. Moreover, if he has no evidence of the fact, there may be strong | |
| 17591 suspicions of fornication, which suspicions being proved the fornication seems to be proved: for instance if they be found | |
| 17592 together alone, at a time and place which are open to suspicion, or "nudas cum | |
| 17593 nuda." | |
| 17594 </p> | |
| 17595 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p14"> | |
| 17596 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A husband may accuse his wife of adultery in two ways. First, he may seek a separation from bed before a spiritual judge, | |
| 17597 and then there is no need for an inscription to be made under the pain of retaliation, since thus the husband would gain his | |
| 17598 end, as the objection proves. Secondly, he may seek for the crime to be punished in a secular court, and then it is necessary | |
| 17599 for inscription to precede, whereby he binds himself under pain of retaliation if | |
| 17600 he fail to prove his case. | |
| 17601 </p> | |
| 17602 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p15"> | |
| 17603 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> According to a Decretal (Extra, De Simonia, cap. Licet), "there are three modes of procedure in criminal cases. First, by | |
| 17604 inquisition, which should be preceded by notoriety; secondly, by accusation, which should be preceded by inscription; [*Cf. | |
| 17605 | |
| 17606 <a id="XP_Q62_A3-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q33_A7.html">SS, Q[33], A[7]</a>] thirdly, by denunciation, which should be preceded by fraternal correction." Accordingly the saying of our Lord refers to | |
| 17607 the case where the process is by way of | |
| 17608 denunciation, and not by accusation, because then the end in view is not only the correction of the guilty party, but also | |
| 17609 his punishment, for the safeguarding of the common good, which would be destroyed if justice were lacking. | |
| 17610 </p> | |
| 17611 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p16"></p> | |
| 17612 <p id="XP_Q62_A3-p17"></p> | |
| 17613 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17614 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A4.html"></a> | |
| 17615 </div> | |
| 17616 <div id="XP_Q62_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 17617 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A3.html"></a> | |
| 17618 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A5.html"></a> | |
| 17619 <h4 id="XP_Q62_A4-p0.1">Whether in a case of divorce husband and wife should be judged on a par with each other?</h4> | |
| 17620 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 17621 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p2"> | |
| 17622 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that, in a case of divorce, husband and wife ought not to be judged on a par with each other. For divorce under | |
| 17623 the New Law takes the place of the divorce [repudium] recognized by the Old Law ( | |
| 17624 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.31" target="asv">Mat. 5:31,32</a>). Now in the "repudium" husband and wife were not judged on a par with each other, since the husband could put away his wife, | |
| 17625 but not "vice versa." Therefore neither in divorce ought they to be judged on a par with each other. | |
| 17626 </p> | |
| 17627 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p3"> | |
| 17628 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is more opposed to the natural law that a wife have several husbands than that a husband have several wives: | |
| 17629 wherefore the latter has been sometimes lawful, but the former never. Therefore the wife sins more grievously in adultery | |
| 17630 than the husband, and consequently they ought not to be judged on a par with each other. | |
| 17631 </p> | |
| 17632 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p4"> | |
| 17633 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, where there is greater injury to one's neighbor, there is a greater sin. Now the adulterous wife does a greater | |
| 17634 injury to her husband, than does the adulterous husband to his wife, since a wife's adultery involves uncertainty of the offspring, | |
| 17635 whereas the husband's adultery does not. Therefore the wife's sin is the greater, and so they ought not to be judged on a | |
| 17636 par with each other. | |
| 17637 </p> | |
| 17638 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p5"> | |
| 17639 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, divorce is prescribed in order to punish the crime of adultery. Now it belongs to the husband who is the head of | |
| 17640 the wife ( | |
| 17641 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:3</a>) to correct his wife, rather than "vice versa." Therefore they should not be judged on a par with each other for the purpose | |
| 17642 of divorce, but the husband ought to have the preference. | |
| 17643 </p> | |
| 17644 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p6"> | |
| 17645 <b>Objection 5:</b> On the contrary, It would seem in this matter the wife ought to have the preference. For the more frail the sinner the more | |
| 17646 is his sin deserving of pardon. Now there is greater frailty in women than in men, for which reason Chrysostom [*Hom. xl in | |
| 17647 the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says that "lust is a passion proper to women," and the Philosopher | |
| 17648 says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "properly speaking women are not said to be continent on | |
| 17649 account of their being easily inclined to concupiscence," for neither can dumb animals be continent, because they have nothing | |
| 17650 to stand in the way of their desires. Therefore women are rather to be spared in the punishment of divorce. | |
| 17651 </p> | |
| 17652 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p7"> | |
| 17653 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the husband is placed as the head of the woman in order to correct her. Therefore his sin is greater than the woman's | |
| 17654 and so he should be punished the more. | |
| 17655 </p> | |
| 17656 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p8"> | |
| 17657 <b>I answer that,</b> In a case of divorce husband and wife are judged on a par with each other, in the sense that the same things are lawful or | |
| 17658 unlawful to the one as to the other: but they are not judged on a par with each other in reference to those things, since | |
| 17659 the reason for divorce is greater in one spouse than in the other, although there is sufficient reason for divorce in both. | |
| 17660 For divorce is a punishment of adultery, in so far as it is opposed to the marriage goods. | |
| 17661 Now as regards the good of fidelity to which husband and wife are equally bound towards each other, the adultery of one is | |
| 17662 as great a sin against marriage as the adultery of the other, and this is in either of them a sufficient reason for divorce. | |
| 17663 But as regards the good of the offspring the wife's adultery is a greater sin against marriage than the husband's wherefore | |
| 17664 it is a greater reason for divorce in the wife than in the husband: and thus they are under an equal obligation, but not for | |
| 17665 equal reasons. Nor is this unjust for on either hand there is sufficient reason for the punishment in question, just as there | |
| 17666 is in two persons condemned to the punishment of death, although one of them may have sinned more grievously than the other. | |
| 17667 </p> | |
| 17668 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p9"> | |
| 17669 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The only reason why divorce was permitted, was to avoid murder. And since there was more danger of this in men than in women, | |
| 17670 the husband was allowed to put away his wife by a bill of divorce, but not "vice versa." | |
| 17671 </p> | |
| 17672 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p10"> Reply OBJ 2 and 3: These arguments are based on the fact that in comparison with the good of the offspring there is more | |
| 17673 reason for divorce in an adulterous wife than in an adulterous husband. It does not follow, however, that they are not judged | |
| 17674 on a par with each other. | |
| 17675 </p> | |
| 17676 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p11"> | |
| 17677 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although the husband is the head of the wife, he is her pilot as it were, and is no more her judge than she is his. Consequently | |
| 17678 in matters that have to be submitted to a judge, the husband has no more power over his wife, than she over him. | |
| 17679 </p> | |
| 17680 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p12"> | |
| 17681 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> In adultery there is the same sinful character as in simple fornication, and something more which aggravates it, namely the | |
| 17682 lesion to marriage. Accordingly if we consider that which is common to adultery and fornication, the sin of the husband and | |
| 17683 that of the wife are compared the one to the other as that which exceeds to that which is exceeded, for in women the humors | |
| 17684 are more abundant, wherefore they are more inclined to be led by their | |
| 17685 concupiscences, whereas in man there is abundance of heat which excites concupiscence. Simply speaking, however, other things | |
| 17686 being equal, a man sins more grievously in simple fornication than a woman, because he has more of the good of reason, which | |
| 17687 prevails over all movements of bodily passions. But as regards the lesion to marriage which adultery adds to fornication and | |
| 17688 for which reason it is an occasion for divorce, the woman sins more grievously than the man, as appears from what we have | |
| 17689 said above. And since it is more grievous than simple fornication, it follows that, simply speaking, the adulterous wife sins | |
| 17690 more grievously than the adulterous husband, other things being equal. | |
| 17691 </p> | |
| 17692 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p13"> | |
| 17693 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Although the control which the husband receives over his wife is an aggravating circumstance, nevertheless the sin is yet | |
| 17694 more aggravated by this circumstance which draws the sin to another species, namely by the lesion to marriage, which lesion | |
| 17695 becomes a kind of injustice, through the fraudulent substitution of another's child. | |
| 17696 </p> | |
| 17697 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 17698 <p id="XP_Q62_A4-p15"></p> | |
| 17699 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A3.html"></a> | |
| 17700 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A5.html"></a> | |
| 17701 </div> | |
| 17702 <div id="XP_Q62_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 17703 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A4.html"></a> | |
| 17704 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A6.html"></a> | |
| 17705 <h4 id="XP_Q62_A5-p0.1">Whether a husband can marry again after having a divorce?</h4> | |
| 17706 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 17707 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p2"> | |
| 17708 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a husband can marry again after having a divorce. For no one is bound to perpetual continence. Now in | |
| 17709 some cases the husband is bound to put away his wife forever on account of fornication, as stated above | |
| 17710 <a id="XP_Q62_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q62_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore seemingly at least in this case he can marry again. | |
| 17711 </p> | |
| 17712 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p3"> | |
| 17713 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a sinner should not be given a greater occasion of sin. But if she who is put away on account of the sin of fornication | |
| 17714 is not allowed to seek another marriage, she is given a greater occasion of sin: for it is improbable that one who was not | |
| 17715 continent during marriage will be able to be continent afterwards. Therefore it would seem lawful for her to marry again. | |
| 17716 </p> | |
| 17717 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p4"> | |
| 17718 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the wife is not bound to the husband save as regards the payment of the marriage debt and cohabitation. But she | |
| 17719 is freed from both obligations by divorce. Therefore "she is loosed from the law of her husband" [* | |
| 17720 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.2" target="asv">Rom. 7:2</a>]. Therefore she can marry again; and the same applies to her husband. | |
| 17721 </p> | |
| 17722 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p5"> | |
| 17723 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is said ( | |
| 17724 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.9" target="asv">Mat. 19:9</a>): "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery." Therefore | |
| 17725 seemingly he does not commit adultery if he marry again after putting away his wife on account of fornication, and consequently | |
| 17726 this will be a true marriage. | |
| 17727 </p> | |
| 17728 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p6"> | |
| 17729 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 17730 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:10,11</a>): "Not I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband. and, if she depart, that she remain unmarried." | |
| 17731 </p> | |
| 17732 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p7"> Further, no one should gain advantage from sin. But the adulteress would if she were allowed to contract another and more | |
| 17733 desired marriage; and an occasion of adultery would be afforded those who wish to marry again. Therefore it is unlawful both | |
| 17734 to the wife and to the husband to contract a second marriage. | |
| 17735 </p> | |
| 17736 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p8"> | |
| 17737 <b>I answer that,</b> Nothing supervenient to marriage can dissolve it: wherefore adultery does not make a marriage cease to be valid. For, according | |
| 17738 to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup. i, 10), "as long as they live they are bound by the marriage tie, which neither divorce nor | |
| 17739 union with another can destroy." Therefore it is unlawful for one, while the other lives, to marry again. | |
| 17740 </p> | |
| 17741 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p9"> | |
| 17742 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although no one is absolutely bound to continence, he may be bound accidentally; for instance, if his wife contract an incurable | |
| 17743 disease that is incompatible with carnal intercourse. And it is the same if she labor under a spiritual disease, namely fornication, | |
| 17744 so as to be incorrigible. | |
| 17745 </p> | |
| 17746 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p10"> | |
| 17747 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The very shame of having been divorced ought to keep her from sin: and if it cannot keep her from sin, it is a lesser evil | |
| 17748 that she alone sin than that her husband take part in her sin. | |
| 17749 </p> | |
| 17750 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p11"> | |
| 17751 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although after divorce the wife is not bound to her husband as regards paying him the marriage debt and cohabiting with him, | |
| 17752 the marriage tie, whereby she was bound to this, remains, and consequently she cannot marry again during her husband's lifetime. | |
| 17753 She can, however, take a vow of continence, against her husband's will, unless it seem that the Church has been deceived by | |
| 17754 false witnesses in pronouncing the divorce; for in that case, even if she has | |
| 17755 made her vow of profession she ought to be restored to her husband, and would be bound to pay the marriage debt, but it would | |
| 17756 be unlawful for her to demand it. | |
| 17757 </p> | |
| 17758 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p12"> | |
| 17759 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The exception expressed in our Lord's words refers to the putting away of the wife. Hence the objection is based on a false | |
| 17760 interpretation. | |
| 17761 </p> | |
| 17762 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p13"></p> | |
| 17763 <p id="XP_Q62_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 17764 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A4.html"></a> | |
| 17765 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A6.html"></a> | |
| 17766 </div> | |
| 17767 <div id="XP_Q62_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 17768 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A5.html"></a> | |
| 17769 <a href="summa.XP_Q63.html"></a> | |
| 17770 <h4 id="XP_Q62_A6-p0.1">Whether husband and wife may be reconciled after being divorced?</h4> | |
| 17771 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 17772 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p2"> | |
| 17773 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that husband and wife may not be reconciled after being divorced. For the law contains the rule (Can. Quod | |
| 17774 bene semel, Caus. vi, qu. iv): "That which has been once well decided must not be subsequently withdrawn." Now it has been | |
| 17775 decided by the judgment of the Church that they ought to be separated. Therefore they cannot subsequently be reconciled. | |
| 17776 </p> | |
| 17777 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p3"> | |
| 17778 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if it were allowable for them to be reconciled, the husband would seem bound to receive his wife, especially after | |
| 17779 she has repented. But he is not bound, for the wife, in defending herself before the judge, cannot allege her repentance against | |
| 17780 her husband's accusation of fornication. Therefore in no way is reconciliation allowable. | |
| 17781 </p> | |
| 17782 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p4"> | |
| 17783 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if reconciliation were allowable, it would seem that the adulterous wife is bound to return to her husband if her | |
| 17784 husband asks her. But she is not bound, since they are separated by the Church. Therefore, etc. | |
| 17785 </p> | |
| 17786 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p5"> | |
| 17787 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if it were lawful to be reconciled to an adulterous wife, this would especially be the case when the husband is | |
| 17788 found to have committed adultery after the divorce. But in this case the wife cannot compel him to be reconciled, since the | |
| 17789 divorce has been justly pronounced. Therefore she may nowise be reconciled. | |
| 17790 </p> | |
| 17791 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p6"> | |
| 17792 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, if a husband whose adultery is unknown put away his wife, who is convicted of adultery by the sentence of the Church, | |
| 17793 the divorce would seem to have been pronounced unjustly. And yet the husband is not bound to be reconciled to his wife, because | |
| 17794 she is unable to prove his adultery in court. Much less, therefore, is reconciliation allowable when the divorce has been | |
| 17795 granted justly. | |
| 17796 </p> | |
| 17797 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p7"> | |
| 17798 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 17799 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q62_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:11</a>): "And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." | |
| 17800 </p> | |
| 17801 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p8"> Further, it is allowable for the husband not to put her away after fornication. Therefore, for the same reason, he can be | |
| 17802 reconciled to her after divorce. | |
| 17803 </p> | |
| 17804 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p9"> | |
| 17805 <b>I answer that,</b> If the wife has mended her ways by repenting of her sin after the divorce, her husband may become reconciled to her; but | |
| 17806 if she remain incorrigible in her sin, he must not take her back, for the same reason which forbade him to retain her while | |
| 17807 she refused to desist from sin. | |
| 17808 </p> | |
| 17809 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p10"> | |
| 17810 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sentence of the Church in pronouncing the divorce did not bind them to separate, but allowed them to do so. Therefore | |
| 17811 reconciliation may be effected or ensue without any withdrawal of the previous sentence. | |
| 17812 </p> | |
| 17813 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p11"> | |
| 17814 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The wife's repentance should induce the husband not to accuse or put away the wife who is guilty of fornication. He cannot, | |
| 17815 however, be compelled to this course of action, nor can his wife oppose her repentance to his accusation, because although | |
| 17816 she is no longer guilty, neither in act nor in the stain of sin, there still remains something of the debt of punishment, | |
| 17817 and though this has been taken away in the sight of God, there still remains the debt | |
| 17818 of punishment to be inflicted by the judgment of man, because man sees not the heart as God does. | |
| 17819 </p> | |
| 17820 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p12"> | |
| 17821 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> That which is done in a person's favor does him no prejudice. Wherefore since the divorce has been granted in favor of the | |
| 17822 husband, it does not deprive him of the right of asking for the marriage debt, or of asking his wife to return to him. Hence | |
| 17823 his wife is bound to pay the debt, and to return to him, if he ask her, unless with his consent she has taken a vow of continence. | |
| 17824 </p> | |
| 17825 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p13"> | |
| 17826 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> According to strict law, a husband who was previously innocent should not be compelled to receive an adulterous wife on account | |
| 17827 of his having committed adultery after the divorce. But according to equity, the judge is bound by virtue of his office first | |
| 17828 of all to admonish him to beware of imperiling his own soul and of scandalizing others; although the wife may not herself | |
| 17829 seek reconciliation. | |
| 17830 </p> | |
| 17831 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p14"></p> | |
| 17832 <p id="XP_Q62_A6-p15"></p> | |
| 17833 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A5.html"></a> | |
| 17834 <a href="summa.XP_Q63.html"></a> | |
| 17835 </div> | |
| 17836 <a href="summa.XP_Q61_A3.html"></a> | |
| 17837 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17838 </div> | |
| 17839 <div id="XP_Q63" class="div3"> | |
| 17840 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A6.html"></a> | |
| 17841 <a href="summa.XP_Q63_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17842 <h3 id="XP_Q63-p0.1">OF SECOND MARRIAGES (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 17843 <p id="XP_Q63-p1"></p> | |
| 17844 <p id="XP_Q63-p2"> In the next place we must consider second marriage. Under this head there are two points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 17845 <p id="XP_Q63-p3"> (1) Whether it is lawful?</p> | |
| 17846 <p id="XP_Q63-p4"> (2) Whether it is a sacrament?</p> | |
| 17847 <div id="XP_Q63_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 17848 <a href="summa.XP_Q63.html"></a> | |
| 17849 <a href="summa.XP_Q63_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17850 <h4 id="XP_Q63_A1-p0.1">Whether a second marriage is lawful?</h4> | |
| 17851 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 17852 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p2"> | |
| 17853 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a second marriage is unlawful. Because we should judge of things according to truth. Now Chrysostom [*Hom. | |
| 17854 xxxii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says that "to take a second husband is in truth fornication," | |
| 17855 which is unlawful. Therefore neither is a second marriage lawful. | |
| 17856 </p> | |
| 17857 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p3"> | |
| 17858 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is not good is unlawful. Now Ambrose [*On | |
| 17859 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q63_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.40" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:40 </a>and De Viduis] says that a second marriage is not good. Therefore it is unlawful. | |
| 17860 </p> | |
| 17861 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p4"> | |
| 17862 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no one should be debarred from being present at such things as are becoming and lawful. Yet priests are debarred | |
| 17863 from being present at second marriages, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 42). Therefore they are unlawful. | |
| 17864 </p> | |
| 17865 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p5"> | |
| 17866 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, no one incurs a penalty save for sin. Now a person incurs the penalty of irregularity on account of being married | |
| 17867 twice. Therefore a second marriage is unlawful. | |
| 17868 </p> | |
| 17869 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p6"> | |
| 17870 <b>On the contrary,</b> We read of Abraham having contracted a second marriage ( | |
| 17871 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q63_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.25.1" target="asv">Gn. 25:1</a>). | |
| 17872 </p> | |
| 17873 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p7"> Further, the Apostle says ( | |
| 17874 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q63_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.14" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:14</a>): "I will . . . that the younger," namely widows, "should marry, bear children." Therefore second marriages are lawful. | |
| 17875 </p> | |
| 17876 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p8"> | |
| 17877 <b>I answer that,</b> The marriage tie lasts only until death ( | |
| 17878 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q63_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.2" target="asv">Rom. 7:2</a>), wherefore at the death of either spouse the marriage tie ceases: and consequently when one dies the other is not hindered | |
| 17879 from marrying a second time on account of the previous marriage. Therefore not only second marriages are lawful, but even | |
| 17880 third and so on. | |
| 17881 </p> | |
| 17882 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p9"> | |
| 17883 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Chrysostom is speaking in reference to the cause which is wont at times to incite a person to a second marriage, namely concupiscence | |
| 17884 which incites also to fornication. | |
| 17885 </p> | |
| 17886 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p10"> | |
| 17887 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A second marriage is stated not to be good, not that it is unlawful, but because it lacks the honor of the signification | |
| 17888 which is in a first marriage, where one husband has one wife, as in the case of Christ and the Church. | |
| 17889 </p> | |
| 17890 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p11"> | |
| 17891 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Men who are consecrated to Divine things are debarred not only from unlawful things, but even from things which have any | |
| 17892 appearance of turpitude; and consequently they are debarred from second marriages, which lack the decorum which was in a first | |
| 17893 marriage. | |
| 17894 </p> | |
| 17895 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p12"> | |
| 17896 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Irregularity is not always incurred on account of a sin, and may be incurred through a defect in a sacrament [*"Defectus | |
| 17897 sacramenti," i.e. defect of signification; Cf. A[2], OBJ[3]]. Hence the argument is not to the point. | |
| 17898 </p> | |
| 17899 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 17900 <p id="XP_Q63_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 17901 <a href="summa.XP_Q63.html"></a> | |
| 17902 <a href="summa.XP_Q63_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17903 </div> | |
| 17904 <div id="XP_Q63_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 17905 <a href="summa.XP_Q63_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17906 <a href="summa.XP_Q64.html"></a> | |
| 17907 <h4 id="XP_Q63_A2-p0.1">Whether a second marriage is a sacrament?</h4> | |
| 17908 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 17909 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p2"> | |
| 17910 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a second marriage is not a sacrament. For he who repeats a sacrament injures the sacrament. But no sacrament | |
| 17911 should be done an injury. Therefore if a second marriage were a sacrament, marriage ought nowise to be repeated. | |
| 17912 </p> | |
| 17913 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p3"> | |
| 17914 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in every sacrament some kind of blessing is given. But no blessing is given in a second marriage, as stated in the | |
| 17915 text (Sent. iv, D, 42). Therefore no sacrament is conferred therein. | |
| 17916 </p> | |
| 17917 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p4"> | |
| 17918 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, signification is essential to a sacrament. But the signification of marriage is not preserved in a second marriage, | |
| 17919 because there is not a union of only one woman with only one man, as in the case of Christ and the Church. Therefore it is | |
| 17920 not a sacrament. | |
| 17921 </p> | |
| 17922 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p5"> | |
| 17923 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, one sacrament is not an impediment to receiving another. But a second marriage is an impediment to receiving orders. | |
| 17924 Therefore it is not a sacrament. | |
| 17925 </p> | |
| 17926 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p6"> | |
| 17927 <b>On the contrary,</b> Marital intercourse is excused from sin in a second marriage even as in a first marriage. Now marital intercourse is excused | |
| 17928 [*Cf. | |
| 17929 <a id="XP_Q63_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q69_A1.html"> Q[69], A[1]</a>] by the marriage goods which are fidelity, offspring, and sacrament. Therefore a second marriage is a sacrament. | |
| 17930 </p> | |
| 17931 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p7"> Further, irregularity is not contracted through a second and non-sacramental union, such as fornication. Yet irregularity | |
| 17932 is contracted through a second marriage. Therefore it is a sacramental union. | |
| 17933 </p> | |
| 17934 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p8"> | |
| 17935 <b>I answer that,</b> Wherever we find the essentials of a sacrament, there is a true sacrament. Wherefore, since in a second marriage we find | |
| 17936 all the essentials of the sacrament of marriage (namely the due matter---which results from the parties having the conditions | |
| 17937 prescribed by law---and the due form, which is the expression of the inward consent by words of the present), it is clear | |
| 17938 that a second marriage is a sacrament even as a first. | |
| 17939 </p> | |
| 17940 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p9"> | |
| 17941 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This is true of a sacrament which causes an everlasting effect: for then, if the sacrament be repeated, it is implied that | |
| 17942 the first was not effective, and thus an injury is done to the first, as is clear in all those sacraments which imprint a | |
| 17943 character. But those sacraments which have not an everlasting effect can be repeated without injury to the sacrament, as in | |
| 17944 the case of Penance. And, since the marriage tie ceases with death, no injury is done | |
| 17945 to the sacrament if a woman marry again after her husband's death. | |
| 17946 </p> | |
| 17947 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p10"> | |
| 17948 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the second marriage, considered in itself, is a perfect sacrament, yet if we consider it in relation to the first | |
| 17949 marriage, it is somewhat a defective sacrament, because it has not its full signification, since there is not a union of only | |
| 17950 one woman with only one man as in the marriage of Christ with the Church. And on account of this defect the blessing is omitted | |
| 17951 in a second marriage. This, however, refers to the case when it is a second | |
| 17952 marriage on the part of both man and woman, or on the part of the woman only. For if a virgin marry a man who has had another | |
| 17953 wife, the marriage is blessed nevertheless. Because the signification is preserved to a certain extent even in relation to | |
| 17954 the former marriage, since though Christ has but one Church for His spouse, there are many persons espoused to Him in the | |
| 17955 one Church. But the soul cannot be espoused to another besides Christ, else it commits fornication with the devil. Nor is | |
| 17956 there | |
| 17957 a spiritual marriage. For this reason when a woman marries a second time the marriage is not blessed on account of the defect | |
| 17958 in the sacrament. | |
| 17959 </p> | |
| 17960 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p11"> | |
| 17961 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The perfect signification is found in a second marriage considered in itself, not however if it be considered in relation | |
| 17962 to the previous marriage, and it is thus that it is a defective sacrament. | |
| 17963 </p> | |
| 17964 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p12"> | |
| 17965 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A second marriage in so far as there is a defect in the sacrament, but not as a sacrament, is an impediment to the sacrament | |
| 17966 of Order. | |
| 17967 </p> | |
| 17968 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 17969 <p id="XP_Q63_A2-p14"></p> | |
| 17970 <a href="summa.XP_Q63_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17971 <a href="summa.XP_Q64.html"></a> | |
| 17972 </div> | |
| 17973 <a href="summa.XP_Q62_A6.html"></a> | |
| 17974 <a href="summa.XP_Q63_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17975 </div> | |
| 17976 <div id="XP_Q64" class="div3"> | |
| 17977 <a href="summa.XP_Q63_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17978 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A1.html"></a> | |
| 17979 <h3 id="XP_Q64-p0.1">OF THE THINGS ANNEXED TO MARRIAGE, AND FIRST OF THE PAYMENT OF THE MARRIAGE DEBT (TEN ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 17980 <p id="XP_Q64-p1"></p> | |
| 17981 <p id="XP_Q64-p2"> In the next place we must consider those things which are annexed to marriage: (1) the payment of the marriage debt; (2) | |
| 17982 plurality of wives; (3) bigamy; (4) the bill of divorce; (5) illegitimate children. | |
| 17983 </p> | |
| 17984 <p id="XP_Q64-p3"> Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 17985 <p id="XP_Q64-p4"> (1) Whether one spouse is bound to pay the marriage debt to the other?</p> | |
| 17986 <p id="XP_Q64-p5"> (2) Whether one is sometimes bound to pay without being asked?</p> | |
| 17987 <p id="XP_Q64-p6"> (3) Whether a wife may demand the debt during the menses?</p> | |
| 17988 <p id="XP_Q64-p7"> (4) Whether she is bound to pay it at that time?</p> | |
| 17989 <p id="XP_Q64-p8"> (5) Whether husband and wife are equal in this matter?</p> | |
| 17990 <p id="XP_Q64-p9"> (6) Whether the one without the other's consent may take a vow that prohibits the payment of the debt?</p> | |
| 17991 <p id="XP_Q64-p10"> (7) Whether it is forbidden to ask for the debt at any particular time?</p> | |
| 17992 <p id="XP_Q64-p11"> (8) Whether it is a mortal sin to ask for it at a holy time?</p> | |
| 17993 <p id="XP_Q64-p12"> (9) Whether it is an obligation to pay it at the time of a festival?</p> | |
| 17994 <p id="XP_Q64-p13"> (10) Whether weddings should be forbidden at certain times?</p> | |
| 17995 <div id="XP_Q64_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 17996 <a href="summa.XP_Q64.html"></a> | |
| 17997 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A2.html"></a> | |
| 17998 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A1-p0.1">Whether husband and wife are mutually bound to the payment of the marriage debt?</h4> | |
| 17999 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 18000 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p2"> | |
| 18001 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that husband and wife are not mutually bound, under the obligation of a precept, to the payment of the marriage | |
| 18002 debt. For no one is forbidden to receive the Eucharist on account of fulfilling a precept. Yet he who has had intercourse | |
| 18003 with his wife cannot partake of the flesh of the Lamb according to Jerome [*Serm. de Esu Agni viii] quoted in the text (Sent. | |
| 18004 iv, D, 32). Therefore the payment of the debt does not come under the obligation of a | |
| 18005 precept. | |
| 18006 </p> | |
| 18007 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p3"> | |
| 18008 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is lawful to everyone to abstain from what is hurtful to his person. But it is sometimes harmful to a person | |
| 18009 to pay the debt when asked, whether on account of sickness, or because they have already paid it. Therefore it would seem | |
| 18010 allowable to refuse the one who asks. | |
| 18011 </p> | |
| 18012 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p4"> | |
| 18013 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is a sin to render oneself unfit to fulfill an obligation of precept. If, therefore, the payment of the debt | |
| 18014 comes under the obligation of a precept, it would seem sinful to render oneself unfit for paying the debt, by fasting or otherwise | |
| 18015 weakening the body: but apparently this is untrue. | |
| 18016 </p> | |
| 18017 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p5"> | |
| 18018 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12), marriage is directed to the begetting and rearing of children, as | |
| 18019 well as to the community of life. Now leprosy is opposed to both these ends of marriage, for since it is a contagious disease, | |
| 18020 the wife is not bound to cohabit with a leprous husband; and besides this disease is often transmitted to the offspring. Therefore | |
| 18021 it would seem that a wife is not bound to pay the debt to a leprous husband. | |
| 18022 </p> | |
| 18023 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p6"> | |
| 18024 <b>On the contrary,</b> As the slave is in the power of his master, so is one spouse in the power of the other ( | |
| 18025 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:4</a>). But a slave is bound by an obligation of precept to pay his master the debt of his service according to | |
| 18026 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.7" target="asv"> Rom. 13:7, </a> "Render . . . to all men their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due," etc. Therefore husband and wife are mutually bound | |
| 18027 to the payment of the marriage debt. | |
| 18028 </p> | |
| 18029 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p7"> Further, marriage is directed to the avoiding of fornication ( | |
| 18030 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.2" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:2</a>). But this could not be the effect of marriage, if the one were not bound to pay the debt to the other when the latter is | |
| 18031 troubled with concupiscence. Therefore the payment of the debt is an obligation of precept. | |
| 18032 </p> | |
| 18033 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p8"> | |
| 18034 <b>I answer that,</b> Marriage was instituted especially as fulfilling an office of nature. Wherefore in its act the movement of nature must be | |
| 18035 observed according to which the nutritive power administers to the generative power that alone which is in excess of what | |
| 18036 is required for the preservation of the individual: for the natural order requires that a thing should be first perfected | |
| 18037 in itself, and that afterwards it should communicate of its perfection to others: and this is | |
| 18038 also the order of charity which perfects nature. And therefore, since the wife has power over her husband only in relation | |
| 18039 to the generative power and not in relation to things directed to the preservation of the individual, the husband is bound | |
| 18040 to pay the debt to his wife, in matters pertaining to the begetting of children, with due regard however to his own welfare. | |
| 18041 </p> | |
| 18042 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p9"> | |
| 18043 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is possible through fulfilling a precept to render oneself unfit for the exercise of a sacred duty: thus a judge becomes | |
| 18044 irregular by sentencing a man to death. In like manner he who pays the marriage debt, in fulfillment of the precept, becomes | |
| 18045 unfit for the exercise of divine offices, not because the act in question is sinful, but on account of its carnal nature. | |
| 18046 And so, according to the Master (Sent. iv, D, 32), Jerome is speaking only of the | |
| 18047 ministers of the Church, and not of others who should be left to use their own discretion, because without sin they may either | |
| 18048 abstain out of reverence or receive Christ's body out of devotion. | |
| 18049 </p> | |
| 18050 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p10"> | |
| 18051 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The wife has no power over her husband's body, except as is consistent with the welfare of his person, as stated above. Wherefore | |
| 18052 if she go beyond this in her demands, it is not a request for the debt, but an unjust exaction; and for this reason the husband | |
| 18053 is not bound to satisfy her. | |
| 18054 </p> | |
| 18055 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p11"> | |
| 18056 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If the husband be rendered incapable of paying the debt through a cause consequent upon marriage, for instance through having | |
| 18057 already paid the debt and being unable to pay it, the wife has no right to ask again, and in doing so she behaves as a harlot | |
| 18058 rather than as a wife. But if he be rendered incapable through some other cause, then if this be a lawful cause, he is not | |
| 18059 bound, and she cannot ask, but if it be an unlawful cause, then he sins, and his | |
| 18060 wife's sin, should she fall into fornication on this account, is somewhat imputable to him. Hence he should endeavor to do | |
| 18061 his best that his wife may remain continent. | |
| 18062 </p> | |
| 18063 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p12"> | |
| 18064 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Leprosy voids a betrothal but not a marriage. Wherefore a wife is bound to pay the debt even to a leprous husband. But she | |
| 18065 is not bound to cohabit with him, because she is not so liable to infection from marital intercourse as from continual cohabitation. | |
| 18066 And though the child begotten of them be diseased, it is better to be thus than not at all. | |
| 18067 </p> | |
| 18068 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 18069 <p id="XP_Q64_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 18070 <a href="summa.XP_Q64.html"></a> | |
| 18071 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A2.html"></a> | |
| 18072 </div> | |
| 18073 <div id="XP_Q64_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 18074 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A1.html"></a> | |
| 18075 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A3.html"></a> | |
| 18076 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A2-p0.1">Whether a husband is bound to pay the debt if his wife does not ask for it?</h4> | |
| 18077 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 18078 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p2"> | |
| 18079 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the husband is not bound to pay the marriage debt if his wife does not ask for it. For an affirmative | |
| 18080 precept is binding only at a certain time. But the time fixed for the payment of the debt can only be when it is asked for. | |
| 18081 Therefore he is not bound to payment otherwise. | |
| 18082 </p> | |
| 18083 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p3"> | |
| 18084 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we ought to presume the better things of everyone. Now even for married people it is better to be continent than | |
| 18085 to make use of marriage. Therefore unless she ask expressly for the debt, the husband should presume that it pleases her to | |
| 18086 be continent, and so he is not bound to pay her the debt. | |
| 18087 </p> | |
| 18088 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p4"> | |
| 18089 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as the wife has power over her husband, so has a master over his slave. Now a slave is not bound to serve his master | |
| 18090 save when the latter commands him. Therefore neither is a husband bound to pay the debt to his wife except when she demands | |
| 18091 it. | |
| 18092 </p> | |
| 18093 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p5"> | |
| 18094 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the husband can sometimes request his wife not to exact the debt when she asks for it. Much more therefore may he | |
| 18095 not pay it when he is not asked. | |
| 18096 </p> | |
| 18097 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p6"> | |
| 18098 <b>On the contrary,</b> By the payment of the debt a remedy is afforded against the wife's concupiscence. Now a physician who has the care of a sick | |
| 18099 person is bound to remedy the disease without being asked. Therefore the husband is bound to pay the debt to his wife although | |
| 18100 she ask not for it. Further, a superior is bound to apply a remedy for the sins of his subjects even though they rebel against | |
| 18101 it. But the payment of the debt on the husband's part is directed against the | |
| 18102 sins of his wife. Therefore sometimes the husband is bound to pay the debt to his wife even though she ask it not of him. | |
| 18103 </p> | |
| 18104 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p7"> | |
| 18105 <b>I answer that,</b> The debt may be demanded in two ways. First, explicitly, as when they ask one another by words; secondly, implicitly, when | |
| 18106 namely the husband knows by certain signs that the wife would wish him to pay the debt, but is silent through shame. And so | |
| 18107 even though she does not ask for the debt explicitly in words, the husband is bound to pay it, whenever his wife shows signs | |
| 18108 of wishing him to do so. | |
| 18109 </p> | |
| 18110 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p8"> | |
| 18111 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The appointed time is not only when it is demanded but also when on account of certain signs there is fear of danger (to | |
| 18112 avoid which is the purpose of the payment of the debt) unless it be paid then. | |
| 18113 </p> | |
| 18114 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p9"> | |
| 18115 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The husband may presume this of his wife when he perceives in her no signs of the contrary; but it would be foolish of him | |
| 18116 to admit this presumption if he does see such signs. | |
| 18117 </p> | |
| 18118 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p10"> | |
| 18119 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The master is not ashamed to demand of his slave the duty of his service, as a wife is to ask the marriage debt of her husband. | |
| 18120 Yet if the master were not to demand it, either through ignorance or some other cause, the slave would nevertheless be bound | |
| 18121 to fulfill his duty, if some danger were threatening. For this is what is meant by "not serving to the eye" ( | |
| 18122 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.6.6" target="asv">Eph. 6:6</a>; | |
| 18123 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A2-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Col.3.22" target="asv">Col. 3:22</a>) which is the Apostle's command to servants. | |
| 18124 </p> | |
| 18125 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p11"> | |
| 18126 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A husband should not dissuade his wife from asking for the debt, except for a reasonable cause; and even then he should not | |
| 18127 be too insistent, on account of the besetting danger. | |
| 18128 </p> | |
| 18129 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p12"></p> | |
| 18130 <p id="XP_Q64_A2-p13"></p> | |
| 18131 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A1.html"></a> | |
| 18132 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A3.html"></a> | |
| 18133 </div> | |
| 18134 <div id="XP_Q64_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 18135 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A2.html"></a> | |
| 18136 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A4.html"></a> | |
| 18137 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A3-p0.1">Whether it is allowable for a menstruous wife to ask for the marriage debt? [*This and the Fourth Article are omitted in the | |
| 18138 Leonine edition.] | |
| 18139 </h4> | |
| 18140 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 18141 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p2"> | |
| 18142 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem lawful for a menstruous wife to ask for the marriage debt. For in the Law a man who had an issue of seed was | |
| 18143 unclean, even as a menstruous woman. Yet a man who has an issue of seed may ask for the debt. Therefore a menstruous wife | |
| 18144 may also. | |
| 18145 </p> | |
| 18146 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p3"> | |
| 18147 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, leprosy is a worse complaint than suffering from monthly periods, and would seem to cause a greater corruption in | |
| 18148 the offspring. Yet a leper can ask for the debt. Therefore, etc. | |
| 18149 </p> | |
| 18150 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p4"> | |
| 18151 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if a menstruous wife is not allowed to ask for the debt, this can only be because it is feared this may be detrimental | |
| 18152 to the offspring. Yet if the wife be unfruitful there is no such fear. Therefore, seemingly, at least an unfruitful wife may | |
| 18153 ask for the debt during her menses. | |
| 18154 </p> | |
| 18155 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p5"> | |
| 18156 <b>On the contrary,</b> "Thou shalt not approach to a woman having her flowers" ( | |
| 18157 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.18.19" target="asv">Lev. 18:19</a>) where Augustine observes: "Although he has already sufficiently forbidden this he repeats the prohibition here lest he seem | |
| 18158 to have spoken figuratively." | |
| 18159 </p> | |
| 18160 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p6"> Further, "All our justices" are become "as the rag of a menstruous woman" ( | |
| 18161 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.64.6" target="asv">Is. 64:6</a>) where Jerome observes: "Men ought then to keep away from their wives because thus is a deformed blind lame leprous offspring | |
| 18162 conceived: so that those parents who are not ashamed to come together in sexual intercourse have their sin made obvious to | |
| 18163 all": and thus the same conclusion follows. | |
| 18164 </p> | |
| 18165 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p7"> | |
| 18166 <b>I answer that,</b> It was forbidden in the Law to approach to a menstruous woman, for two reasons both on account of her uncleanness, and on | |
| 18167 account of the harm that frequently resulted to the offspring from such intercourse. With regard to the first reason, it was | |
| 18168 a ceremonial precept, but with regard to the second it was a moral precept. For since marriage is chiefly directed to the | |
| 18169 good of the offspring, all use of marriage which is intended for the good of the offspring is | |
| 18170 in order. Consequently this precept is binding even in the New Law on account of the second reason, although not on account | |
| 18171 of the first. Now, the menstrual issue may be natural or unnatural. The natural issue is that to which women are subject at | |
| 18172 stated periods when they are in good health; and it is unnatural when they suffer from an issue of blood through some disorder | |
| 18173 resulting from sickness. Accordingly if the menstrual flow be unnatural it is not forbidden in the New Law to approach to | |
| 18174 a | |
| 18175 menstruous woman both on account of her infirmity since a woman in that state cannot conceive, and because an issue of this | |
| 18176 kind is lasting and continuous, so that the husband would have to abstain for always. When however the woman is subject to | |
| 18177 a natural issue of the menstruum, she can conceive; moreover, the said issue lasts only a short time, wherefore it is forbidden | |
| 18178 to approach to her. In like manner a woman is forbidden to ask for the debt during the period of that issue. | |
| 18179 </p> | |
| 18180 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p8"> | |
| 18181 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The issue of seed in a man is the result of infirmity, nor is the seed in this case apt for generation. Moreover a complaint | |
| 18182 of this kind is continual or lasting like leprosy: wherefore the comparison falls. | |
| 18183 </p> | |
| 18184 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p9"> This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.</p> | |
| 18185 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p10"> | |
| 18186 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As long as a woman is subject to the menses it cannot be certain that she is sterile. For some are sterile in youth, and | |
| 18187 in course of time become fruitful, and "vice versa," as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Anim. xvi). | |
| 18188 </p> | |
| 18189 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p11"></p> | |
| 18190 <p id="XP_Q64_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 18191 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A2.html"></a> | |
| 18192 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A4.html"></a> | |
| 18193 </div> | |
| 18194 <div id="XP_Q64_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 18195 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A3.html"></a> | |
| 18196 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A5.html"></a> | |
| 18197 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A4-p0.1">Whether a menstruous woman should or may lawfully pay the marriage debt to her husband if he ask for it? [*This and the previous | |
| 18198 article are omitted in the Leonine edition.] | |
| 18199 </h4> | |
| 18200 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 18201 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p2"> | |
| 18202 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a menstruous wife may not pay the marriage debt to her husband at his asking. For it is written ( | |
| 18203 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.20.18" target="asv">Lev. 20:18</a>) that if any man approach to a menstruous woman both shall be put to death. Therefore it would seem that both he who asks | |
| 18204 and she who grants are guilty of mortal sin. | |
| 18205 </p> | |
| 18206 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p3"> | |
| 18207 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "Not only they that do them but they also that consent to them are worthy of death" ( | |
| 18208 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.32" target="asv">Rom. 1:32</a>). Now he who knowingly asks for the debt from a menstruous woman sins mortally. Therefore she also sins mortally by consenting | |
| 18209 to pay the debt. | |
| 18210 </p> | |
| 18211 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p4"> | |
| 18212 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a madman must not be given back his sword lest he kill himself or another. Therefore in like manner neither should | |
| 18213 a wife give her body to her husband during her menses, lest he be guilty of spiritual murder. | |
| 18214 </p> | |
| 18215 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p5"> | |
| 18216 <b>On the contrary,</b> "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband" ( | |
| 18217 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:4</a>). Therefore at his asking his wife must pay the debt even during her menses. | |
| 18218 </p> | |
| 18219 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p6"> Further, the menstruous wife should not be an occasion of sin to her husband. But she would give her husband an occasion | |
| 18220 of sin, if she paid him not the debt at his asking; since he might commit fornication. Therefore, etc. | |
| 18221 </p> | |
| 18222 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p7"> | |
| 18223 <b>I answer that,</b> In this regard some have asserted that a menstruous woman may not pay the debt even as she may not ask for it. For just as | |
| 18224 she would not be bound to pay it if she had some personal ailment so as to make it dangerous for herself, so is she not bound | |
| 18225 to pay for fear of danger to the offspring. But this opinion would seem to derogate from marriage, by which the husband is | |
| 18226 given entire power of his wife's body with regard to the marriage act. Nor is there any | |
| 18227 parallel between bodily affliction of the offspring and the danger to her own body: since, if the wife be ailing, it is quite | |
| 18228 certain that she would be endangered by the carnal act, whereas this is by no means so certain with regard to the offspring | |
| 18229 which perhaps would not be forthcoming. | |
| 18230 </p> | |
| 18231 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p8"> Wherefore others say that a menstruous woman is never allowed to ask for the debt; and that if her husband ask, he does so | |
| 18232 either knowingly or in ignorance. If knowingly, she ought to dissuade him by her prayers and admonitions; yet not so insistently | |
| 18233 as possibly to afford him an occasion of falling into other, and those sinful, practices, if he be deemed that way inclined. | |
| 18234 If however, he ask in ignorance, the wife may put forward some motive, or allege sickness as a reason for | |
| 18235 not paying the debt, unless there be fear of danger to her husband. If, however, the husband ultimately persists in his request, | |
| 18236 she must yield to his demand. But it would not be safe for her to make known [*"Indicare," as in the commentary on the Sentences; | |
| 18237 the Leonine edition reads "judicare."] her disaffection, lest this make her husband entertain a repulsion towards her, unless | |
| 18238 his prudence may be taken for granted. | |
| 18239 </p> | |
| 18240 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p9"> | |
| 18241 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This refers to the case when both willingly consent, but not when the woman pays the debt by force as it were. | |
| 18242 </p> | |
| 18243 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p10"> | |
| 18244 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Since there is no consent without the concurrence of the will, the woman is not deemed to consent in her husband's sin unless | |
| 18245 she pay the debt willingly. For when she is unwilling she is passive rather than consenting. | |
| 18246 </p> | |
| 18247 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p11"> | |
| 18248 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A madman should be given back his sword if a greater danger were feared from its not being returned to him: and thus it is | |
| 18249 in the case in point. | |
| 18250 </p> | |
| 18251 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p12"></p> | |
| 18252 <p id="XP_Q64_A4-p13"></p> | |
| 18253 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A3.html"></a> | |
| 18254 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A5.html"></a> | |
| 18255 </div> | |
| 18256 <div id="XP_Q64_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 18257 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A4.html"></a> | |
| 18258 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A6.html"></a> | |
| 18259 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A5-p0.1">Whether husband and wife are equal in the marriage act?</h4> | |
| 18260 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 18261 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p2"> | |
| 18262 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that husband and wife are not equal in the marriage act. For according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii) the | |
| 18263 agent is more noble than the patient. But in the marriage act the husband is as agent and the wife as patient. Therefore they | |
| 18264 are not equal in that act. | |
| 18265 </p> | |
| 18266 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p3"> | |
| 18267 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the wife is not bound to pay her husband the debt without being asked; whereas he is so bound, as stated above ( | |
| 18268 <a id="XP_Q64_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q64_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2). Therefore they are not equal in the marriage act. | |
| 18269 </p> | |
| 18270 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p4"> | |
| 18271 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the woman was made on the man's account in reference to marriage according to | |
| 18272 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.18" target="asv"> Gn. 2:18, </a> "Let us make him a help like unto himself." But that on account of which another thing is, is always the principal. Therefore, | |
| 18273 etc. | |
| 18274 </p> | |
| 18275 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p5"> | |
| 18276 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, marriage is chiefly directed to the marriage act. But in marriage "the husband is the head of the wife" ( | |
| 18277 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.23" target="asv">Eph. 5:23</a>). Therefore they are not equal in the aforesaid act. | |
| 18278 </p> | |
| 18279 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p6"> | |
| 18280 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 18281 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:4</a>): "The husband . . . hath not power of his own body," and the same is said of the wife. Therefore they are equal in the marriage | |
| 18282 act. | |
| 18283 </p> | |
| 18284 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p7"> Further, Marriage is a relation of equiparence, since it is a kind of union, as stated above ( | |
| 18285 <a id="XP_Q64_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q44_A1.html">Q[44], AA[1]</a>,3). Therefore husband and wife are equal in the marriage act. | |
| 18286 </p> | |
| 18287 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p8"> | |
| 18288 <b>I answer that,</b> Equality is twofold, of quantity and of proportion. Equality of quantity is that which is observed between two quantities | |
| 18289 of the same measure, for instance a thing two cubits long and another two cubits in length. But equality of proportion is | |
| 18290 that which is observed between two proportions of the same kind as double to double. Accordingly, speaking of the first equality, | |
| 18291 husband and wife are not equal in marriage; neither as regards the marriage act, wherein | |
| 18292 the more noble part is due to the husband, nor as regards the household management, wherein the wife is ruled and the husband | |
| 18293 rules. But with reference to the second kind of equality, they are equal in both matters, because just as in both the marriage | |
| 18294 act and in the management of the household the husband is bound to the wife in all things pertaining to the husband, so is | |
| 18295 the wife bound to the husband in all things pertaining to the wife. It is in this sense that it is stated in the text | |
| 18296 (Sent. iv, D, 32) that they are equal in paying and demanding the debt. | |
| 18297 </p> | |
| 18298 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p9"> | |
| 18299 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although it is more noble to be active than passive, there is the same proportion between patient and passivity as between | |
| 18300 agent and activity; and accordingly there is equality of proportion between them. | |
| 18301 </p> | |
| 18302 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p10"> | |
| 18303 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This is accidental. For the husband having the more noble part in the marriage act, it is natural that he should be less | |
| 18304 ashamed than the wife to ask for the debt. Hence it is that the wife is not bound to pay the debt to her husband without being | |
| 18305 asked, whereas the husband is bound to pay it to the wife. | |
| 18306 </p> | |
| 18307 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p11"> | |
| 18308 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This proves that they are not equal absolutely, but not that they are not equal in proportion. | |
| 18309 </p> | |
| 18310 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p12"> | |
| 18311 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although the head is the principal member, yet just as the members are bound to the head in their own respective capacities, | |
| 18312 so is the head in its own capacity bound to the members: and thus there is equality of proportion between them. | |
| 18313 </p> | |
| 18314 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p13"></p> | |
| 18315 <p id="XP_Q64_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 18316 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A4.html"></a> | |
| 18317 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A6.html"></a> | |
| 18318 </div> | |
| 18319 <div id="XP_Q64_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 18320 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A5.html"></a> | |
| 18321 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A7.html"></a> | |
| 18322 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A6-p0.1">Whether husband and wife can take a vow contrary to the marriage debt without their mutual consent?</h4> | |
| 18323 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 18324 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p2"> | |
| 18325 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that husband and wife may take a vow contrary to the marriage debt without their mutual consent. For husband | |
| 18326 and wife are equally bound to pay the debt, as stated above | |
| 18327 <a id="XP_Q64_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q64_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. Now it is lawful for the husband, even if his wife be unwilling, to take the cross in defense of the Holy Land: and consequently | |
| 18328 this is also lawful to the wife. Therefore, since this prevents the payment of the debt, either husband or wife may | |
| 18329 without the other's consent take the aforesaid vow. | |
| 18330 </p> | |
| 18331 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p3"> | |
| 18332 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in taking a vow one should not await the consent of another who cannot dissent without sin. Now the husband or wife | |
| 18333 cannot, without sin, refuse their consent to the other's taking a vow of continence whether absolutely or for a time; because | |
| 18334 to prevent a person's spiritual progress is a sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore the one can take a vow of continence either | |
| 18335 absolutely or for a time, without the other's consent. | |
| 18336 </p> | |
| 18337 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p4"> | |
| 18338 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the marriage act, the debt has to be demanded just as it has to be paid. Now the one can, without the other's | |
| 18339 consent, vow not to demand the debt, since in this he is within his own rights. Therefore he can equally take a vow not to | |
| 18340 pay the debt. | |
| 18341 </p> | |
| 18342 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p5"> | |
| 18343 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, no one can be bound by the command of a superior to do what he cannot lawfully vow or do simply, since one must | |
| 18344 not obey in what is unlawful. Now the superior authority might command the husband not to pay the debt to his wife for a time, | |
| 18345 by occupying him in some service. Therefore he might, of his own accord, do or vow that which would hinder him from paying | |
| 18346 the debt. | |
| 18347 </p> | |
| 18348 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p6"> | |
| 18349 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 18350 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.5" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:5</a>): "Defraud not one another, except . . . by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer." | |
| 18351 </p> | |
| 18352 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p7"> Further, no one can vow that which belongs to another. Now "the husband . . . hath not power of his own body, but the wife" | |
| 18353 ( | |
| 18354 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:4</a>). Therefore, without her consent, the husband cannot take a vow of continence whether absolutely or for a time. | |
| 18355 </p> | |
| 18356 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p8"> | |
| 18357 <b>I answer that,</b> A vow is a voluntary act, as its very name implies: and consequently a vow can only be about those goods which are subject | |
| 18358 to our will, and those in which one person is bound to another do not come under this head. Therefore in matters of this kind | |
| 18359 one person cannot take a vow without the consent of the one to whom he is bound. Consequently, since husband and wife are | |
| 18360 mutually bound as regards the payment of the debt which is an obstacle to continence, the | |
| 18361 one cannot vow continence without the other's consent; and if he take the vow he sins, and must not keep the vow, but must | |
| 18362 do penance for an ill-taken vow [*Cf. | |
| 18363 <a id="XP_Q64_A6-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q53_A1.html"> Q[53], AA[1]</a>,4; | |
| 18364 <a id="XP_Q64_A6-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q61_A1.html"> Q[61], A[1]</a>]. | |
| 18365 </p> | |
| 18366 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p9"> | |
| 18367 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is sufficiently probable that the wife ought to be willing to remain continent for a time, in order to succor the need | |
| 18368 of the universal Church. Hence in favor of the business for which the cross is given to him, it is laid down that the husband | |
| 18369 may take the cross without his wife's consent, even as he might go fighting without the consent of his landlord whose land | |
| 18370 he has leased. And yet the wife is not entirely deprived of her right, since she can | |
| 18371 follow him. Nor is there a parallel between wife and husband: because, since the husband has to rule the wife and not "vice | |
| 18372 versa," the wife is bound to follow her husband rather than the husband the wife. Moreover there would be more danger to the | |
| 18373 wife's chastity as a result of wandering from country to country, than to the husband's, and less profit to the Church. Wherefore | |
| 18374 the wife cannot take this vow without her husband's consent. | |
| 18375 </p> | |
| 18376 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p10"> | |
| 18377 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The one spouse, by refusing to consent to the other's vow of continence, does not sin, because the object of his dissent | |
| 18378 is to hinder not the other's good, but the harm to himself. | |
| 18379 </p> | |
| 18380 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p11"> | |
| 18381 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There are two opinions on this point. For some say that one can without the other's consent vow not to demand the debt, not | |
| 18382 however not to pay it, because in the former case they are both within their own rights, but not in the second. Seeing, however, | |
| 18383 that if one were never to ask for the debt, marriage would become too burdensome to the other who would always have to undergo | |
| 18384 the shame of asking for the debt, others assert with greater probability | |
| 18385 that neither vow can be lawfully taken by one spouse without the other's consent. | |
| 18386 </p> | |
| 18387 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p12"> | |
| 18388 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Just as the wife receives power over her husband's body, without prejudice to the husband's duty to his own body, so also | |
| 18389 is it without prejudice to his duty to his master. Hence just as a wife cannot ask her husband for the debt to the detriment | |
| 18390 of his bodily health, so neither can she do this so as to hinder him in his duty to his master. And yet the master cannot | |
| 18391 for this reason prevent her from paying the debt. | |
| 18392 </p> | |
| 18393 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p13"></p> | |
| 18394 <p id="XP_Q64_A6-p14"></p> | |
| 18395 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A5.html"></a> | |
| 18396 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A7.html"></a> | |
| 18397 </div> | |
| 18398 <div id="XP_Q64_A7" class="div4"> | |
| 18399 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A6.html"></a> | |
| 18400 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A8.html"></a> | |
| 18401 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A7-p0.1">Whether it is forbidden to demand the debt on holy days?</h4> | |
| 18402 <p id="XP_Q64_A7-p1"></p> | |
| 18403 <p id="XP_Q64_A7-p2"> | |
| 18404 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a person ought not to be forbidden to ask for the debt on holy days. For the remedy should be applied | |
| 18405 when the disease gains strength. Now concupiscence may possibly gain strength on a feast day. Therefore the remedy should | |
| 18406 be applied then by asking for the debt. | |
| 18407 </p> | |
| 18408 <p id="XP_Q64_A7-p3"> | |
| 18409 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the only reason why the debt should not be demanded on feast days is because they are devoted to prayer. Yet on | |
| 18410 those days certain hours are appointed for prayer. Therefore one may ask for the debt at some other time. | |
| 18411 </p> | |
| 18412 <p id="XP_Q64_A7-p4"> | |
| 18413 <b>On the contrary,</b> Just as certain places are holy because they are devoted to holy things, so are certain times holy for the same reason. But | |
| 18414 it is not lawful to demand the debt in a holy place. Therefore neither is it lawful at a holy time. | |
| 18415 </p> | |
| 18416 <p id="XP_Q64_A7-p5"> | |
| 18417 <b>I answer that,</b> Although the marriage act is void of sin, nevertheless since it oppresses the reason on account of the carnal pleasure, it | |
| 18418 renders man unfit for spiritual things. Therefore, on those days when one ought especially to give one's time to spiritual | |
| 18419 things, it is not lawful to ask for the debt. | |
| 18420 </p> | |
| 18421 <p id="XP_Q64_A7-p6"> | |
| 18422 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> At such a time other means may be employed for the repression of concupiscence; for instance, prayer and many similar things, | |
| 18423 to which even those who observe perpetual continence have recourse. | |
| 18424 </p> | |
| 18425 <p id="XP_Q64_A7-p7"> | |
| 18426 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although one is not bound to pray at all hours, one is bound throughout the day to keep oneself fit for prayer. | |
| 18427 </p> | |
| 18428 <p id="XP_Q64_A7-p8"></p> | |
| 18429 <p id="XP_Q64_A7-p9"></p> | |
| 18430 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A6.html"></a> | |
| 18431 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A8.html"></a> | |
| 18432 </div> | |
| 18433 <div id="XP_Q64_A8" class="div4"> | |
| 18434 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A7.html"></a> | |
| 18435 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A9.html"></a> | |
| 18436 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A8-p0.1">Whether it is a mortal sin to ask for the debt at a holy time?</h4> | |
| 18437 <p id="XP_Q64_A8-p1"></p> | |
| 18438 <p id="XP_Q64_A8-p2"> | |
| 18439 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is a mortal sin to ask for the debt at a holy time. For Gregory says (Dial. i) that the devil took | |
| 18440 possession of a woman who had intercourse with her husband at night and came in the morning to the procession. But this would | |
| 18441 not have happened had she not sinned mortally. Therefore, etc. | |
| 18442 </p> | |
| 18443 <p id="XP_Q64_A8-p3"> | |
| 18444 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever disobeys a Divine command commits a mortal sin. Now the Lord commanded ( | |
| 18445 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A8-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.19.15" target="asv">Ex. 19:15</a>): "Come not near your wives," when namely they were about to receive the Law. Much more therefore do husbands sin mortally | |
| 18446 if they have intercourse with their wives at a time when they should be intent on the sacred observances of the New Law. | |
| 18447 </p> | |
| 18448 <p id="XP_Q64_A8-p4"> | |
| 18449 <b>On the contrary,</b> No circumstance aggravates infinitely. But undue time is a circumstance. Therefore it does not aggravate a sin infinitely, | |
| 18450 so as to make mortal what was otherwise venial. | |
| 18451 </p> | |
| 18452 <p id="XP_Q64_A8-p5"> | |
| 18453 <b>I answer that,</b> To ask for the debt on a feast day is not a circumstance drawing a sin into another species; wherefore it cannot aggravate | |
| 18454 infinitely. Consequently a wife or husband does not sin mortally by asking for the debt on a feast day. It is however a more | |
| 18455 grievous sin to ask for the sake of mere pleasure, than through fear of the weakness of the flesh. | |
| 18456 </p> | |
| 18457 <p id="XP_Q64_A8-p6"> | |
| 18458 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This woman was punished not because she paid the debt, but because afterwards she rashly intruded into the divine service | |
| 18459 against her conscience. | |
| 18460 </p> | |
| 18461 <p id="XP_Q64_A8-p7"> | |
| 18462 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The authority quoted shows not that it is a mortal sin but that it is unbecoming. For under the Old Law which was given to | |
| 18463 a carnal people many things were required under an obligation of precept, for the sake of bodily cleanness, which are not | |
| 18464 required in the New Law which is the law of the spirit. | |
| 18465 </p> | |
| 18466 <p id="XP_Q64_A8-p8"></p> | |
| 18467 <p id="XP_Q64_A8-p9"></p> | |
| 18468 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A7.html"></a> | |
| 18469 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A9.html"></a> | |
| 18470 </div> | |
| 18471 <div id="XP_Q64_A9" class="div4"> | |
| 18472 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A8.html"></a> | |
| 18473 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A10.html"></a> | |
| 18474 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A9-p0.1">Whether one spouse is bound to pay the debt to the other at a festal time?</h4> | |
| 18475 <p id="XP_Q64_A9-p1"></p> | |
| 18476 <p id="XP_Q64_A9-p2"> | |
| 18477 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that neither are they bound to pay the debt at a festal time. For those who commit a sin as well as those who | |
| 18478 consent thereto are equally punished ( | |
| 18479 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.32" target="asv">Rom. 1:32</a>). But the one who pays the debt consents with the one that asks, who sins. Therefore he sins also. | |
| 18480 </p> | |
| 18481 <p id="XP_Q64_A9-p3"> | |
| 18482 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is an affirmative precept that binds us to pray, and therefore we are bound to do so at a fixed time. Therefore | |
| 18483 one ought not to pay the debt at a time when one is bound to pray, as neither ought one at a time when one is bound to fulfill | |
| 18484 a special duty towards a temporal master. | |
| 18485 </p> | |
| 18486 <p id="XP_Q64_A9-p4"> | |
| 18487 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 18488 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A9-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.5" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:5</a>): "Defraud not one another, except by consent, for a time," etc. Therefore when one spouse asks the other must pay. | |
| 18489 </p> | |
| 18490 <p id="XP_Q64_A9-p5"> | |
| 18491 <b>I answer that,</b> Since the wife has power of her husband's body, and "vice versa," with regard to the act of procreation, the one is bound | |
| 18492 to pay the debt to the other, at any season or hour, with due regard to the decorum required in such matters, for this must | |
| 18493 not be done at once openly. | |
| 18494 </p> | |
| 18495 <p id="XP_Q64_A9-p6"> | |
| 18496 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As far as he is concerned he does not consent, but grants unwillingly and with grief that which is exacted of him; and consequently | |
| 18497 he does not sin. For it is ordained by God, on account of the weakness of the flesh, that the debt must always be paid to | |
| 18498 the one who asks lest he be afforded an occasion of sin. | |
| 18499 </p> | |
| 18500 <p id="XP_Q64_A9-p7"> | |
| 18501 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> No hour is fixed for praying, but that compensation can be made at some other hour; wherefore the argument is not cogent. | |
| 18502 </p> | |
| 18503 <p id="XP_Q64_A9-p8"></p> | |
| 18504 <p id="XP_Q64_A9-p9"></p> | |
| 18505 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A8.html"></a> | |
| 18506 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A10.html"></a> | |
| 18507 </div> | |
| 18508 <div id="XP_Q64_A10" class="div4"> | |
| 18509 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A9.html"></a> | |
| 18510 <a href="summa.XP_Q65.html"></a> | |
| 18511 <h4 id="XP_Q64_A10-p0.1">Whether weddings should be forbidden at certain times? [*This article is omitted in the Leonine edition.]</h4> | |
| 18512 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p1"></p> | |
| 18513 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p2"> | |
| 18514 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that weddings ought not to be forbidden at certain times. For marriage is a sacrament: and the celebration | |
| 18515 of the others sacraments is not forbidden at those times. Therefore neither should the celebration of marriage be forbidden | |
| 18516 then. | |
| 18517 </p> | |
| 18518 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p3"> | |
| 18519 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, asking for the marriage debt is more unbecoming on feast days than the celebration of marriage. Yet the debt may | |
| 18520 be asked for on those days. Therefore also marriages may be solemnized. | |
| 18521 </p> | |
| 18522 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p4"> | |
| 18523 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, marriages that are contracted in despite of the law of the Church ought to be dissolved. Yet marriages are not dissolved | |
| 18524 if they be contracted at those times. Therefore it should not be forbidden by a commandment of the Church. | |
| 18525 </p> | |
| 18526 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p5"> | |
| 18527 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( | |
| 18528 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q64_A10-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.3.5" target="asv">Eccles. 3:5</a>): "A time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces." | |
| 18529 </p> | |
| 18530 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p6"> | |
| 18531 <b>I answer that,</b> When the newly married spouse is given to her husband, the minds of husband and wife are taken up with carnal preoccupations | |
| 18532 by reason of the very newness of things, wherefore weddings are wont to be signalized by much unrestrained rejoicing. On this | |
| 18533 account it is forbidden to celebrate marriages at those times when men ought especially to arise to spiritual things. Those | |
| 18534 times are from Advent until the Epiphany because of the Communion which, according to | |
| 18535 the ancient Canons, is wont to be made at Christmas (as was observed in its proper place, | |
| 18536 <a id="XP_Q64_A10-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q30.html">TP, Q[30])</a>, from Septuagesima until the octave day of Easter, on account of the Easter Communion, and from the three days before the | |
| 18537 Ascension until the octave day of Pentecost, on account of the preparation for Communion to be received at that time. | |
| 18538 </p> | |
| 18539 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p7"> | |
| 18540 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The celebration of marriage has a certain worldly and carnal rejoicing connected with it, which does not apply to the other | |
| 18541 sacraments. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 18542 </p> | |
| 18543 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p8"> | |
| 18544 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There is not such a distraction of minds caused by the payment of a request for the debt as by the celebration of a marriage; | |
| 18545 and consequently the comparison fails. | |
| 18546 </p> | |
| 18547 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p9"> | |
| 18548 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Since time is not essential to a marriage contracted within the forbidden seasons, the marriage is nevertheless a true sacrament. | |
| 18549 Nor is the marriage dissolved absolutely, but for a time, that they may do penance for having disobeyed the commandment of | |
| 18550 the Church. It is thus that we are to understand the statement of the Master (Sent. iv, D, 33), namely that should a marriage | |
| 18551 have been contracted or a wedding celebrated at the aforesaid times, those | |
| 18552 who have done so "ought to be separated." Nor does he say this on his own authority, but in reference to some canonical ordinance, | |
| 18553 such as that of the Council of Lerida, which decision is quoted by the Decretals. | |
| 18554 </p> | |
| 18555 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p10"></p> | |
| 18556 <p id="XP_Q64_A10-p11"></p> | |
| 18557 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A9.html"></a> | |
| 18558 <a href="summa.XP_Q65.html"></a> | |
| 18559 </div> | |
| 18560 <a href="summa.XP_Q63_A2.html"></a> | |
| 18561 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A1.html"></a> | |
| 18562 </div> | |
| 18563 <div id="XP_Q65" class="div3"> | |
| 18564 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A10.html"></a> | |
| 18565 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A1.html"></a> | |
| 18566 <h3 id="XP_Q65-p0.1">OF PLURALITY OF WIVES (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 18567 <p id="XP_Q65-p1"></p> | |
| 18568 <p id="XP_Q65-p2"> We must now consider the plurality of wives. Under this head there are five points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 18569 <p id="XP_Q65-p3"> (1) Whether it is against the natural law to have several wives?</p> | |
| 18570 <p id="XP_Q65-p4"> (2) Whether this was ever lawful?</p> | |
| 18571 <p id="XP_Q65-p5"> (3) Whether it is against the natural law to have a concubine?</p> | |
| 18572 <p id="XP_Q65-p6"> (4) Whether it is a mortal sin to have intercourse with a concubine?</p> | |
| 18573 <p id="XP_Q65-p7"> (5) Whether it was ever lawful to have a concubine?</p> | |
| 18574 <div id="XP_Q65_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 18575 <a href="summa.XP_Q65.html"></a> | |
| 18576 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A2.html"></a> | |
| 18577 <h4 id="XP_Q65_A1-p0.1">Whether it is against the natural law to have several wives?</h4> | |
| 18578 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 18579 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p2"> | |
| 18580 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not against the natural law to have several wives. For custom does not prejudice the law of nature. | |
| 18581 But "it was not a sin" to have several wives "when this was the custom," according to Augustine (De Bono Conjug. xv) as quoted | |
| 18582 in the text (Sent. iv, D, 33). Therefore it is not contrary to the natural law to have several wives. | |
| 18583 </p> | |
| 18584 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p3"> | |
| 18585 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever acts in opposition to the natural law, disobeys a commandment, for the law of nature has its commandments | |
| 18586 even as the written law has. Now Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xv; De Civ. Dei xv, 38) that "it was not contrary to a commandment" | |
| 18587 to have several wives, "because by no law was it forbidden." Therefore it is not against the natural law to have several wives. | |
| 18588 </p> | |
| 18589 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p4"> | |
| 18590 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, marriage is chiefly directed to the begetting of offspring. But one man may get children of several women, by causing | |
| 18591 them to be pregnant. Therefore It is not against the natural law to have several wives. | |
| 18592 </p> | |
| 18593 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p5"> | |
| 18594 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "Natural right is that which nature has taught all animals," as stated at the beginning of the Digests (1, i, ff. | |
| 18595 De just. et jure). Now nature has not taught all animals that one male should be united to but one female, since with many | |
| 18596 animals the one male is united to several females. Therefore it is not against the natural law to have several wives. | |
| 18597 </p> | |
| 18598 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p6"> | |
| 18599 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i, 20), in the begetting of offspring the male is to the female | |
| 18600 as agent to patient, and as the craftsman is to his material. But it is not against the order of nature for one agent to act | |
| 18601 on several patients, or for one craftsman to work in several materials. Therefore neither is it contrary to the law of nature | |
| 18602 for one husband to have many wives. | |
| 18603 </p> | |
| 18604 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p7"> | |
| 18605 <b>Objection 6:</b> On the contrary, That which was instilled into man at the formation of human nature would seem especially to belong to the | |
| 18606 natural law. Now it was instilled into him at the very formation of human nature that one man should have one wife, according | |
| 18607 to | |
| 18608 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.24" target="asv"> Gn. 2:24, </a> "They shall be two in one flesh." Therefore it is of natural law. | |
| 18609 </p> | |
| 18610 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p8"> | |
| 18611 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, it is contrary to the law of nature that man should bind himself to the impossible, and that what is given to one | |
| 18612 should be given to another. Now when a man contracts with a wife, he gives her the power of his body, so that he is bound | |
| 18613 to pay her the debt when she asks. Therefore it is against the law of nature that he should afterwards give the power of his | |
| 18614 body to another, because it would be impossible for him to pay both were both to ask at the | |
| 18615 same time. | |
| 18616 </p> | |
| 18617 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p9"> | |
| 18618 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, "Do not to another what thou wouldst not were done to thyself" [*Cf. | |
| 18619 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Tob.4.16" target="asv"> Tob. 4:16</a>] is a precept of the natural law. But a husband would by no means be willing for his wife to have another husband. Therefore | |
| 18620 he would be acting against the law of nature, were he to have another wife in addition. | |
| 18621 </p> | |
| 18622 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p10"> | |
| 18623 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, whatever is against the natural desire is contrary to the natural law. Now a husband's jealousy of his wife and | |
| 18624 the wife's jealousy of her husband are natural, for they are found in all. Therefore, since jealousy is "love impatient of | |
| 18625 sharing the beloved," it would seem to be contrary to the natural law that several wives should share one husband. | |
| 18626 </p> | |
| 18627 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p11"> | |
| 18628 <b>I answer that,</b> All natural things are imbued with certain principles whereby they are enabled not only to exercise their proper actions, | |
| 18629 but also to render those actions proportionate to their end, whether such actions belong to a thing by virtue of its generic | |
| 18630 nature, or by virtue of its specific nature: thus it belongs to a magnet to be borne downwards by virtue of its generic nature, | |
| 18631 and to attract iron by virtue of its specific nature. Now just as in those things which | |
| 18632 act from natural necessity the principle of action is the form itself, whence their proper actions proceed proportionately | |
| 18633 to their end, so in things which are endowed with knowledge the principles of action are knowledge and appetite. Hence in | |
| 18634 the cognitive power there needs to be a natural concept, and in the appetitive power a natural inclination, whereby the action | |
| 18635 befitting the genus or species is rendered proportionate to the end. Now since man, of all animals, knows the aspect of the | |
| 18636 end, and the proportion of the action to the end, it follows that he is imbued with a natural concept, whereby he is directed | |
| 18637 to act in a befitting manner, and this is called "the natural law" or "the natural right," but in other animals "the natural | |
| 18638 instinct." For brutes are rather impelled by the force of nature to do befitting actions, than guided to act on their own | |
| 18639 judgment. Therefore the natural law is nothing else than a concept naturally instilled into man, whereby he is guided to act | |
| 18640 in a befitting manner in his proper actions, whether they are competent to him by virtue of his generic nature, as, for instance, | |
| 18641 to beget, to eat, and so on, or belong to him by virtue of his specific nature, as, for instance, to reason and so forth. | |
| 18642 Now whatever renders an action improportionate to the end which nature intends to obtain by a certain work is said to be contrary | |
| 18643 to the natural law. But an action may be improportionate either to the principal or to the secondary end, and in | |
| 18644 either case this happens in two ways. First, on account of something which wholly hinders the end; for instance a very great | |
| 18645 excess or a very great deficiency in eating hinders both the health of the body, which is the principal end of food, and aptitude | |
| 18646 for conducting business, which is its secondary end. Secondly, on account of something that renders the attainment of the | |
| 18647 principal or secondary end difficult, or less satisfactory, for instance eating inordinately in respect of undue time. | |
| 18648 Accordingly if an action be improportionate to the end, through altogether hindering the principal end directly, it is forbidden | |
| 18649 by the first precepts of the natural law, which hold the same place in practical matters, as the general concepts of the mind | |
| 18650 in speculative matters. If, however, it be in any way improportionate to the secondary end, or again to the principal end, | |
| 18651 as rendering its attainment difficult or less satisfactory, it is forbidden, not indeed by the first precepts of the | |
| 18652 natural law, but by the second which are derived from the first even as conclusions in speculative matters receive our assent | |
| 18653 by virtue of self-known principles: and thus the act in question is said to be against the law of nature. | |
| 18654 </p> | |
| 18655 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p12"> Now marriage has for its principal end the begetting and rearing of children, and this end is competent to man according | |
| 18656 to his generic nature, wherefore it is common to other animals (Ethic. viii, 12), and thus it is that the "offspring" is assigned | |
| 18657 as a marriage good. But for its secondary end, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 12), it has, among men alone, the community | |
| 18658 of works that are a necessity of life, as stated above ( | |
| 18659 <a id="XP_Q65_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q41_A1.html">Q[41], A[1]</a>). And in | |
| 18660 reference to this they owe one another "fidelity" which is one of the goods of marriage. Furthermore it has another end, as | |
| 18661 regards marriage between believers, namely the signification of Christ and the Church: and thus the "sacrament" is said to | |
| 18662 be a marriage good. Wherefore the first end corresponds to the marriage of man inasmuch as he is an animal: the second, inasmuch | |
| 18663 as he is a man; the third, inasmuch as he is a believer. Accordingly plurality of wives neither wholly destroys nor in any | |
| 18664 way hinders the first end of marriage, since one man is sufficient to get children of several wives, and to rear the children | |
| 18665 born of them. But though it does not wholly destroy the second end, it hinders it considerably for there cannot easily be | |
| 18666 peace in a family where several wives are joined to one husband, since one husband cannot suffice to satisfy the requisitions | |
| 18667 of several wives, and again because the sharing of several in one occupation is a cause of strife: thus "potters quarrel with | |
| 18668 one another" [*Aristotle, Rhet. ii, 4], and in like manner the several wives of one husband. The third end, it removes altogether, | |
| 18669 because as Christ is one, so also is the Church one. It is therefore evident from what has been said that plurality of wives | |
| 18670 is in a way against the law of nature, and in a way not against it. | |
| 18671 </p> | |
| 18672 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p13"> | |
| 18673 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Custom does not prejudice the law of nature as regards the first precepts of the latter, which are like the general concepts | |
| 18674 of the mind in speculative matters. But those which are drawn like conclusions from these custom enforces, as Tully declares | |
| 18675 (De Inv. Rhet. ii), or weakens. Such is the precept of nature in the matter of having one wife. | |
| 18676 </p> | |
| 18677 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p14"> | |
| 18678 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii), "fear of the law and religion have sanctioned those things that come from nature and are | |
| 18679 approved by custom." Wherefore it is evident that those dictates of the natural law, which are derived from the first principles | |
| 18680 as it were of the natural law, have not the binding force of an absolute commandment, except when they have been sanctioned | |
| 18681 by Divine or human law. This is what Augustine means by saying that "they did | |
| 18682 not disobey the commandments of the law, since it was not forbidden by any law." | |
| 18683 </p> | |
| 18684 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p15"> The Reply to the Third Objection follows from what has been said.</p> | |
| 18685 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p16"> | |
| 18686 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Natural right has several significations. First a right is said to be natural by its principle, because it is instilled by | |
| 18687 nature: and thus Tully defines it (De Inv. Rhet. ii) when he says: "Natural right is not the result of opinion but the product | |
| 18688 of an innate force." And since even in natural things certain movements are called natural, not that they be from an intrinsic | |
| 18689 principle, but because they are from a higher moving principle---thus the | |
| 18690 movements that are caused in the elements by the impress of heavenly bodies are said to be natural, as the Commentator states | |
| 18691 (De Coelo et Mundo iii, 28), therefore those things that are of Divine right are said to be of natural right, because they | |
| 18692 are caused by the impress and influence of a higher principle, namely God. Isidore takes it in this sense, when he says (Etym. | |
| 18693 v) that "the natural right is that which is contained in the Law and the Gospel." Thirdly, right is said to be natural not | |
| 18694 only from its principle but also from its matter, because it is about natural things. And since nature is contradistinguished | |
| 18695 with reason, whereby man is a man, it follows that if we take natural right in its strictest sense, those things which are | |
| 18696 dictated by natural reason and pertain to man alone are not said to be of natural right, but only those which are dictated | |
| 18697 by natural reason and are common to man and other animals. Thus we have the aforesaid definition, namely: "Natural right is | |
| 18698 what nature has taught all animals." Accordingly plurality of wives, though not contrary to natural right taken in the third | |
| 18699 sense, is nevertheless against natural right taken in the second sense, because it is forbidden by the Divine law. It is also | |
| 18700 against natural right taken in the first sense, as appears from what has been said, for such is nature's dictate to every | |
| 18701 animal according to the mode befitting its nature. Wherefore also certain animals, the rearing of whose offspring demands | |
| 18702 the | |
| 18703 care of both, namely the male and female, by natural instinct cling to the union of one with one, for instance the turtle-dove, | |
| 18704 the dove, and so forth. | |
| 18705 </p> | |
| 18706 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p17"> The Reply to the Fifth Objection is clear from what has been said.</p> | |
| 18707 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p18"> Since, however, the arguments adduced "on the contrary side" would seem to show that plurality of wives is against the first | |
| 18708 principles of the natural law, we must reply to them. | |
| 18709 </p> | |
| 18710 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p19"> Accordingly we reply to the Sixth Objection that human nature was founded without any defect, and consequently it is endowed | |
| 18711 not only with those things without which the principal end of marriage is impossible of attainment, but also with those without | |
| 18712 which the secondary end of marriage could not be obtained without difficulty: and in this way it sufficed man when he was | |
| 18713 first formed to have one wife, as stated above. | |
| 18714 </p> | |
| 18715 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p20"> | |
| 18716 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> In marriage the husband gives his wife power of his body, not in all respects, but only in those things that are required | |
| 18717 by marriage. Now marriage does not require the husband to pay the debt every time his wife asks for it, if we consider the | |
| 18718 principal end for which marriage was instituted, namely the good of the offspring, but only as far as is necessary for impregnation. | |
| 18719 But in so far as it is instituted as a remedy (which is its secondary end), | |
| 18720 marriage does require the debt to be paid at all times on being asked for. Hence it is evident that by taking several wives | |
| 18721 a man does not bind himself to the impossible, considering the principal end of marriage; and therefore plurality of wives | |
| 18722 is not against the first principles of the natural law. | |
| 18723 </p> | |
| 18724 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p21"> | |
| 18725 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> This precept of the natural law, "Do not to another what thou wouldst not were done to thyself," should be understood with | |
| 18726 the proviso that there be equal proportion. For if a superior is unwilling to be withstood by his subject, he is not therefore | |
| 18727 bound not to withstand his subject. Hence it does not follow in virtue of this precept that as a husband is unwilling for | |
| 18728 his wife to have another husband, he must not have another wife: because for one | |
| 18729 man to have several wives is not contrary to the first principles of the natural law, as stated above: whereas for one wife | |
| 18730 to have several husbands is contrary to the first principles of the natural law, since thereby the good of the offspring which | |
| 18731 is the principal end of marriage is, in one respect, entirely destroyed, and in another respect hindered. For the good of | |
| 18732 the offspring means not only begetting, but also rearing. Now the begetting of offspring, though not wholly voided (since | |
| 18733 a | |
| 18734 woman may be impregnated a second time after impregnation has already taken place, as stated in De Gener. Animal. vii. 4), | |
| 18735 is nevertheless considerably hindered, because this can scarcely happen without injury either to both fetus or to one of them. | |
| 18736 But the rearing of the offspring is altogether done away, because as a result of one woman having several husbands there follows | |
| 18737 uncertainty of the offspring in relation to its father, whose care is necessary for its education. Wherefore the | |
| 18738 marriage of one wife with several husbands has not been sanctioned by any law or custom, whereas the converse has been. | |
| 18739 </p> | |
| 18740 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p22"> | |
| 18741 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> The natural inclination in the appetitive power follows the natural concept in the cognitive power. And since it is not so | |
| 18742 much opposed to the natural concept for a man to have several wives as for a wife to have several husbands, it follows that | |
| 18743 a wife's love is not so averse to another sharing the same husband with her, as a husband's love is to another sharing the | |
| 18744 same wife with him. Consequently both in man and in other animals the male is more | |
| 18745 jealous of the female than "vice versa." | |
| 18746 </p> | |
| 18747 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p23"></p> | |
| 18748 <p id="XP_Q65_A1-p24"></p> | |
| 18749 <a href="summa.XP_Q65.html"></a> | |
| 18750 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A2.html"></a> | |
| 18751 </div> | |
| 18752 <div id="XP_Q65_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 18753 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A1.html"></a> | |
| 18754 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A3.html"></a> | |
| 18755 <h4 id="XP_Q65_A2-p0.1">Whether it was ever lawful to have several wives?</h4> | |
| 18756 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 18757 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p2"> | |
| 18758 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it can never have been lawful to have several wives. For, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 7), | |
| 18759 "The natural law has the same power at all times and places." Now plurality of wives is forbidden by the natural law, as stated | |
| 18760 above | |
| 18761 <a id="XP_Q65_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q65_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore as it is unlawful now, it was unlawful at all times. | |
| 18762 </p> | |
| 18763 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p3"> | |
| 18764 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if it was ever lawful, this could only be because it was lawful either in itself, or by dispensation. If the former, | |
| 18765 it would also be lawful now; if the latter, this is impossible, for according to Augustine (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3), "as God | |
| 18766 is the founder of nature, He does nothing contrary to the principles which He has planted in nature." Since then God has planted | |
| 18767 in our nature the principle that one man should be united to one wife, it would seem | |
| 18768 that He has never dispensed man from this. | |
| 18769 </p> | |
| 18770 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p4"> | |
| 18771 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if a thing be lawful by dispensation, it is only lawful for those who receive the dispensation. Now we do not read | |
| 18772 in the Law of a general dispensation having been granted to all. Since then in the Old Testament all who wished to do so, | |
| 18773 without any distinction, took to themselves several wives, nor were reproached on that account, either by the law or by the | |
| 18774 prophets, it would seem that it was not made lawful by dispensation. | |
| 18775 </p> | |
| 18776 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p5"> | |
| 18777 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, where there is the same reason for dispensation, the same dispensation should be given. Now we cannot assign any | |
| 18778 other reason for dispensation than the multiplying of the offspring for the worship of God, and this is necessary also now. | |
| 18779 Therefore this dispensation would be still in force, especially as we read nowhere of its having been recalled. | |
| 18780 </p> | |
| 18781 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p6"> | |
| 18782 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, in granting a dispensation the greater good should not be overlooked for the sake of a lesser good. Now fidelity | |
| 18783 and the sacrament, which it would seem impossible to safeguard in a marriage where one man is joined to several wives, are | |
| 18784 greater goods than the multiplication of the offspring. Therefore this dispensation ought not to have been granted with a | |
| 18785 view to this multiplication. | |
| 18786 </p> | |
| 18787 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p7"> | |
| 18788 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated ( | |
| 18789 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.19" target="asv">Gal. 3:19</a>) that the Law "was set because of transgressors [Vulg.: 'transgressions']," namely in order to prohibit them. Now the Old | |
| 18790 Law mentions plurality of wives without any prohibition thereof, as appears from | |
| 18791 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.15" target="asv"> Dt. 21:15, </a> "If a man have two wives," etc. Therefore they were not transgressors through having two wives; and so it was lawful. | |
| 18792 </p> | |
| 18793 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p8"> Further, this is confirmed by the example of the holy patriarchs, who are stated to have had several wives, and yet were | |
| 18794 most pleasing to God, for instance Jacob, David, and several others. Therefore at one time it was lawful. | |
| 18795 </p> | |
| 18796 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p9"> | |
| 18797 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 7,8), plurality of wives is said to be against the natural law, not as regards its first precepts, | |
| 18798 but as regards the secondary precepts, which like conclusions are drawn from its first precepts. Since, however, human acts | |
| 18799 must needs vary according to the various conditions of persons, times, and other circumstances, the aforesaid conclusions | |
| 18800 do not proceed from the first precepts of the natural law, so as to be binding in all | |
| 18801 cases, but only in the majority. for such is the entire matter of Ethics according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 3,7). Hence, | |
| 18802 when they cease to be binding, it is lawful to disregard them. But because it is not easy to determine the above variations, | |
| 18803 it belongs exclusively to him from whose authority he derives its binding force to permit the non-observance of the law in | |
| 18804 those cases to which the force of the law ought not to extend, and this permission is called a dispensation. Now the law | |
| 18805 prescribing the one wife was framed not by man but by God, nor was it ever given by word or in writing, but was imprinted | |
| 18806 on the heart, like other things belonging in any way to the natural law. Consequently a dispensation in this matter could | |
| 18807 be granted by God alone through an inward inspiration, vouchsafed originally to the holy patriarchs, and by their example | |
| 18808 continued to others, at a time when it behooved the aforesaid precept not to be observed, in order to ensure the multiplication | |
| 18809 of | |
| 18810 the offspring to be brought up in the worship of God. For the principal end is ever to be borne in mind before the secondary | |
| 18811 end. Wherefore, since the good of the offspring is the principal end of marriage, it behooved to disregard for a time the | |
| 18812 impediment that might arise to the secondary ends, when it was necessary for the offspring to be multiplied; because it was | |
| 18813 for the removal of this impediment that the precept forbidding a plurality of wives was framed, as stated above | |
| 18814 | |
| 18815 <a id="XP_Q65_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q65_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. | |
| 18816 </p> | |
| 18817 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p10"> | |
| 18818 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The natural law, considered in itself, has the same force at all times and places; but accidentally on account of some impediment | |
| 18819 it may vary at certain times and places, as the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 3,7) instances in the case of other natural things. | |
| 18820 For at all times and places the right hand is better than the left according to nature, but it may happen accidentally that | |
| 18821 a person is ambidextrous, because our nature is variable; and the same applies | |
| 18822 to the natural, just as the Philosopher states (Ethic. i, 3,7). | |
| 18823 </p> | |
| 18824 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p11"> | |
| 18825 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In a Decretal (De divortiis, cap. Gaudemus) it is asserted that is was never lawful to have several wives without having | |
| 18826 a dispensation received through Divine inspiration. Nor is the dispensation thus granted a contradiction to the principles | |
| 18827 which God has implanted in nature, but an exception to them, because those principles are not intended to apply to all cases | |
| 18828 but to the majority, as stated. Even so it is not contrary to nature when certain | |
| 18829 occurrences take place in natural things miraculously, by way of exception to more frequent occurrences. | |
| 18830 </p> | |
| 18831 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p12"> | |
| 18832 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Dispensation from a law should follow the quality of the law. Wherefore, since the law of nature is imprinted on the heart, | |
| 18833 it was not necessary for a dispensation from things pertaining to the natural law to be given under the form of a written | |
| 18834 law but by internal inspiration. | |
| 18835 </p> | |
| 18836 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p13"> | |
| 18837 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> When Christ came it was the time of the fulness of the grace of Christ, whereby the worship of God was spread abroad among | |
| 18838 all nations by a spiritual propagation. Hence there is not the same reason for a dispensation as before Christ's coming, when | |
| 18839 the worship of God was spread and safeguarded by a carnal propagation. | |
| 18840 </p> | |
| 18841 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p14"> | |
| 18842 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The offspring, considered as one of the marriage goods, includes the keeping of faith with God, because the reason why it | |
| 18843 is reckoned a marriage good is because it is awaited with a view to its being brought up in the worship of God. Now the faith | |
| 18844 to be kept with God is of greater import than the faith to be kept with a wife, which is reckoned a marriage good, and than | |
| 18845 the signification which pertains to the sacrament, since the signification is | |
| 18846 subordinate to the knowledge of faith. Hence it is not unfitting if something is taken from the two other goods for the sake | |
| 18847 of the good of the offspring. Nor are they entirely done away, since there remains faith towards several wives; and the sacrament | |
| 18848 remains after a fashion, for though it did not signify the union of Christ with the Church as one, nevertheless the plurality | |
| 18849 of wives signified the distinction of degrees in the Church, which distinction is not only in the Church militant but | |
| 18850 also in the Church triumphant. Consequently their marriages signified somewhat the union of Christ not only with the Church | |
| 18851 militant, as some say, but also with the Church triumphant where there are "many mansions" [* | |
| 18852 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A2-p14.1" href="./asv.html#John.19.2" target="asv">Jn. 19:2</a>]. | |
| 18853 </p> | |
| 18854 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p15"></p> | |
| 18855 <p id="XP_Q65_A2-p16"></p> | |
| 18856 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A1.html"></a> | |
| 18857 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A3.html"></a> | |
| 18858 </div> | |
| 18859 <div id="XP_Q65_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 18860 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A2.html"></a> | |
| 18861 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A4.html"></a> | |
| 18862 <h4 id="XP_Q65_A3-p0.1">Whether it is against the natural law to have a concubine?</h4> | |
| 18863 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 18864 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p2"> | |
| 18865 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that to have a concubine is not against the natural law. For the ceremonies of the Law are not of the natural | |
| 18866 law. But fornication is forbidden ( | |
| 18867 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.15.29" target="asv">Acts 15:29</a>) in conjunction with ceremonies of the law which for the time were being imposed on those who were brought to the faith from | |
| 18868 among the heathens. Therefore simple fornication which is intercourse with a concubine is not against the natural law. | |
| 18869 </p> | |
| 18870 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p3"> | |
| 18871 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, positive law is an outcome of the natural law, as Tully says (De Invent. ii). Now fornication was not forbidden | |
| 18872 by positive law; indeed according to the ancient laws women used to be sentenced to be taken to brothels. Therefore it is | |
| 18873 not against the natural law to have a concubine. | |
| 18874 </p> | |
| 18875 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p4"> | |
| 18876 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the natural law does not forbid that which is given simply, to be given for a time or under certain restrictions. | |
| 18877 Now one unmarried woman may give the power of her body for ever to an unmarried man, so that he may use her when he will. | |
| 18878 Therefore it is not against the law of nature, if she give him power of her body for a time. | |
| 18879 </p> | |
| 18880 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p5"> | |
| 18881 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, whoever uses his own property as he will, injures no one. But a bondswoman is her master's property. Therefore if | |
| 18882 her master use her as he will, he injures no one: and consequently it is not against the natural law to have a concubine. | |
| 18883 </p> | |
| 18884 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p6"> | |
| 18885 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, everyone may give his own property to another. Now the wife has power of her husband's body ( | |
| 18886 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:4</a>). Therefore if his wife be willing, the husband can have intercourse with another woman without sin. | |
| 18887 </p> | |
| 18888 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p7"> | |
| 18889 <b>On the contrary,</b> According to all laws the children born of a concubine are children of shame. But this would not be so unless the union of | |
| 18890 which they are born were naturally shameful. | |
| 18891 </p> | |
| 18892 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p8"> Further, as stated above ( | |
| 18893 <a id="XP_Q65_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q41_A1.html">Q[41], A[1]</a>), marriage is natural. But this would not be so if without prejudice to the natural law a man could be united to a woman | |
| 18894 otherwise than by marriage. Therefore it is against the natural law to have a concubine. | |
| 18895 </p> | |
| 18896 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p9"> | |
| 18897 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above | |
| 18898 <a id="XP_Q65_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q65_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, an action is said to be against the natural law, if it is not in keeping with the due end intended by nature, whether through | |
| 18899 not being directed thereto by the action of the agent, or through being directed thereto by the action of the agent, or through | |
| 18900 being in itself improportionate to that end. Now the end which nature intends in sexual union is the begetting and rearing | |
| 18901 of the offspring. and that this good | |
| 18902 might be sought after, it attached pleasure to the union; as Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i, 8). Accordingly to make | |
| 18903 use of sexual intercourse on account of its inherent pleasure, without reference to the end for which nature intended it, | |
| 18904 is to act against nature, as also is it if the intercourse be not such as may fittingly be directed to that end. And since, | |
| 18905 for the most part, things are denominated from their end, as being that which is of most consequence to them, just as the | |
| 18906 marriage | |
| 18907 union took its name from the good of the offspring [*Cf. Q[44], A[2]], which is the end chiefly sought after in marriage, | |
| 18908 so the name of concubine is expressive of that union where sexual intercourse is sought after for its own sake. Moreover even | |
| 18909 though sometimes a man may seek to have offspring of such an intercourse, this is not befitting to the good of the offspring, | |
| 18910 which signifies not only the begetting of children from which they take their being, but also their rearing and instruction, | |
| 18911 by which means they receive nourishment and learning from their parents, in respect of which three things the parents are | |
| 18912 bound to their children, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 11,12). Now since the rearing and teaching of the children | |
| 18913 remain a duty of the parents during a long period of time, the law of nature requires the father and mother to dwell together | |
| 18914 for a long time, in order that together they may be of assistance to their children. Hence birds that unite together in | |
| 18915 rearing their young do not sever their mutual fellowship from the time when they first come together until the young are fully | |
| 18916 fledged. Now this obligation which binds the female and her mate to remain together constitutes matrimony. Consequently it | |
| 18917 is evident that it is contrary to the natural law for a man to have intercourse with a woman who is not married to him, which | |
| 18918 is the signification of a concubine. | |
| 18919 </p> | |
| 18920 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p10"> | |
| 18921 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Among the Gentiles the natural law was obscured in many points: and consequently they did not think it wrong to have intercourse | |
| 18922 with a concubine, and in many cases practiced fornication as though it were lawful, as also other things contrary to the ceremonial | |
| 18923 laws of the Jews, though not contrary to the law of nature. Wherefore the apostles inserted the prohibition of fornication | |
| 18924 among that of other ceremonial observances, because in both cases there | |
| 18925 was a difference of opinion between Jews and Gentiles. | |
| 18926 </p> | |
| 18927 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p11"> | |
| 18928 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This law was the result of the darkness just mentioned, into which the Gentiles had fallen, by not giving due honor to God | |
| 18929 as stated in | |
| 18930 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.21" target="asv"> Rom. 1:21, </a> and did not proceed from the instinct of the natural law. Hence, when the Christian religion prevailed, this law was abolished. | |
| 18931 </p> | |
| 18932 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p12"> | |
| 18933 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In certain cases no evil results ensue if a person surrenders his right to a thing whether absolutely or for a time, so that | |
| 18934 in neither case is the surrender against the natural law. But that does not apply to the case in point, wherefore the argument | |
| 18935 does not prove. | |
| 18936 </p> | |
| 18937 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p13"> | |
| 18938 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Injury is opposed to justice. Now the natural law forbids not only injustice, but also whatever is opposed to any of the | |
| 18939 virtues: for instance it is contrary to the natural law to eat immoderately, although by doing so a man uses his own property | |
| 18940 without injury to anyone. Moreover although a bondswoman is her master's property that she may serve him, she is not his that | |
| 18941 she may be his concubine. And again it depends how a person makes use of his | |
| 18942 property. For such a man does an injury to the offspring he begets, since such a union is not directed to its good, as stated | |
| 18943 above. | |
| 18944 </p> | |
| 18945 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p14"> | |
| 18946 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The wife has power of her husband's body, not simply and in all respects, but only in relation to marriage, and consequently | |
| 18947 she cannot transfer her husband's body to another to the detriment of the good of marriage. | |
| 18948 </p> | |
| 18949 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p15"></p> | |
| 18950 <p id="XP_Q65_A3-p16"></p> | |
| 18951 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A2.html"></a> | |
| 18952 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A4.html"></a> | |
| 18953 </div> | |
| 18954 <div id="XP_Q65_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 18955 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A3.html"></a> | |
| 18956 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A5.html"></a> | |
| 18957 <h4 id="XP_Q65_A4-p0.1">Whether it is a mortal sin to have intercourse with a concubine?</h4> | |
| 18958 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 18959 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p2"> | |
| 18960 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not a mortal sin to have intercourse with a concubine. For a lie is a greater sin than simple fornication: | |
| 18961 and a proof of this is that Juda, who did not abhor to commit fornication with Thamar, recoiled from telling a lie, saying | |
| 18962 ( | |
| 18963 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.38.23" target="asv">Gn. 38:23</a>): "Surely she cannot charge us with a lie." But a lie is not always a mortal sin. Neither therefore is simple fornication. | |
| 18964 </p> | |
| 18965 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p3"> | |
| 18966 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a deadly sin should be punished with death. But the Old Law did not punish with death intercourse with a concubine, | |
| 18967 save in a certain case ( | |
| 18968 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.25" target="asv">Dt. 22:25</a>). Therefore it is not a deadly sin. | |
| 18969 </p> | |
| 18970 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p4"> | |
| 18971 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxiii, 12), the sins of the flesh are less blameworthy than spiritual sins. Now pride | |
| 18972 and covetousness, which are spiritual sins, are not always mortal sins. Therefore fornication, which is a sin of the flesh, | |
| 18973 is not always a mortal sin. | |
| 18974 </p> | |
| 18975 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p5"> | |
| 18976 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, where the incentive is greater the sin is less grievous, because he sins more who is overcome by a lighter temptation. | |
| 18977 But concupiscence is the greatest incentive to lust. Therefore since lustful actions are not always mortal sins, neither is | |
| 18978 simple fornication a mortal sin. | |
| 18979 </p> | |
| 18980 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p6"> | |
| 18981 <b>On the contrary,</b> Nothing but mortal sin excludes from the kingdom of God. But fornicators are excluded from the kingdom of God ( | |
| 18982 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:9,10</a>). Therefore simple fornication is a mortal sin. | |
| 18983 </p> | |
| 18984 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p7"> Further, mortal sins alone are called crimes. Now all fornication is a crime according to | |
| 18985 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Tob.4.13" target="asv"> Tob. 4:13, </a> "Take heed to keep thyself . . . from all fornication, and beside thy wife never endure to know crime." Therefore, etc. | |
| 18986 </p> | |
| 18987 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p8"> | |
| 18988 <b>I answer that,</b> As we have already stated (Sent. ii, D, 42 | |
| 18989 <a id="XP_Q65_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q1_A4.html">, Q[1], A[4]</a>), those sins are mortal in their genus which violate the bond of friendship between man and God, and between man and man; | |
| 18990 for such sins are against the two precepts of charity which is the life of the soul. Wherefore since the intercourse of fornication | |
| 18991 destroys the due relations of the parent with the offspring that is nature's aim in sexual intercourse, there can be no doubt | |
| 18992 that simple fornication by its very nature is a mortal sin even though there were no written law. | |
| 18993 </p> | |
| 18994 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p9"> | |
| 18995 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It often happens that a man who does not avoid a mortal sin, avoids a venial sin to which he has not so great an incentive. | |
| 18996 Thus, too, Juda avoided a lie while he avoided not fornication. Nevertheless that would have been a pernicious lie, for it | |
| 18997 would have involved an injury if he had not kept his promise. | |
| 18998 </p> | |
| 18999 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p10"> | |
| 19000 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A sin is called deadly, not because it is punished with temporal, but because it is punished with eternal death. Hence also | |
| 19001 theft, which is a mortal sin, and many other sins are sometimes not punished with temporal death by the law. The same applies | |
| 19002 to fornication. | |
| 19003 </p> | |
| 19004 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p11"> | |
| 19005 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as not every movement of pride is a mortal sin, so neither is every movement of lust, because the first movements of | |
| 19006 lust and the like are venial sins, even sometimes marriage intercourse. Nevertheless some acts of lust are mortal sins, while | |
| 19007 some movements of pride are venial: since the words quoted from Gregory are to be understood as comparing vices in their genus | |
| 19008 and not in their particular acts. | |
| 19009 </p> | |
| 19010 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p12"> | |
| 19011 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A circumstance is the more effective in aggravating a sin according as it comes nearer to the nature of sin. Hence although | |
| 19012 fornication is less grave on account of the greatness of its incentive, yet on account of the matter about which it is, it | |
| 19013 has a greater gravity than immoderate eating, because it is about those things which tighten the bond of human fellowship, | |
| 19014 as stated above. Hence the argument does not prove. | |
| 19015 </p> | |
| 19016 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p13"></p> | |
| 19017 <p id="XP_Q65_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 19018 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19019 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19020 </div> | |
| 19021 <div id="XP_Q65_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 19022 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19023 <a href="summa.XP_Q66.html"></a> | |
| 19024 <h4 id="XP_Q65_A5-p0.1">Whether it was ever lawful to have a concubine?</h4> | |
| 19025 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 19026 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p2"> | |
| 19027 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it has been sometimes lawful to have a concubine. For just as the natural law requires a man to have but | |
| 19028 one wife, so does it forbid him to have a concubine. Yet at times it has been lawful to have several wives. Therefore it has | |
| 19029 also been lawful to have a concubine. | |
| 19030 </p> | |
| 19031 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p3"> | |
| 19032 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a woman cannot be at the same time a slave and a wife; wherefore according to the Law ( | |
| 19033 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.11" target="asv">Dt. 21:11, </a> seqq.) a bondswoman gained her freedom by the very fact of being taken in marriage. Now we read that certain men who were | |
| 19034 most beloved of God, for instance Abraham and Jacob, had intercourse with their bondswomen. Therefore these were not wives, | |
| 19035 and consequently it was sometime lawful to have a concubine. | |
| 19036 </p> | |
| 19037 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p4"> | |
| 19038 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a woman who is taken in marriage cannot be cast out, and her son should have a share in the inheritance. Yet Abraham | |
| 19039 sent Agar away, and her son was not his heir ( | |
| 19040 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.21.14" target="asv">Gn. 21:14</a>). Therefore she was not Abraham's wife. | |
| 19041 </p> | |
| 19042 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p5"> | |
| 19043 <b>On the contrary,</b> Things opposed to the precepts of the decalogue were never lawful. Now to have a concubine is against a precept of the decalogue, | |
| 19044 namely, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Therefore it was never lawful. | |
| 19045 </p> | |
| 19046 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p6"> Further, Ambrose says in his book on the patriarchs (De Abraham i, 4): "What is unlawful to a wife is unlawful to a husband." | |
| 19047 But it is never lawful for a wife to put aside her own husband and have intercourse with another man. Therefore it was never | |
| 19048 lawful for a husband to have a concubine. | |
| 19049 </p> | |
| 19050 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p7"> | |
| 19051 <b>I answer that,</b> Rabbi Moses says (Doc. Perp. iii, 49) that before the time of the Law fornication was not a sin; and he proved his assertion | |
| 19052 from the fact that Juda had intercourse with Thamar. But this argument is not conclusive. For there is no need to excuse Jacob's | |
| 19053 sons from mortal sin, since they were accused to their father of a most wicked crime ( | |
| 19054 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.37.2" target="asv">Gn. 37:2</a>), and consented kill Joseph and to sell him. Wherefore we must say that since it is against the natural law to | |
| 19055 have a concubine outside wedlock, as stated above | |
| 19056 <a id="XP_Q65_A5-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q65_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, it was never lawful either in itself or by dispensation. For as we have shown (Doc. Perp. iii, 49) intercourse with a woman | |
| 19057 outside wedlock is an action improportionate to the good of the offspring which is the principal end of marriage: and consequently | |
| 19058 it is against the first precepts of the natural law which admit of no dispensation. Hence wherever in the Old Testament we | |
| 19059 read of concubines being taken by such | |
| 19060 men as we ought to excuse from mortal sin, we must needs understand them to have been taken in marriage, and yet to have been | |
| 19061 called concubines, because they had something of the character of a wife and something of the character of a concubine. In | |
| 19062 so far as marriage is directed to its principal end, which is the good of the offspring, the union of wife and husband is | |
| 19063 indissoluble or at least of a lasting nature, as shown above | |
| 19064 <a id="XP_Q65_A5-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q65_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, and in regard to this there is no | |
| 19065 dispensation. But in regard to the secondary end, which is the management of the household and community of works, the wife | |
| 19066 is united to the husband as his mate: and this was lacking in those who were known as concubines. For in this respect a dispensation | |
| 19067 was possible, since it is the secondary end of marriage. And from this point of view they bore some resemblance to concubines, | |
| 19068 and for this reason they were known as such. | |
| 19069 </p> | |
| 19070 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p8"> | |
| 19071 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 7,8) to have several wives is not against the first precepts of the natural law, as it is to have | |
| 19072 a concubine; wherefore the argument does not prove. | |
| 19073 </p> | |
| 19074 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p9"> | |
| 19075 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The patriarchs of old by virtue of the dispensation which allowed them several wives, approached their bondswomen with the | |
| 19076 disposition of a husband towards his wife. For these women were wives as to the principal and first end of marriage, but not | |
| 19077 as to the other union which regards the secondary end, to which bondage is opposed since a woman cannot be at once mate and | |
| 19078 slave. | |
| 19079 </p> | |
| 19080 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p10"> | |
| 19081 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As in the Mosaic law it was allowable by dispensation to grant a bill of divorce in order to avoid wife-murder (as we shall | |
| 19082 state further on | |
| 19083 <a id="XP_Q65_A5-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q67_A6.html">, Q[67], A[6]</a>), so by the same dispensation Abraham was allowed to send Agar away, in order to signify the mystery which the Apostle explains | |
| 19084 ( | |
| 19085 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A5-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.22" target="asv">Gal. 4:22, </a> seqq.). Again, that this son did not inherit belongs to the mystery, as explained in the same place. Even so Esau, | |
| 19086 the son of a free woman, did not inherit ( | |
| 19087 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q65_A5-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.13" target="asv">Rom. 9:13, </a> seqq.). In like manner on account of the mystery it came about that the sons of Jacob born of bond and free women inherited, | |
| 19088 as Augustine says (Tract. xi in Joan.) because "sons and heirs are born to Christ both of good ministers denoted by the free | |
| 19089 woman and of evil ministers denoted by the bondswoman." | |
| 19090 </p> | |
| 19091 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p11"></p> | |
| 19092 <p id="XP_Q65_A5-p12"></p> | |
| 19093 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19094 <a href="summa.XP_Q66.html"></a> | |
| 19095 </div> | |
| 19096 <a href="summa.XP_Q64_A10.html"></a> | |
| 19097 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19098 </div> | |
| 19099 <div id="XP_Q66" class="div3"> | |
| 19100 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19101 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19102 <h3 id="XP_Q66-p0.1">OF BIGAMY AND OF THE IRREGULARITY CONTRACTED THEREBY (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 19103 <p id="XP_Q66-p1"></p> | |
| 19104 <p id="XP_Q66-p2"> In the next place we must consider bigamy and the irregularity contracted thereby. Under this head there are five points | |
| 19105 of inquiry: | |
| 19106 </p> | |
| 19107 <p id="XP_Q66-p3"> (1) Whether irregularity attaches to the bigamy that consists in having two successive wives?</p> | |
| 19108 <p id="XP_Q66-p4"> (2) Whether irregularity is contracted by one who has two wives at once?</p> | |
| 19109 <p id="XP_Q66-p5"> (3) Whether irregularity is contracted by marrying one who is not a virgin?</p> | |
| 19110 <p id="XP_Q66-p6"> (4) Whether bigamy is removed by Baptism?</p> | |
| 19111 <p id="XP_Q66-p7"> (5) Whether a dispensation can be granted to a bigamous person?</p> | |
| 19112 <div id="XP_Q66_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 19113 <a href="summa.XP_Q66.html"></a> | |
| 19114 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19115 <h4 id="XP_Q66_A1-p0.1">Whether irregularity attaches to bigamy?</h4> | |
| 19116 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 19117 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p2"> | |
| 19118 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that irregularity is not attached to the bigamy that consists in having two wives successively. For multitude | |
| 19119 and unity are consequent upon being. Since then non-being does not cause plurality, a man who has two wives successively, | |
| 19120 the one in being, the other in non-being, does not thereby become the husband of more than one wife, so as to be debarred, | |
| 19121 according to the Apostle ( | |
| 19122 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q66_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.3.2" target="asv">1 Tim. 3:2</a>; | |
| 19123 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q66_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Titus.1.6" target="asv"> Titus 1:6</a>), | |
| 19124 from the episcopate. | |
| 19125 </p> | |
| 19126 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p3"> | |
| 19127 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a man who commits fornication with several women gives more evidence of incontinence than one who has several wives | |
| 19128 successively. Yet in the first case a man does not become irregular. Therefore neither in the second should he become irregular. | |
| 19129 </p> | |
| 19130 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p4"> | |
| 19131 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if bigamy causes irregularity, this is either because of the sacrament, or because of the carnal intercourse. Now | |
| 19132 it is not on account of the former, for if a man had contracted marriage by words of the present and, his wife dying before | |
| 19133 the consummation of the marriage, he were to marry another, he would become irregular, which is against the decree of Innocent | |
| 19134 III (cap. Dubium, De bigamia). Nor again is it on account of the second, for then a man | |
| 19135 who had committed fornication with several women would become irregular: which is false. Therefore bigamy nowise causes irregularity. | |
| 19136 </p> | |
| 19137 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p5"> | |
| 19138 <b>I answer that,</b> By the sacrament of order a man is appointed to the ministry of the sacraments; and he who has to administer the sacraments | |
| 19139 to others must suffer from no defect in the sacraments. Now there is a defect in a sacrament when the entire signification | |
| 19140 of the sacrament is not found therein. And the sacrament of marriage signifies the union of Christ with the Church, which | |
| 19141 is the union of one with one. Therefore the perfect signification of the sacrament requires | |
| 19142 the husband to have only one wife, and the wife to have but one husband; and consequently bigamy, which does away with this, | |
| 19143 causes irregularity. And there are four kinds of bigamy: the first is when a man has several lawful wives successively; the | |
| 19144 second is when a man has several wives at once, one in law, the other in fact; the third, when he has several successively, | |
| 19145 one in law, the other in fact; the fourth, when a man marries a widow. Accordingly irregularity attaches to all of these. | |
| 19146 </p> | |
| 19147 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p6"> There is another consequent reason assigned, since those who receive the sacrament of order should be signalized by the greatest | |
| 19148 spirituality, both because they administer spiritual things, namely the sacraments, and because they teach spiritual things, | |
| 19149 and should be occupied in spiritual matters. Wherefore since concupiscence is most incompatible with spirituality, inasmuch | |
| 19150 as it makes a man to be wholly carnal, they should give no sign of persistent concupiscence, which does | |
| 19151 indeed show itself in bigamous persons, seeing that they were unwilling to be content with one wife. The first reason however | |
| 19152 is the better. | |
| 19153 </p> | |
| 19154 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p7"> | |
| 19155 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The multitude of several wives at the same time is a multitude simply, wherefore a multitude of this kind is wholly inconsistent | |
| 19156 with the signification of the sacrament, so that the sacrament is voided on that account. But the multitude of several successive | |
| 19157 wives is a multitude relatively, wherefore it does not entirely destroy the signification of the sacrament, nor does it void | |
| 19158 the sacrament in its essence but in its perfection, which is required | |
| 19159 of those who are the dispensers of sacraments. | |
| 19160 </p> | |
| 19161 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p8"> | |
| 19162 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although those who are guilty of fornication give proof of greater concupiscence, theirs is not a so persistent concupiscence, | |
| 19163 since by fornication one party is not bound to the other for ever; and consequently no defect attaches to the sacrament. | |
| 19164 </p> | |
| 19165 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p9"> | |
| 19166 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above, bigamy causes irregularity, because it destroys the perfect signification of the sacrament: which signification | |
| 19167 is seated both in the union of minds, as expressed by the consent, and in the union of bodies. Wherefore bigamy must affect | |
| 19168 both of these at the same time in order to cause irregularity. Hence the decree of Innocent III disposes of the statement | |
| 19169 of the Master (Sent. iv, D, 27), namely that consent alone by words of the | |
| 19170 present is sufficient to cause irregularity. | |
| 19171 </p> | |
| 19172 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p10"></p> | |
| 19173 <p id="XP_Q66_A1-p11"></p> | |
| 19174 <a href="summa.XP_Q66.html"></a> | |
| 19175 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19176 </div> | |
| 19177 <div id="XP_Q66_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 19178 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19179 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19180 <h4 id="XP_Q66_A2-p0.1">Whether irregularity results from bigamy, when one husband has two wives, one in law, the other in fact?</h4> | |
| 19181 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 19182 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p2"> | |
| 19183 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that irregularity does not result from bigamy when one husband has two wives at the same time, one in law and | |
| 19184 one in fact. For when the sacrament is void there can be no defect in the sacrament. Now when a man marries a woman in fact | |
| 19185 but not in law there is no sacrament, since such a union does not signify the union of Christ with the Church. Therefore since | |
| 19186 irregularity does not result from bigamy except on account of a defect in the sacrament, | |
| 19187 it would seem that no irregularity attaches to bigamy of this kind. | |
| 19188 </p> | |
| 19189 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p3"> | |
| 19190 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if a man has intercourse with a woman whom he has married in fact and not in law, he commits fornication if he has | |
| 19191 not a lawful wife, or adultery if he has. But a man does not become irregular by dividing his flesh among several women by | |
| 19192 fornication or adultery. Therefore neither does he by the aforesaid kind of bigamy. | |
| 19193 </p> | |
| 19194 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p4"> | |
| 19195 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it may happen that a man, before knowing carnally the woman he has married in law, marries another in fact and not | |
| 19196 in law, and knows her carnally, whether the former woman be living or dead. Now this man has contracted marriage with several | |
| 19197 women either in law or in fact, and yet he is not irregular, since he has not divided his flesh among several women. Therefore | |
| 19198 irregularity is not contracted by reason of the aforesaid kind of bigamy. | |
| 19199 </p> | |
| 19200 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p5"> | |
| 19201 <b>I answer that,</b> Irregularity is contracted in the two second kinds of bigamy, for although in the one there is no sacrament, there is a certain | |
| 19202 likeness to a sacrament. Wherefore these two kinds are secondary, and the first is the principal kind in causing irregularity. | |
| 19203 </p> | |
| 19204 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p6"> | |
| 19205 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although there is no sacrament in this case there is a certain likeness to a sacrament, whereas there is no such likeness | |
| 19206 in fornication or adultery. Hence the comparison fails. | |
| 19207 </p> | |
| 19208 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p7"> This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.</p> | |
| 19209 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p8"> | |
| 19210 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In this case the man is not reckoned a bigamist, because the first marriage lacked its perfect signification. Nevertheless | |
| 19211 if, by the judgment of the Church, he be compelled to return to his first wife and carnally to know her, he becomes irregular | |
| 19212 forthwith, because the irregularity is the result not of the sin but of imperfect signification. | |
| 19213 </p> | |
| 19214 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 19215 <p id="XP_Q66_A2-p10"></p> | |
| 19216 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19217 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19218 </div> | |
| 19219 <div id="XP_Q66_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 19220 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19221 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19222 <h4 id="XP_Q66_A3-p0.1">Whether irregularity is contracted by marrying one who is not a virgin?</h4> | |
| 19223 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 19224 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p2"> | |
| 19225 <b>Objection 1:</b> 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 | |
| 19226 impediment to him than the defect of another. But if the man himself who marries is not a virgin he does not become irregular. | |
| 19227 Therefore much less does he if his wife is not a virgin. | |
| 19228 </p> | |
| 19229 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p3"> | |
| 19230 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it may happen that a man marries a woman after corrupting her. Now, seemingly, such a man does not become irregular, | |
| 19231 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. | |
| 19232 Therefore this kind of bigamy does not cause irregularity. | |
| 19233 </p> | |
| 19234 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p4"> | |
| 19235 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no man can become irregular except voluntarily. But sometimes a man marries involuntarily one who is not a virgin, | |
| 19236 for instance when he thinks her a virgin and afterwards, by knowing her carnally, finds that she is not. Therefore this kind | |
| 19237 does not always cause irregularity. | |
| 19238 </p> | |
| 19239 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p5"> | |
| 19240 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, unlawful intercourse after marriage is more guilty than before marriage. Now if a wife, after the marriage has been | |
| 19241 consummated, has intercourse with another man, her husband does not become irregular, otherwise he would be punished for his | |
| 19242 wife's sin. Moreover, it might happen that, after knowing of this, he pays her the debt at her asking, before she is accused | |
| 19243 and convicted of adultery. Therefore it would seem that this kind of bigamy does not | |
| 19244 cause irregularity. | |
| 19245 </p> | |
| 19246 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p6"> | |
| 19247 <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Regist. ii, ep. 37): "We command thee never to make unlawful ordinations, nor to admit to holy orders a bigamist, | |
| 19248 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 | |
| 19249 to do penance or to perform some civil duty, or who is in any state of subjection." | |
| 19250 </p> | |
| 19251 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p7"> | |
| 19252 <b>I answer that,</b> In the union of Christ with the Church unity is found on either side. Consequently whether we find division of the flesh | |
| 19253 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 | |
| 19254 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, | |
| 19255 whereas on the part of the wife it is also required that she be a virgin. The reason | |
| 19256 assigned by those versed in the Decretals is because the bridegroom signifies the Church militant which is entrusted to the | |
| 19257 care of a bishop, and in which there are many corruptions, while the spouse signifies Christ Who was a virgin: wherefore virginity | |
| 19258 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, | |
| 19259 however, is expressly contrary to the words of the Apostle ( | |
| 19260 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q66_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.25" target="asv">Eph. 5:25</a>): "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also | |
| 19261 loved the Church," which show that the bride signifies the Church, and the bridegroom Christ; and again he says ( | |
| 19262 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q66_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.23" target="asv">Eph. 5:23</a>): "Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church." Wherefore others say that Christ is | |
| 19263 signified by the bridegroom, and that the bride signifies the Church triumphant in which there is no stain. Also that the | |
| 19264 synagogue was first united to Christ as a concubine; so that the sacrament loses nothing of its signification | |
| 19265 if the bridegroom previously had a concubine. But this is most absurd, since just as the faith of ancients and of moderns | |
| 19266 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 | |
| 19267 in which we serve God. Moreover this is expressly contrary to | |
| 19268 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q66_A3-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Jer.3.14" target="asv"> Jer. 3:14, </a> | |
| 19269 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q66_A3-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Ezek.16.8" target="asv">Ezech. 16:8, </a> | |
| 19270 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q66_A3-p7.5" href="./asv.html#Hos.2.16" target="asv">Osee 2:16, </a> where the espousals of the synagogue are mentioned explicitly: so that she was not as a | |
| 19271 concubine but as a wife. Again, according to this, fornication would be the sacred sign [sacramentum] of that union, which | |
| 19272 is absurd. Wherefore heathendom, before being espoused to Christ in the faith of the Church, was corrupted by the devil through | |
| 19273 idolatry. Hence we must say otherwise that irregularity is caused by a defect in the sacrament itself. Now when corruption | |
| 19274 of the flesh occurs outside wedlock on account of a preceding marriage, it causes no defect in the sacrament on the part of | |
| 19275 the person corrupted, but it causes a defect in the other person, because the act of one who contracts marriage terminates | |
| 19276 not in himself, but in the other party, wherefore it takes its species from its term, which, moreover, in regard to that act, | |
| 19277 is the matter as it were of the sacrament. Consequently if a woman were able to receive orders, just as her husband becomes | |
| 19278 irregular through marrying one who is not a virgin, but not through his not being a virgin when he marries, so also would | |
| 19279 a | |
| 19280 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 | |
| 19281 ---unless she had been corrupted by reason of a previous marriage. | |
| 19282 </p> | |
| 19283 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p8"> This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.</p> | |
| 19284 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p9"> | |
| 19285 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In this case opinions differ. It is, however, more probable that he is not irregular, because he has not divided his flesh | |
| 19286 among several women. | |
| 19287 </p> | |
| 19288 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p10"> | |
| 19289 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Irregularity is not the infliction of a punishment, but the defect of a sacrament. Consequently it is not always necessary | |
| 19290 for bigamy to be voluntary in order to cause irregularity. Hence a man who marries a woman, thinking her to be a virgin, whereas | |
| 19291 she is not, becomes irregular by knowing her carnally. | |
| 19292 </p> | |
| 19293 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p11"> | |
| 19294 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> If a woman commits fornication after being married, her husband does not become irregular on that account, unless he again | |
| 19295 knows her carnally after she has been corrupted by adultery, since otherwise the corruption of the wife nowise affects the | |
| 19296 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 | |
| 19297 by his own conscience, even before she is convicted of adultery, he becomes | |
| 19298 irregular, albeit opinions differ on this point. However, what we have said is more probable, since here it is not a question | |
| 19299 of sin, but of signification only. | |
| 19300 </p> | |
| 19301 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p12"></p> | |
| 19302 <p id="XP_Q66_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 19303 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19304 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19305 </div> | |
| 19306 <div id="XP_Q66_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 19307 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19308 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19309 <h4 id="XP_Q66_A4-p0.1">Whether bigamy is removed by Baptism?</h4> | |
| 19310 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 19311 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p2"> | |
| 19312 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that bigamy is removed by Baptism. For Jerome says in his commentary on the Epistle to Titus (1:6, "the husband | |
| 19313 of one wife") that if a man has had several wives before receiving Baptism, or one before and another after Baptism, he is | |
| 19314 not a bigamist. Therefore bigamy is removed by Baptism. | |
| 19315 </p> | |
| 19316 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p3"> | |
| 19317 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he who does what is more, does what is less. Now Baptism removes all sin, and sin is a greater thing than irregularity. | |
| 19318 Therefore it removes irregularity. | |
| 19319 </p> | |
| 19320 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p4"> | |
| 19321 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Baptism takes away all punishment resulting from an act. Now such is the irregularity of bigamy. Therefore, etc. | |
| 19322 </p> | |
| 19323 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p5"> | |
| 19324 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a bigamist is irregular because he is deficient in the representation of Christ. Now by Baptism we are fully conformed | |
| 19325 to Christ. Therefore this irregularity is removed. | |
| 19326 </p> | |
| 19327 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p6"> | |
| 19328 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the sacraments of the New Law are more efficacious than the sacraments of the Old Law. But the sacraments of the | |
| 19329 Old Law removed irregularities according to the Master's statement (Sent. iv,). Therefore Baptism also, being the most efficacious | |
| 19330 of the sacraments of the New Law, removes the irregularity consequent upon bigamy. | |
| 19331 </p> | |
| 19332 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p7"> | |
| 19333 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xviii): "Those understand the question more correctly who maintain that a man who has married | |
| 19334 a second wife, though he was a catechumen or even a pagan at the time, cannot be ordained, because it is a question of a sacrament, | |
| 19335 not of a sin." | |
| 19336 </p> | |
| 19337 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p8"> Further, according to the same authority (De Bono Conjug. xviii) "a woman who has been corrupted while a catechumen or a | |
| 19338 pagan cannot after Baptism be consecrated among God's virgins." Therefore in like manner one who was a bigamist before Baptism | |
| 19339 cannot be ordained. | |
| 19340 </p> | |
| 19341 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p9"> | |
| 19342 <b>I answer that,</b> Baptism removes sin, but does not dissolve marriage. Wherefore since irregularity results from marriage, it cannot be removed | |
| 19343 by Baptism, as Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xviii). | |
| 19344 </p> | |
| 19345 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p10"> | |
| 19346 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In this case Jerome's opinion is not followed: unless perhaps he wished to explain that he means that a dispensation should | |
| 19347 be more easily granted. | |
| 19348 </p> | |
| 19349 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p11"> | |
| 19350 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It does not follow that what does a greater thing, does a lesser, unless it be directed to the latter. This is not so in | |
| 19351 the case in point, because Baptism is not directed to the removal of an irregularity. | |
| 19352 </p> | |
| 19353 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p12"> | |
| 19354 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This must be understood of punishments consequent upon actual sin, which are, or have yet to be, inflicted: for one does | |
| 19355 not recover virginity by Baptism, nor again undivision of the flesh. | |
| 19356 </p> | |
| 19357 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p13"> | |
| 19358 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Baptism conforms a man to Christ as regards the virtue of the mind, but not as to the condition of the body, which is effected | |
| 19359 by virginity or division of the flesh. | |
| 19360 </p> | |
| 19361 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p14"> | |
| 19362 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Those irregularities were contracted through slight and temporary causes, and consequently they could be removed by those | |
| 19363 sacraments. Moreover the latter were ordained for that purpose, whereas Baptism is not. | |
| 19364 </p> | |
| 19365 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p15"></p> | |
| 19366 <p id="XP_Q66_A4-p16"></p> | |
| 19367 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19368 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19369 </div> | |
| 19370 <div id="XP_Q66_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 19371 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19372 <a href="summa.XP_Q67.html"></a> | |
| 19373 <h4 id="XP_Q66_A5-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for a bigamist to receive a dispensation?</h4> | |
| 19374 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 19375 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p2"> | |
| 19376 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unlawful for a bigamist to be granted a dispensation. For it is said (Extra, De bigamis, cap. Nuper): "It is | |
| 19377 not lawful to grant a dispensation to clerics who, as far as they could do so, have taken to themselves a second wife." | |
| 19378 </p> | |
| 19379 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p3"> | |
| 19380 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is not lawful to grant a dispensation from the Divine law. Now whatever is in the canonical writings belongs | |
| 19381 to the Divine law. Since then in canonical Scripture the Apostle says ( | |
| 19382 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q66_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.3.2" target="asv">1 Tim. 3:2</a>): "It behooveth . . . a bishop to be . . . the husband of one wife," it would seem that a dispensation cannot be granted | |
| 19383 in this matter. | |
| 19384 </p> | |
| 19385 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p4"> | |
| 19386 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no one can receive a dispensation in what is essential to a sacrament. But it is essential to the sacrament of order | |
| 19387 that the recipient be not irregular, since the signification which is essential to a sacrament is lacking in one who is irregular. | |
| 19388 Therefore he cannot be granted a dispensation in this. | |
| 19389 </p> | |
| 19390 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p5"> | |
| 19391 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, what is reasonably done cannot be reasonably undone. If, therefore, a bigamist can lawfully receive a dispensation, | |
| 19392 it was unreasonable that he should be irregular: which is inadmissible. | |
| 19393 </p> | |
| 19394 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p6"> | |
| 19395 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Lucius granted a dispensation to the bishop of Palermo who was a bigamist, as stated in the gloss on can. Lector, dist. | |
| 19396 34. | |
| 19397 </p> | |
| 19398 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p7"> Further, Pope Martin [*Martinus Bracarensis: cap. xliii] says: "If a Reader marry a widow, let him remain a Reader, or if | |
| 19399 there be need for it, he may receive the Subdiaconate, but no higher order: and the same applies if he should be a bigamist." | |
| 19400 Therefore he may at least receive a dispensation as far as the Subdiaconate. | |
| 19401 </p> | |
| 19402 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p8"> | |
| 19403 <b>I answer that,</b> Irregularity attaches to bigamy not by natural, but by positive law; nor again is it one of the essentials of order that | |
| 19404 a man be not a bigamist, which is evident from the fact that if a bigamist present himself for orders, he receives the character. | |
| 19405 Wherefore the Pope can dispense altogether from such an irregularity; but a bishop, only as regards the minor orders, though | |
| 19406 some say that in order to prevent religious wandering abroad he can dispense therefrom | |
| 19407 as regards the major orders in those who wish to serve God in religion. | |
| 19408 </p> | |
| 19409 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p9"> | |
| 19410 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This Decretal shows that there is the same difficulty against granting a dispensation in those who have married several wives | |
| 19411 in fact, as if they had married them in law; but it does not prove that the Pope has no power to grant a dispensation in such | |
| 19412 cases. | |
| 19413 </p> | |
| 19414 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p10"> | |
| 19415 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This is true as regards things belonging to the natural law, and those which are essential to the sacraments, and to faith. | |
| 19416 But in those which owe their institution to the apostles, since the Church has the same power now as then of setting up and | |
| 19417 of putting down, she can grant a dispensation through him who holds the primacy. | |
| 19418 </p> | |
| 19419 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p11"> | |
| 19420 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Not every signification is essential to a sacrament, but that alone which belongs to the sacramental effect,* and this is | |
| 19421 not removed by irregularity. [*Leonine edition reads "officium," some read "effectum"; the meaning is the same, and is best | |
| 19422 rendered as above.] | |
| 19423 </p> | |
| 19424 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p12"> | |
| 19425 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In particular cases there is no ratio that applies to all equally, on account of their variety. Hence what is reasonably | |
| 19426 established for all, in consideration of what happens in the majority of cases, can be with equal reason done away in a certain | |
| 19427 definite case. | |
| 19428 </p> | |
| 19429 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p13"></p> | |
| 19430 <p id="XP_Q66_A5-p14"></p> | |
| 19431 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19432 <a href="summa.XP_Q67.html"></a> | |
| 19433 </div> | |
| 19434 <a href="summa.XP_Q65_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19435 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19436 </div> | |
| 19437 <div id="XP_Q67" class="div3"> | |
| 19438 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19439 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19440 <h3 id="XP_Q67-p0.1">OF THE BILL OF DIVORCE (SEVEN ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 19441 <p id="XP_Q67-p1"></p> | |
| 19442 <p id="XP_Q67-p2"> We must now consider the bill of divorce, under which head there are seven points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 19443 <p id="XP_Q67-p3"> (1) Whether the indissolubility of marriage is of natural law?</p> | |
| 19444 <p id="XP_Q67-p4"> (2) Whether by dispensation it may become lawful to put away a wife?</p> | |
| 19445 <p id="XP_Q67-p5"> (3) Whether it was lawful under the Mosaic law?</p> | |
| 19446 <p id="XP_Q67-p6"> (4) Whether a wife who has been divorced may take another husband?</p> | |
| 19447 <p id="XP_Q67-p7"> (5) Whether the husband can marry again the wife whom he has divorced?</p> | |
| 19448 <p id="XP_Q67-p8"> (6) Whether the cause of divorce was hatred of the wife?</p> | |
| 19449 <p id="XP_Q67-p9"> (7) Whether the reasons for divorce had to be written on the bill?</p> | |
| 19450 <div id="XP_Q67_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 19451 <a href="summa.XP_Q67.html"></a> | |
| 19452 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19453 <h4 id="XP_Q67_A1-p0.1">Whether inseparableness of the wife is of natural law?</h4> | |
| 19454 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 19455 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p2"> | |
| 19456 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that inseparableness of the wife is not of natural law. For the natural law is the same for all. But no law | |
| 19457 save Christ's has forbidden the divorcing of a wife. Therefore inseparableness of a wife is not of natural law. | |
| 19458 </p> | |
| 19459 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p3"> | |
| 19460 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments are not of the natural law. But the indissolubility of marriage is one of the marriage goods. Therefore | |
| 19461 it is not of the natural law. | |
| 19462 </p> | |
| 19463 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p4"> | |
| 19464 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the union of man and woman in marriage is chiefly directed to the begetting, rearing, and instruction of the offspring. | |
| 19465 But all things are complete by a certain time. Therefore after that time it is lawful to put away a wife without prejudice | |
| 19466 to the natural law. | |
| 19467 </p> | |
| 19468 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p5"> | |
| 19469 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the good of the offspring is the principal end of marriage. But the indissolubility of marriage is opposed to the | |
| 19470 good of the offspring, because, according to philosophers, a certain man cannot beget offspring of a certain woman, and yet | |
| 19471 he might beget of another, even though she may have had intercourse with another man. Therefore the indissolubility of marriage | |
| 19472 is against rather than according to the natural law. | |
| 19473 </p> | |
| 19474 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p6"> | |
| 19475 <b>On the contrary,</b> Those things which were assigned to nature when it was well established in its beginning belong especially to the law of | |
| 19476 nature. Now the indissolubility of marriage is one of these things according to | |
| 19477 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.4" target="asv"> Mat. 19:4,6.</a> Therefore it is of natural law. | |
| 19478 </p> | |
| 19479 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p7"> Further, it is of natural law that man should not oppose himself to God. Yet man would, in a way, oppose himself to God if | |
| 19480 he were to sunder "what God hath joined together." Since then the indissolubility of marriage is gathered from this passage | |
| 19481 ( | |
| 19482 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.6" target="asv">Mat. 19:6</a>) it would seem that it is of natural law. | |
| 19483 </p> | |
| 19484 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p8"> | |
| 19485 <b>I answer that,</b> By the intention of nature marriage is directed to the rearing of the offspring, not merely for a time, but throughout its | |
| 19486 whole life. Hence it is of natural law that parents should lay up for their children, and that children should be their parents' | |
| 19487 heirs ( | |
| 19488 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:14</a>). Therefore, since the offspring is the common good of husband and wife, the dictate of the natural law requires the latter | |
| 19489 to live together for ever inseparably: and so the indissolubility | |
| 19490 of marriage is of natural law. | |
| 19491 </p> | |
| 19492 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p9"> | |
| 19493 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's law alone brought mankind "to perfection" [*Cf. | |
| 19494 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.19" target="asv"> Heb. 7:19</a>] by bringing man back to the state of the newness of nature. Wherefore neither Mosaic nor human laws could remove all that | |
| 19495 was contrary to the law of nature, for this was reserved exclusively to "the law of the spirit of life" [*Cf. | |
| 19496 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.2" target="asv"> Rom. 8:2</a>]. | |
| 19497 </p> | |
| 19498 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p10"> | |
| 19499 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Indissolubility belongs to marriage in so far as the latter is a sign of the perpetual union of Christ with the Church, and | |
| 19500 in so far as it fulfills an office of nature that is directed to the good of the offspring, as stated above. But since divorce | |
| 19501 is more directly incompatible with the signification of the sacrament than with the good of the offspring, with which it is | |
| 19502 incompatible consequently, as stated above ( | |
| 19503 <a id="XP_Q67_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q65_A2.html">Q[65], | |
| 19504 A[2] | |
| 19505 </a>, ad 5), the indissolubility of marriage is implied in the good of the sacrament rather than in the good of the offspring, | |
| 19506 although it may be connected with both. And in so far as it is connected with the good of the offspring, it is of the natural | |
| 19507 law, but not as connected with the good of the sacrament. | |
| 19508 </p> | |
| 19509 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p11"> The Reply to the Third Objection may be gathered from what has been said.</p> | |
| 19510 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p12"> | |
| 19511 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Marriage is chiefly directed to the common good in respect of its principal end, which is the good of the offspring; although | |
| 19512 in respect of its secondary end it is directed to the good of the contracting party, in so far as it is by its very nature | |
| 19513 a remedy for concupiscence. Hence marriage laws consider what is expedient for all rather than what may be suitable for one. | |
| 19514 Therefore although the indissolubility of marriage hinder the good of the | |
| 19515 offspring with regard to some individual, it is proportionate with the good of the offspring absolutely speaking: and for | |
| 19516 this reason the argument does not prove. | |
| 19517 </p> | |
| 19518 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p13"></p> | |
| 19519 <p id="XP_Q67_A1-p14"></p> | |
| 19520 <a href="summa.XP_Q67.html"></a> | |
| 19521 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19522 </div> | |
| 19523 <div id="XP_Q67_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 19524 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19525 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19526 <h4 id="XP_Q67_A2-p0.1">Whether it may have been lawful by dispensation to put away a wife?</h4> | |
| 19527 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 19528 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p2"> | |
| 19529 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it could not be lawful by dispensation to put away a wife. For in marriage anything that is opposed to the | |
| 19530 good of the offspring is against the first precepts of the natural law, which admit of no dispensation. Now such is the putting | |
| 19531 away of a wife, as stated above | |
| 19532 <a id="XP_Q67_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q67_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore, etc. | |
| 19533 </p> | |
| 19534 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p3"> | |
| 19535 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a concubine differs from a wife especially in the fact that she is not inseparably united. But by no dispensation | |
| 19536 could a man have a concubine. Therefore by no dispensation could he put his wife away. | |
| 19537 </p> | |
| 19538 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p4"> | |
| 19539 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, men are as fit to receive a dispensation now as of old. But now a man cannot receive a dispensation to divorce his | |
| 19540 wife. Neither, therefore, could he in olden times. | |
| 19541 </p> | |
| 19542 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p5"> | |
| 19543 <b>On the contrary,</b> Abraham carnally knew Agar with the disposition of a husband towards his wife, as stated above ( | |
| 19544 <a id="XP_Q67_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q65_A5.html">Q[65], A[5]</a>, ad 2,3). Now by Divine command he sent her away, and yet sinned not. Therefore it could be lawful by dispensation for a | |
| 19545 man to put away his wife. | |
| 19546 </p> | |
| 19547 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p6"> | |
| 19548 <b>I answer that,</b> In the commandments, especially those which in some way are of natural law, a dispensation is like a change in the natural | |
| 19549 course of things: and this course is subject to a twofold change. First, by some natural cause whereby another natural cause | |
| 19550 is hindered from following its course: it is thus in all things that happen by chance less frequently in nature. In this way, | |
| 19551 however, there is no variation in the course of those natural things which happen | |
| 19552 always, but only in the course of those which happen frequently. Secondly, by a cause altogether supernatural, as in the case | |
| 19553 of miracles: and in this way there can be a variation in the course of nature, not only in the course which is appointed for | |
| 19554 the majority of cases, but also in the course which is appointed for all cases, as instanced by the sun standing still at | |
| 19555 the time of Josue, and by its turning back at the time of Ezechias, and by the miraculous eclipse at the time of Christ's | |
| 19556 Passion [* | |
| 19557 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Josh.10.14" target="asv">Jos. 10:14</a>; | |
| 19558 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">4 Kings 20:10</a>; | |
| 19559 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.38.8" target="asv"> Is. 38:8</a>; | |
| 19560 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A2-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.15" target="asv"> Mat. 27:15</a>]. In like manner the reason for a dispensation from a precept of the law of nature is sometimes found in the lower causes, | |
| 19561 and in this way a dispensation may bear upon the secondary precepts of the natural law, but not on the first precepts because | |
| 19562 these are always existent as it were, as stated above ( | |
| 19563 <a id="XP_Q67_A2-p6.5" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q65_A1.html">Q[65], A[1]</a>) in reference to | |
| 19564 the plurality of wives and so forth. But sometimes this reason is found in the higher causes, and then a dispensation may | |
| 19565 be given by God even from the first precepts of the natural law, for the sake of signifying or showing some Divine mystery, | |
| 19566 as instanced in the dispensation vouchsafed to Abraham in the slaying of his innocent son. Such dispensations, however, are | |
| 19567 not granted to all generally, but to certain individual persons, as also happens in regard to miracles. Accordingly, if the | |
| 19568 indissolubility of marriage is contained among the first precepts of the natural law, it could only be a matter of dispensation | |
| 19569 in this second way; but, if it be one of the second precepts of the natural law, it could be a matter of dispensation even | |
| 19570 in the first way. Now it would seem to belong rather to the secondary precepts of the natural law. For the indissolubility | |
| 19571 of marriage is not directed to the good of the offspring, which is the principal end of marriage, except in so far as parents | |
| 19572 have to provide for their children for their whole life, by due preparation of those things that are necessary in life. Now | |
| 19573 this preparation does not pertain to the first intention of nature, in respect of which all things are common. And therefore | |
| 19574 it would seem that to put away one's wife is not contrary to the first intention of nature, and consequently that it is contrary | |
| 19575 not to the first but to the second precepts of the natural law. Therefore, seemingly, it can be a matter of dispensation | |
| 19576 even in the first way. | |
| 19577 </p> | |
| 19578 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p7"> | |
| 19579 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The good of the offspring, in so far as it belongs to the first intention of nature, includes procreation, nourishment, and | |
| 19580 instruction, until the offspring comes to perfect age. But that provision be made for the children by bequeathing to them | |
| 19581 the inheritance or other goods belongs seemingly to the second intention of the natural law. | |
| 19582 </p> | |
| 19583 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p8"> | |
| 19584 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To have a concubine is contrary to the good of the offspring, in respect of nature's first intention in that good, namely | |
| 19585 the rearing and instruction of the child, for which purpose it is necessary that the parents remain together permanently; | |
| 19586 which is not the case with a concubine, since she is taken for a time. Hence the comparison fails. But in respect of nature's | |
| 19587 second intention, even the having of a concubine may be a matter of dispensation as | |
| 19588 evidenced by | |
| 19589 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.1" target="asv">Osee 1</a>. | |
| 19590 </p> | |
| 19591 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p9"> | |
| 19592 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although indissolubility belongs to the second intention of marriage as fulfilling an office of nature, it belongs to its | |
| 19593 first intention as a sacrament of the Church. Hence, from the moment it was made a sacrament of the Church, as long as it | |
| 19594 remains such it cannot be a matter of dispensation, except perhaps by the second kind of dispensation. | |
| 19595 </p> | |
| 19596 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p10"></p> | |
| 19597 <p id="XP_Q67_A2-p11"></p> | |
| 19598 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19599 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19600 </div> | |
| 19601 <div id="XP_Q67_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 19602 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19603 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19604 <h4 id="XP_Q67_A3-p0.1">Whether it was lawful to divorce a wife under the Mosaic law?</h4> | |
| 19605 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 19606 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p2"> | |
| 19607 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was lawful to divorce a wife under the Mosaic law. For one way of giving consent is to refrain from | |
| 19608 prohibiting when one can prohibit. It is also unlawful to consent to what is unlawful. Since then the Mosaic law did not forbid | |
| 19609 the putting away of a wife and did no wrong by not forbidding it, for "the law . . . is holy" ( | |
| 19610 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.12" target="asv">Rom. 7:12</a>), it would seem that divorce was at one time lawful. | |
| 19611 </p> | |
| 19612 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p3"> | |
| 19613 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the prophets spoke inspired by the Holy Ghost, according to | |
| 19614 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiPet.1.21" target="asv">2 Pet. 1:21.</a> Now it is written ( | |
| 19615 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Mal.2.16" target="asv">Malachi 2:16</a>): "When thou shalt hate her, put her away." Since then that which the Holy Ghost inspires is not unlawful, it would seem | |
| 19616 that it was not always unlawful to divorce a wife. | |
| 19617 </p> | |
| 19618 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p4"> | |
| 19619 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Chrysostom [*Hom. xxxii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says that even as the apostles | |
| 19620 permitted second marriages, so Moses allowed the bill of divorce. But second marriages are not sinful. Therefore neither was | |
| 19621 it sinful under the Mosaic law to divorce a wife. | |
| 19622 </p> | |
| 19623 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p5"> | |
| 19624 <b>Objection 4:</b> On the contrary, our Lord said ( | |
| 19625 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.8" target="asv">Mat. 19:8</a>) that Moses granted the Jews the bill of divorce by reason of the hardness of their heart. But their hardness of heart did | |
| 19626 not excuse them from sin. Neither therefore did the law about the bill of divorce. | |
| 19627 </p> | |
| 19628 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p6"> | |
| 19629 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Chrysostom says [*Hom. xxxii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] that "Moses, by granting | |
| 19630 the bill of divorce, did not indicate the justice of God, but deprived their sin of its guilt, for while the Jews acted as | |
| 19631 though they were keeping the law, their sin seemed to be no sin." | |
| 19632 </p> | |
| 19633 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p7"> | |
| 19634 <b>I answer that,</b> on this point there are two opinions. For some say that under the Law those who put away their wives, after giving them a | |
| 19635 bill of divorce, were not excused from sin, although they were excused from the punishment which they should have suffered | |
| 19636 according to the Law: and that for this reason Moses is stated to have permitted the bill of divorce. Accordingly they reckon | |
| 19637 four kinds of permission: one by absence of precept, so that when a greater good is not | |
| 19638 prescribed, a lesser good is said to be permitted: thus the Apostle by not prescribing virginity, permitted marriage ( | |
| 19639 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 7</a>). The second is by absence of prohibition: thus venial sins are said to be permitted because they are not forbidden. The | |
| 19640 third is by absence of prevention, and thus all sins are said to be permitted by God, in so far as He does not prevent them | |
| 19641 whereas He can. The fourth is by omission of punishment, and in this way the bill of divorce was permitted in the Law, not | |
| 19642 indeed for the sake of obtaining a greater good, as was the dispensation to have several wives, but for the sake of preventing | |
| 19643 a greater evil, namely wife-murder to which the Jews were prone on account of the corruption of their irascible appetite. | |
| 19644 Even so they were allowed to lend money for usury to strangers, on account of corruption in their concupiscible appetite, | |
| 19645 lest they should exact usury of their brethren; and again on account of the corruption of suspicion in the reason they were | |
| 19646 allowed the sacrifice of jealousy, lest mere suspicion should corrupt their judgment. But because the Old Law, though it did | |
| 19647 not confer grace, was given that it might indicate sin, as the saints are agreed in saying, others are of opinion that if | |
| 19648 it had been a sin for a man to put away his wife, this ought to have been indicated to him, at least by the law or the prophets: | |
| 19649 "Show My people their wicked doings" ( | |
| 19650 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.58.1" target="asv">Is. 58:1</a>): else they would seem to have been neglected, if those | |
| 19651 things which are necessary for salvation and which they knew not were never made known to them: and this cannot be admitted, | |
| 19652 because the righteousness of the Law observed at the time of the Law would merit eternal life. For this reason they say that | |
| 19653 although to put away one's wife is wrong in itself, it nevertheless became lawful by God's permitting it, and they confirm | |
| 19654 this by the authority of Chrysostom, who says [*Hom. xxxii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] | |
| 19655 that "the Lawgiver by permitting divorce removed the guilt from the sin." Although this opinion has some probability the former | |
| 19656 is more generally held: wherefore we must reply to the arguments on both sides [*Cf. | |
| 19657 <a id="XP_Q67_A3-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q105_A4.html">FS, Q[105], A[4]</a>, ad 8; | |
| 19658 <a id="XP_Q67_A3-p7.4" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q108_A3.html">FS, Q[108], A[3]</a>, ad 2; Contra Gentes iii, cap. 123]. | |
| 19659 </p> | |
| 19660 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p8"> | |
| 19661 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> He who can forbid, sins not by omitting to forbid if he has no hope of correcting, but fears by forbidding to furnish the | |
| 19662 occasion of a greater evil. Thus it happened to Moses: wherefore acting on Divine authority he did not forbid the bill of | |
| 19663 divorce. | |
| 19664 </p> | |
| 19665 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p9"> | |
| 19666 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The prophets, inspired by the Holy Ghost, said that a wife ought to be put away, not as though this were a command of the | |
| 19667 Holy Ghost, but as being permitted lest greater evils should be perpetrated. | |
| 19668 </p> | |
| 19669 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p10"> | |
| 19670 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This likeness of permission must not be applied to every detail, but only to the cause which was the same in both cases, | |
| 19671 since both permissions were granted in order to avoid some form of wickedness. | |
| 19672 </p> | |
| 19673 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p11"> | |
| 19674 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although their hardness of heart excused them not from sin, the permission given on account of that hardness excused them. | |
| 19675 For certain things are forbidden those who are healthy in body, which are not forbidden the sick, and yet the sick sin not | |
| 19676 by availing themselves of the permission granted to them. | |
| 19677 </p> | |
| 19678 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p12"> | |
| 19679 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A good may be omitted in two ways. First, in order to obtain a greater good, and then the omission of that good becomes virtuous | |
| 19680 by being directed to a greater good; thus Jacob rightly omitted to have only one wife, on account of the good of the offspring. | |
| 19681 In another way a good is omitted in order to avoid a greater evil, and then if this is done with the authority of one who | |
| 19682 can grant a dispensation, the omission of that good is not sinful, and yet | |
| 19683 it does not also become virtuous. In this way the indissolubility of marriage was suspended in the law of Moses in order to | |
| 19684 avoid a greater evil, namely wife-murder. Hence Chrysostom says that "he removed the guilt from the sin." For though divorce | |
| 19685 remained inordinate, for which reason it is called a sin, it did not incur the debt of punishment, either temporal or eternal, | |
| 19686 in so far as it was done by Divine permission: and thus its guilt was taken away from it. And therefore he says again | |
| 19687 [*Hom. xxxii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] that "divorce was permitted, an evil indeed, | |
| 19688 yet lawful." Those who hold the first opinion understand by this only that divorce incurred the debt of temporal punishment. | |
| 19689 </p> | |
| 19690 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p13"></p> | |
| 19691 <p id="XP_Q67_A3-p14"></p> | |
| 19692 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19693 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19694 </div> | |
| 19695 <div id="XP_Q67_A4" class="div4"> | |
| 19696 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19697 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19698 <h4 id="XP_Q67_A4-p0.1">Whether it was lawful for a divorced wife to have another husband?</h4> | |
| 19699 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p1"></p> | |
| 19700 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p2"> | |
| 19701 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was lawful for a divorced wife to have another husband. For in divorce the husband did a greater wrong | |
| 19702 by divorcing his wife than the wife by being divorced. But the husband could, without sin, marry another wife. Therefore the | |
| 19703 wife could without sin, marry another husband. | |
| 19704 </p> | |
| 19705 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p3"> | |
| 19706 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine, speaking about bigamy, says (De Bono Conjug. xv, xviii) that "when it was the manner it was no sin." | |
| 19707 Now at the time of the Old Law it was the custom for a wife after divorce to marry another husband: "When she is departed | |
| 19708 and marrieth another husband," etc. Therefore the wife sinned not by marrying another husband. | |
| 19709 </p> | |
| 19710 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p4"> | |
| 19711 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, our Lord showed that the justice of the New Testament is superabundant in comparison with the justice of the Old | |
| 19712 Testament ( | |
| 19713 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5" target="asv">Mat. 5</a>). Now He said that it belongs to the superabundant justice of the New Testament that the divorced wife marry not another | |
| 19714 husband ( | |
| 19715 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A4-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.32" target="asv">Mat. 5:32</a>). Therefore it was lawful in the Old Law. | |
| 19716 </p> | |
| 19717 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p5"> | |
| 19718 <b>Objection 4:</b> On the contrary, are the words of | |
| 19719 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.32" target="asv"> Mat. 5:32, </a> "He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery." Now adultery was never permitted in the Old Law. Therefore | |
| 19720 it was not lawful for the divorced wife to have another husband. | |
| 19721 </p> | |
| 19722 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p6"> | |
| 19723 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it is written ( | |
| 19724 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.3" target="asv">Dt. 24:3</a>) that a divorced woman who marries another husband "is defiled, and is become abominable before the Lord." Therefore she | |
| 19725 sinned by marrying another husband. | |
| 19726 </p> | |
| 19727 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p7"> | |
| 19728 <b>I answer that,</b> According to the first above mentioned opinion | |
| 19729 <a id="XP_Q67_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q67_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, she sinned by marrying another husband after being divorced, because her first marriage still held good. For "the woman | |
| 19730 . . . whilst her husband liveth, is bound to the law of her husband" ( | |
| 19731 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.2" target="asv">Rom. 7:2</a>): and she could not have several husbands at one time. But according to the second opinion, just as it was lawful by virtue | |
| 19732 of the Divine dispensation for a | |
| 19733 husband to divorce his wife, so could the wife marry another husband, because the indissolubility of marriage was removed | |
| 19734 by reason of the divine dispensation: and as long as that indissolubility remains the saying of the Apostle holds. | |
| 19735 </p> | |
| 19736 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p8"> Accordingly to reply to the arguments on either side:</p> | |
| 19737 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p9"> | |
| 19738 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It was lawful for a husband to have several wives at one time by virtue of the divine dispensation: wherefore having put | |
| 19739 one away he could marry another even though the former marriage were not dissolved. But it was never lawful for a wife to | |
| 19740 have several husbands. Wherefore the comparison fails. | |
| 19741 </p> | |
| 19742 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p10"> | |
| 19743 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In this saying of Augustine manner [mos] does not signify custom but good manners; in the same sense a person is said to | |
| 19744 have manners [morigeratus] because he has good manners; and "moral" philosophy takes its name from the same source. | |
| 19745 </p> | |
| 19746 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p11"> | |
| 19747 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Our Lord shows the superabundance of the New Law over the Old in respect of the counsels, not only as regards those things | |
| 19748 which the Old Law permitted, but also as regards those things which were forbidden in the Old Law, and yet were thought by | |
| 19749 many to be permitted on account of the precepts being incorrectly explained---for instance that of the hatred towards our | |
| 19750 enemies. and so is it in the matter of divorce. | |
| 19751 </p> | |
| 19752 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p12"> | |
| 19753 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The saying of our Lord refers to the time of the New Law, when the aforesaid permission was recalled. In the same way we | |
| 19754 are to understand the statement of Chrysostom [*Hom. xii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom], | |
| 19755 who says that "a man who divorces his wife according to the law is guilty of four crimes: for in God's sight he is a murderer," | |
| 19756 in so far as he has the purpose of killing his wife unless he divorce her; "and | |
| 19757 because he divorces her without her having committed fornication," in which case alone the law of the Gospel allows a man | |
| 19758 to put away his wife; "and again, because he makes her an adulteress, and the man whom she marries an adulterer." | |
| 19759 </p> | |
| 19760 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p13"> | |
| 19761 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A gloss observes here: "She is defiled and abominable, namely in the judgment of him who first put her away as being defiled," | |
| 19762 and consequently it does not follow that she is defiled absolutely speaking; or she is said to be defiled just as a person | |
| 19763 who had touched a dead or leprous body was said to be unclean with the uncleanness, not of sin, but of a certain legal irregularity. | |
| 19764 Wherefore a priest could not marry a widow or a divorced woman. | |
| 19765 </p> | |
| 19766 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p14"></p> | |
| 19767 <p id="XP_Q67_A4-p15"></p> | |
| 19768 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19769 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19770 </div> | |
| 19771 <div id="XP_Q67_A5" class="div4"> | |
| 19772 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19773 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A6.html"></a> | |
| 19774 <h4 id="XP_Q67_A5-p0.1">Whether a husband could lawfully take back the wife he had divorced?</h4> | |
| 19775 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p1"></p> | |
| 19776 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p2"> | |
| 19777 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a husband could lawfully take back the wife he had divorced. For it is lawful to undo what was ill done. | |
| 19778 But for the husband to divorce his wife was ill done. Therefore it was lawful for him to undo it, by taking back his wife. | |
| 19779 </p> | |
| 19780 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p3"> | |
| 19781 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it has always been lawful to be indulgent to the sinner, because this is a moral precept, which obtains in every | |
| 19782 law. Now the husband by taking back the wife he had divorced was indulgent to one who had sinned. Therefore this also was | |
| 19783 lawful. | |
| 19784 </p> | |
| 19785 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p4"> | |
| 19786 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the reason given ( | |
| 19787 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.4" target="asv">Dt. 24:4</a>) for its being unlawful to take back a divorced wife was "because she is defiled." But the divorced wife is not defiled except | |
| 19788 by marrying another husband. Therefore at least it was lawful to take back a divorced wife before she married again. | |
| 19789 </p> | |
| 19790 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p5"> | |
| 19791 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( | |
| 19792 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.4" target="asv">Dt. 24:4</a>) that "the former husband cannot take her again," etc. | |
| 19793 </p> | |
| 19794 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p6"> | |
| 19795 <b>I answer that,</b> In the law concerning the bill of divorce two things were permitted, namely for the husband to put away the wife, and for | |
| 19796 the divorced wife to take another husband; and two things were commanded, namely that the bill of divorce should be written, | |
| 19797 and secondly that the husband who divorced his wife could not take her back. According to those who hold the first opinion | |
| 19798 | |
| 19799 <a id="XP_Q67_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q67_A3.html">(A[3])</a> this was done in punishment of the woman who married again, | |
| 19800 and that it was by this sin that she was defiled: but according to the others it was done that a husband might not be too | |
| 19801 ready to divorce his wife if he could nowise take her back afterwards. | |
| 19802 </p> | |
| 19803 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p7"> | |
| 19804 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In order to prevent the evil committed by a man in divorcing his wife, it was ordered that the husband could not take back | |
| 19805 his divorced wife, as stated above: and for this reason it was ordered by God. | |
| 19806 </p> | |
| 19807 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p8"> | |
| 19808 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It was always lawful to be indulgent to the sinner as regards the unkindly feelings of the heart, but not as regards the | |
| 19809 punishment appointed by God. | |
| 19810 </p> | |
| 19811 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p9"> | |
| 19812 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There are two opinions on this point. For some say that it was lawful for a divorced wife to be reconciled to her husband, | |
| 19813 unless she were joined in marriage to another husband. For then, on account of the adultery to which she had voluntarily yielded, | |
| 19814 it was assigned to her in punishment that she should not return to her former husband. Since, however, the law makes no distinction | |
| 19815 in its prohibition, others say that from the moment that she was put | |
| 19816 away she could not be taken back, even before marrying again, because the defilement must be understood not in reference to | |
| 19817 sin, but as explained above (A[4], ad 3). | |
| 19818 </p> | |
| 19819 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p10"></p> | |
| 19820 <p id="XP_Q67_A5-p11"></p> | |
| 19821 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A4.html"></a> | |
| 19822 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A6.html"></a> | |
| 19823 </div> | |
| 19824 <div id="XP_Q67_A6" class="div4"> | |
| 19825 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19826 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A7.html"></a> | |
| 19827 <h4 id="XP_Q67_A6-p0.1">Whether the reason for divorce was hatred for the wife?</h4> | |
| 19828 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p1"></p> | |
| 19829 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p2"> | |
| 19830 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the reason for divorce was hatred for the wife. For it is written ( | |
| 19831 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.2.16" target="asv">Malachi 2:16</a>): "When thou shalt hate her put her away." Therefore, etc. | |
| 19832 </p> | |
| 19833 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p3"> | |
| 19834 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( | |
| 19835 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.1" target="asv">Dt. 24:1</a>): "If . . . she find not favor in his eyes, for some uncleanness," etc. Therefore the same conclusion follows as before. | |
| 19836 </p> | |
| 19837 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p4"> | |
| 19838 <b>Objection 3:</b> On the contrary, Barrenness and fornication are more opposed to marriage than hatred. Therefore they ought to have been reasons | |
| 19839 for divorce rather than hatred. | |
| 19840 </p> | |
| 19841 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p5"> | |
| 19842 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, hatred may be caused by the virtue of the person hated. Therefore, if hatred is a sufficient reason, a woman could | |
| 19843 be divorced on account of her virtue, which is absurd. | |
| 19844 </p> | |
| 19845 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p6"> | |
| 19846 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, "If a man marry a wife and afterwards hate her, and seek occasions to put her away"* alleging that she was not a | |
| 19847 virgin when he married her, should he fail to prove this, he shall be beaten, and shall be condemned in a hundred sicles of | |
| 19848 silver, and he shall be unable to put her away all the days of his life ( | |
| 19849 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.13" target="asv">Dt. 22:13-19</a>). [*The rest of the passage is apparently quoted from memory.] Therefore hatred is not a sufficient reason for | |
| 19850 divorce. | |
| 19851 </p> | |
| 19852 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p7"> | |
| 19853 <b>I answer that,</b> It is the general opinion of holy men that the reason for permission being given to divorce a wife was the avoidance of wife-murder. | |
| 19854 Now the proximate cause of murder is hatred: wherefore the proximate cause of divorce was hatred. But hatred proceeds, like | |
| 19855 love, from a cause. Wherefore we must assign to divorce certain remote causes which were a cause of hatred. For Augustine | |
| 19856 says in his gloss (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 14): "In the Law there were many | |
| 19857 causes for divorcing a wife: Christ admitted none but fornication: and He commands other grievances to be borne for conjugal | |
| 19858 fidelity and chastity." Such causes are imperfections either of body, as sickness or some notable deformity, or in soul as | |
| 19859 fornication or the like which amounts to moral depravity. Some, however, restrict these causes within narrower limits, saying | |
| 19860 with sufficient probability that it was not lawful to divorce a wife except for some cause subsequent to the marriage; and | |
| 19861 that not even then could it be done for any such cause, but only for such as could hinder the good of the offspring, whether | |
| 19862 in body as barrenness, or leprosy and the like, or in soul, for instance if she were a woman of wicked habits which her children | |
| 19863 through continual contact with her would imitate. There is however a gloss on | |
| 19864 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.1" target="asv"> Dt. 24:1, </a> "If . . . she find not favor in his eyes," which would seem to restrict them yet more, namely to sin, by saying that there | |
| 19865 "uncleanness" | |
| 19866 denotes sin: but "sin" in the gloss refers not only to the morality of the soul but also to the condition of the body. Accordingly | |
| 19867 we grant the first two objections. | |
| 19868 </p> | |
| 19869 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p8"> | |
| 19870 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Barrenness and other like things are causes of hatred, and so they are remote causes of divorce. | |
| 19871 </p> | |
| 19872 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p9"> | |
| 19873 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> No one is hateful on account of virtue as such, because goodness is the cause of love. Wherefore the argument does not hold. | |
| 19874 </p> | |
| 19875 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p10"> | |
| 19876 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The husband was punished in that case by being unable to put away his wife for ever, just as in the case when he had corrupted | |
| 19877 a maid ( | |
| 19878 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q67_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.28" target="asv">Dt. 22:28-30</a>). | |
| 19879 </p> | |
| 19880 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p11"></p> | |
| 19881 <p id="XP_Q67_A6-p12"></p> | |
| 19882 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19883 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A7.html"></a> | |
| 19884 </div> | |
| 19885 <div id="XP_Q67_A7" class="div4"> | |
| 19886 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A6.html"></a> | |
| 19887 <a href="summa.XP_Q68.html"></a> | |
| 19888 <h4 id="XP_Q67_A7-p0.1">Whether the causes of divorce had to be written in the bill?</h4> | |
| 19889 <p id="XP_Q67_A7-p1"></p> | |
| 19890 <p id="XP_Q67_A7-p2"> | |
| 19891 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the causes of divorce had to be written in the bill: because the husband was absolved from the punishment | |
| 19892 of the law by the written bill of divorce. But this would seem altogether unjust, unless sufficient causes were alleged for | |
| 19893 a divorce. Therefore it was necessary for them to be written in the bill. | |
| 19894 </p> | |
| 19895 <p id="XP_Q67_A7-p3"> | |
| 19896 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, seemingly this document was of no use except to show the causes for divorce. Therefore, if they were not written | |
| 19897 down, the bill was delivered for no purpose. | |
| 19898 </p> | |
| 19899 <p id="XP_Q67_A7-p4"> | |
| 19900 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Master says that it was so in the text (Sent. iv, D, 33). | |
| 19901 </p> | |
| 19902 <p id="XP_Q67_A7-p5"> | |
| 19903 <b>On the contrary,</b> The causes for divorce were either sufficient or not. If they were sufficient, the wife was debarred from a second marriage, | |
| 19904 though this was allowed her by the Law. If they were insufficient, the divorce was proved to be unjust, and therefore could | |
| 19905 not be effected. Therefore the causes for divorce were by no means particularized in the bill. | |
| 19906 </p> | |
| 19907 <p id="XP_Q67_A7-p6"> | |
| 19908 <b>I answer that,</b> The causes for divorce were not particularized in the bill, but were indicated in a general way, so as to prove the justice | |
| 19909 of the divorce. According to Josephus (Antiq. iv, 6) this was in order that the woman, having the written bill of divorce, | |
| 19910 might take another husband, else she would not have been believed. Wherefore according to him it was written in this wise: | |
| 19911 "I promise never to have thee with me again." But according to Augustine (Contra Faust. xix, | |
| 19912 26) the bill was put into writing in order to cause a delay, and that the husband might be dissuaded by the counsel of the | |
| 19913 notaries to refrain from his purpose of divorce. | |
| 19914 </p> | |
| 19915 <p id="XP_Q67_A7-p7"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> | |
| 19916 <p id="XP_Q67_A7-p8"></p> | |
| 19917 <p id="XP_Q67_A7-p9"></p> | |
| 19918 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A6.html"></a> | |
| 19919 <a href="summa.XP_Q68.html"></a> | |
| 19920 </div> | |
| 19921 <a href="summa.XP_Q66_A5.html"></a> | |
| 19922 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19923 </div> | |
| 19924 <div id="XP_Q68" class="div3"> | |
| 19925 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A7.html"></a> | |
| 19926 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19927 <h3 id="XP_Q68-p0.1">OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> | |
| 19928 <p id="XP_Q68-p1"></p> | |
| 19929 <p id="XP_Q68-p2"> We must now consider children of illegitimate birth. Under this head there are three points of inquiry:</p> | |
| 19930 <p id="XP_Q68-p3"> (1) Whether those born out of true marriage are illegitimate?</p> | |
| 19931 <p id="XP_Q68-p4"> (2) Whether children should suffer any loss through being illegitimate?</p> | |
| 19932 <p id="XP_Q68-p5"> (3) Whether they can be legitimized?</p> | |
| 19933 <div id="XP_Q68_A1" class="div4"> | |
| 19934 <a href="summa.XP_Q68.html"></a> | |
| 19935 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19936 <h4 id="XP_Q68_A1-p0.1">Whether children born out of true marriage are illegitimate?</h4> | |
| 19937 <p id="XP_Q68_A1-p1"></p> | |
| 19938 <p id="XP_Q68_A1-p2"> | |
| 19939 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that children born out of true marriage are legitimate. For he that is born according to law is called a legitimate | |
| 19940 son. Now everyone is born according to law, at least the law of nature, which has more force than any other. Therefore every | |
| 19941 child is to be called legitimate. | |
| 19942 </p> | |
| 19943 <p id="XP_Q68_A1-p3"> | |
| 19944 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is the common saying that a legitimate child is one born of a legitimate marriage, or of a marriage that is deemed | |
| 19945 legitimate in the eyes of the Church. Now it happens sometimes that a marriage is deemed legitimate in the eyes of the Church, | |
| 19946 whereas there is some impediment affecting its validity; which impediment may be known to the parties who marry in the presence | |
| 19947 of the Church: or they may marry in secret and be ignorant of the impediment, in | |
| 19948 which case their marriage would seem legitimate in the eyes of the Church, for the very reason that it is not prevented by | |
| 19949 the Church. Therefore children born out of true marriage are not illegitimate. | |
| 19950 </p> | |
| 19951 <p id="XP_Q68_A1-p4"> | |
| 19952 <b>On the contrary,</b> Illegitimate is that which is against the law. Now those who are born out of wedlock are born contrary to the law. Therefore | |
| 19953 they are illegitimate. | |
| 19954 </p> | |
| 19955 <p id="XP_Q68_A1-p5"> | |
| 19956 <b>I answer that,</b> Children are of four conditions. Some are natural and legitimate, for instance those who are born of a true and lawful marriage; | |
| 19957 some are natural and illegitimate, as those who are born of fornication; some are legitimate and not natural, as adopted children; | |
| 19958 some are neither legitimate nor natural; such are those born of adultery or incest, for these are born not only against the | |
| 19959 positive law, but against the express natural law. Hence we must grant that | |
| 19960 some children are illegitimate. | |
| 19961 </p> | |
| 19962 <p id="XP_Q68_A1-p6"> | |
| 19963 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although those who are born of an unlawful intercourse are born according to the nature common to man and all animals, they | |
| 19964 are born contrary to the law of nature which is proper to man: since fornication, adultery, and the like are contrary to the | |
| 19965 law of nature. Hence the like are not legitimate by any law. | |
| 19966 </p> | |
| 19967 <p id="XP_Q68_A1-p7"> | |
| 19968 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Ignorance, unless it be affected, excuses unlawful intercourse from sin. Wherefore those who contract together in good faith | |
| 19969 in the presence of the Church, although there be an impediment, of which however they are ignorant, sin not, nor are their | |
| 19970 children illegitimate. If, however, they know of the impediment, although the Church upholds their marriage because she knows | |
| 19971 not of the impediment, they are not excused from sin, nor do their children avoid | |
| 19972 being illegitimate. Neither are they excused if they know not of the impediment and marry secretly, because such ignorance | |
| 19973 would appear to be affected. | |
| 19974 </p> | |
| 19975 <p id="XP_Q68_A1-p8"></p> | |
| 19976 <p id="XP_Q68_A1-p9"></p> | |
| 19977 <a href="summa.XP_Q68.html"></a> | |
| 19978 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A2.html"></a> | |
| 19979 </div> | |
| 19980 <div id="XP_Q68_A2" class="div4"> | |
| 19981 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A1.html"></a> | |
| 19982 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A3.html"></a> | |
| 19983 <h4 id="XP_Q68_A2-p0.1">Whether children should suffer any loss through being illegitimate?</h4> | |
| 19984 <p id="XP_Q68_A2-p1"></p> | |
| 19985 <p id="XP_Q68_A2-p2"> | |
| 19986 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that children ought not to suffer any loss through being illegitimate. For a child should not be punished on | |
| 19987 account of his father's sin, according to the Lord's saying ( | |
| 19988 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q68_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.18.20" target="asv">Ezech. 18:20</a>). But it is not his own but his father's fault that he is born of an unlawful union. Therefore he should not incur a loss | |
| 19989 on this account. | |
| 19990 </p> | |
| 19991 <p id="XP_Q68_A2-p3"> | |
| 19992 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, human justice is copied from Divine. Now God confers natural goods equally on legitimate and illegitimate children. | |
| 19993 Therefore illegitimate should be equalled to legitimate children according to human laws. | |
| 19994 </p> | |
| 19995 <p id="XP_Q68_A2-p4"> | |
| 19996 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated ( | |
| 19997 <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q68_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.25.5" target="asv">Gn. 25:5,6</a>) that "Abraham gave all his possessions to Isaac, and that to the children of the concubines he gave gifts": and yet the | |
| 19998 latter were not born of an unlawful intercourse. Much more, therefore, ought those born of an unlawful intercourse to incur | |
| 19999 loss by not inheriting their father's property. | |
| 20000 </p> | |
| 20001 <p id="XP_Q68_A2-p5"> | |
| 20002 <b>I answer that,</b> A person is said to incur a loss for some cause in two ways: First, because he is deprived of his due, and thus an illegitimate | |
| 20003 child incurs no loss. Secondly, because something is not due to him, which might have been due otherwise, and thus an illegitimate | |
| 20004 son incurs a twofold loss. First because he is excluded from legitimate acts such as offices and dignities, which require | |
| 20005 a certain respectability in those who perform them. Secondly, he incurs a loss by | |
| 20006 not succeeding to his father's inheritance. Nevertheless natural sons can inherit a sixth only, whereas spurious children | |
| 20007 cannot inherit any portion, although by natural law their parents are bound to provide for their needs. Hence it is part of | |
| 20008 a bishop's care to compel both parents to provide for them. | |
| 20009 </p> | |
| 20010 <p id="XP_Q68_A2-p6"> | |
| 20011 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To incur a loss in this second way is not a punishment. Hence we do not say that a person is punished by not succeeding to | |
| 20012 the throne through not being the king's son. In like manner it is no punishment to an illegitimate child that he has no right | |
| 20013 to that which belongs to the legitimate children. | |
| 20014 </p> | |
| 20015 <p id="XP_Q68_A2-p7"> | |
| 20016 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Illegitimate intercourse is contrary to the law, not as an act of the generative power, but as proceeding from a wicked will. | |
| 20017 Hence an illegitimate son incurs a loss, not in those things which come to him by his natural origin, but in those things | |
| 20018 which are dependent on the will for being done or possessed. | |
| 20019 </p> | |
| 20020 <p id="XP_Q68_A2-p8"></p> | |
| 20021 <p id="XP_Q68_A2-p9"></p> | |
| 20022 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A1.html"></a> | |
| 20023 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A3.html"></a> | |
| 20024 </div> | |
| 20025 <div id="XP_Q68_A3" class="div4"> | |
| 20026 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A2.html"></a> | |
| 20027 <a href="summa.XP.iii.html"></a> | |
| 20028 <h4 id="XP_Q68_A3-p0.1">Whether an illegitimate son can be legitimized?</h4> | |
| 20029 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p1"></p> | |
| 20030 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p2"> | |
| 20031 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an illegitimate son cannot be legitimized. For the legitimate child is as far removed from the illegitimate | |
| 20032 as the illegitimate from the legitimate. But a legitimate child is never made illegitimate. Neither, therefore, is an illegitimate | |
| 20033 child ever made legitimate. | |
| 20034 </p> | |
| 20035 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p3"> | |
| 20036 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, illegitimate intercourse begets an illegitimate child. But illegitimate intercourse never becomes legitimate. Neither, | |
| 20037 therefore, can an illegitimate son become legitimate. | |
| 20038 </p> | |
| 20039 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p4"> | |
| 20040 <b>On the contrary,</b> What is done by the law can be undone by the law. Now the illegitimacy of children is an effect of positive law. Therefore | |
| 20041 an illegitimate child can be legitimized by one who has legal authority. | |
| 20042 </p> | |
| 20043 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p5"> | |
| 20044 <b>I answer that,</b> An illegitimate child can be legitimized, not so that he be born of a legitimate intercourse, because this intercourse is | |
| 20045 a thing of the past and can never be legitimized from the moment that it was once illegitimate. But the child is said to be | |
| 20046 legitimized, in so far as the losses which an illegitimate child ought to incur are withdrawn by the authority of the law. | |
| 20047 </p> | |
| 20048 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p6"> There are six ways of becoming legitimate: two according to the canons (Cap. Conquestus; Cap. Tanta), namely when a man marries | |
| 20049 the woman of whom he has an unlawful child (if it were not a case of adultery), and by special indulgence and dispensation | |
| 20050 of the lord Pope. The other four ways are according to the laws: (1) If the father offer his natural son to the emperor's | |
| 20051 court, for by this very fact the son is legitimate on account of the reputation of the court; (2) if the | |
| 20052 father designate him in his will as his legitimate heir, and the son afterwards offer the will to the emperor; (3) if there | |
| 20053 be no legitimate son and the son himself offer himself to the emperor; (4) if the father designate him as legitimate in a | |
| 20054 public document or in a document signed by three witnesses, without calling him natural. | |
| 20055 </p> | |
| 20056 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p7"> | |
| 20057 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A favor may be bestowed on a person without injustice, but a person cannot be damnified except for a fault. Hence an illegitimate | |
| 20058 child can be legitimized rather than "vice versa"; for although a legitimate son is sometimes deprived of his inheritance | |
| 20059 on account of his fault, he is not said to be illegitimate, because he was legitimately begotten. | |
| 20060 </p> | |
| 20061 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p8"> | |
| 20062 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Illegitimate intercourse has an inherent inseparable defect whereby it is opposed to the law: and consequently it cannot | |
| 20063 be legitimized. Nor is there any comparison with an illegitimate child who has no such defect. | |
| 20064 </p> | |
| 20065 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p9"></p> | |
| 20066 <p id="XP_Q68_A3-p10"></p> | |
| 20067 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A2.html"></a> | |
| 20068 <a href="summa.XP.iii.html"></a> | |
| 20069 </div> | |
| 20070 <a href="summa.XP_Q67_A7.html"></a> | |
| 20071 <a href="summa.XP_Q68_A1.html"></a> | |
| 20072 </div> | |
| 20073 <a href="summa.XP.i.html"></a> | |
| 20074 <a href="summa.XP_Q1.html"></a> | |
| 20075 ` | |
| 20076 </div> |