--- title: "Summa Theologica, Second Half" author: "Thomas Aquinas" translator: "Fathers of the English Dominican Province" languages: [en] shelf: "Medieval" section: 765 of 935 url: https://scriptura.si/works/thomas-aquinas-summa-theologica-second-half/765/ cite: "Thomas Aquinas, tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Summa Theologica, Second Half, section 765. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/thomas-aquinas-summa-theologica-second-half/765/" --- # Summa Theologica, Second Half *Thomas Aquinas, tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province* Courage and temperance, the states of life, then Christ, the sacraments and the last things. ## 765. Supp. · Q. 58, Art. 3: Whether madness is an impediment to marriage? Source: https://scriptura.si/works/thomas-aquinas-summa-theologica-second-half/765/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/thomas-aquinas-summa-theologica-second-half/765/#p-N [¶0] Whether madness is an impediment to marriage? [¶1] Objection 1: It would seem that madness is not an impediment to marriage. For spiritual marriage which is contracted in Baptism is more excellent than carnal marriage. But mad persons can be baptized. Therefore they can also marry. [¶2] Objection 2: Further, frigidity is an impediment to marriage because it impedes carnal copulation, which is not impeded by madness. Therefore neither is marriage impeded thereby. [¶3] Objection 3: Further, marriage is not voided save by a perpetual impediment. But one cannot tell whether madness is a perpetual impediment. Therefore it does not void marriage. [¶4] Objection 4: Further, the impediments that hinder marriage are sufficiently contained in the verses given above (Q 50). But they contain no mention of madness. Therefore, etc. [¶5] On the contrary, Madness removes the use of reason more than error does. But error is an impediment to marriage. Therefore madness is also. [¶6] Further, mad persons are not fit for making contracts. But marriage is a contract. Therefore, etc. [¶7] I answer that, The madness is either previous or subsequent to marriage. If subsequent, it nowise voids the marriage, but if it be previous, 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 interval, since he would not know how to educate his children, yet if he marries, the marriage is valid. But if he has no lucid intervals, or marries outside a lucid interval, then, since there can be no consent without use of reason, the marriage will be invalid. [¶8] Reply to Objection 1: The use of reason is not necessary for Baptism as its cause, in which way it is necessary for matrimony. Hence the comparison fails. We have, however, spoken of the Baptism of mad persons (TP, Q 68, A 12). [¶9] Reply to Objection 2: 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 does. Yet the Master treats of it together with frigidity, because both are defects of nature (Sent. iv, D, 34). [¶10] Reply to Objection 3: A passing impediment which hinders the cause of marriage, namely the consent, voids marriage altogether. But an impediment that hinders the act must needs be perpetual in order to void the marriage. [¶11] Reply to Objection 4: This impediment is reducible to error, since in either case there is lack of consent on the part of the reason. ### Supp. · Q. 58, Art. 4: Whether marriage is annulled by the husband committing incest with his wife's sister? [¶13] Whether marriage is annulled by the husband committing incest with his wife's sister? [¶14] Objection 1: It would seem that marriage is not annulled by the husband committing incest with his wife's sister. For the wife should not be punished for her husband's sin. Yet she would be punished if the marriage were annulled. Therefore, etc. [¶15] Objection 2: 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 an impediment to marriage. Therefore neither is the second. [¶16] Objection 3: Further, if this is inflicted as a punishment of the sin, it would seem, if the incestuous husband marry even after his wife's death, that they ought to be separated: which is not true. [¶17] Objection 4: Further, this impediment is not mentioned among those enumerated above (Q 50). Therefore it does not void the marriage contract. [¶18] On the contrary, By knowing his wife's sister he contracts affinity, with his wife. But affinity voids the marriage contract. Therefore the aforesaid incest does also. [¶19] Further, by whatsoever a man sinneth, by the same also is he punished. Now such a man sins against marriage. Therefore he ought to be punished by being deprived of marriage. [¶20] I answer that, If a man has connection with the sister or other relative of his wife before contracting marriage, even after his betrothal, the marriage should be broken off on account of the resultant affinity. If, however, the connection take place after the marriage has been contracted and consummated, the marriage must not be altogether dissolved: but the husband loses his right to marital intercourse, nor can he demand it without sin. And yet he must grant it if 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 any hope of marriage, unless he receive a dispensation on account of his frailty, through fear of unlawful intercourse. If, however, he marry without a dispensation, he sins by contravening the law of the Church, but his marriage is not for this reason to be annulled. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections, for incest is accounted an impediment to marriage 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 other impediments, but is included in the impediment of affinity.