Dist. 34, Art. 3, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/34/q/bon-sent-IV-d34-a3-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether the crime of incest impedes marriage and makes the person illegitimate.*

In the second place inquiry is made concerning the perversion of the will in the incestuous — as, for instance, when someone lies with his wife's sister; the question therefore is whether such a crime impedes marriage and makes the person illegitimate. And that it does, is shown thus:

1. By the authorities which the Master adduces in the text.

2. Likewise, this same thing is proved by *reason*: because, in the matter in which one sins, in that he ought to be tormented; but that incest was against the good of marriage: therefore he ought to be punished in it.

3. Likewise, affinity is contracted in carnal union; but affinity impedes marriage from being contracted and dissolves one already contracted, just as consanguinity too, or kinship: therefore if he has become an affine of his wife, the marriage no longer remains.

4. Likewise, that he ought at least not to *render* the debt is shown: because whoever has intercourse with a kinswoman, or an affine, sins mortally; but no one is bound to sin mortally: therefore he is not bound to render the debt.

**On the contrary:** 1. A wife ought not to be punished for her husband's sin, therefore she is not deprived of her husband; and if this: therefore he is her husband, and she can demand the debt from him: therefore if marriage is a bond of relation in each extreme: therefore this woman too is a wife, and he a husband.

2. Likewise, that, his wife being dead, he can contract with another, is shown, because every crime can be blotted out by penance: therefore if, the crime being wholly blotted out, the penalty ought not to last; it seems that such a man can contract.

3. Likewise, granted that he contracts, will the Church perhaps separate them? It is established that it will not: therefore incest does not impede marriage.

### Conclusion.

> Incestuous union with a wife's sister impedes only the right of demanding the debt, if it takes place after the contracting of the marriage; but if before it, it is a diriment impediment.

**I respond:** It must be said that someone can commit incest by knowing his wife's sister in two ways: either *before* he contracts marriage with the sister, or *after* the contracting. If after the contracting of the marriage: that marriage is not dissolved, yet he loses the right of *demanding* the debt, but not of *rendering* it, because his sin could not prejudice the wife, unless she was aware of the crime. Such a man is also *forbidden* by the Church to contract with *another*, even the first being dead; yet a dispensation is granted him, especially if there is fear of fornication, because he is young. But if he contracts without a dispensation, he ought not to be

separated altogether, but for a time, for the doing of penance: he nevertheless sins by contracting without the Church's license. — But if he knew the sister *before* the contracting of the marriage, even after a betrothal for the future, no marriage is contracted, by reason of affinity; whence they are to be separated by the judgment of the Church, and the woman can marry, but the man, so far as the rigor of the law is concerned, cannot marry.

1. And in this case are understood the authorities adduced by the Master.

2. To that which is objected concerning the *crime*, it must be said that, although a man is to be punished for the crime, so far as the rigor is concerned; yet a dispensation is granted where danger is feared, and something is subtracted from the severity.

3. To that which is objected concerning *affinity*, it must be said that supervening affinity does not dissolve a marriage already contracted, because what is firm cannot be invalidated by anything casual or accidental supervening.

4. To that which is objected concerning the *debt*, it must be said that in *demanding* he knows an *affine*, but in *rendering* he knows a *wife*, because she demands with wifely affection and demands a right which she has in him; and therefore he is bound to render it.

---