Dist. 40, Art. 1, 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/40/q/bon-sent-IV-d40-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Article Unique. *On carnal kinship, that is, consanguinity.*
### Question II. *Whether consanguinity poses an impediment to marriage.*

Secondly it is asked whether consanguinity affords an impediment to marriage. And that it does not, seems to be the case.

1. Genesis 2: *This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh*; but no person can be bound more closely to another than by being of that one's flesh and of that one's bones: therefore, if on this account Adam's marriage was not impeded — nay rather, on this very account was the woman taken from his side — it seems that consanguinity does not impede but rather furthers [marriage].

2. Likewise, Ecclesiasticus 13: *Every animal loves its like, and birds flock to those like themselves*: therefore, the more like and conjoined any persons are, the more are they born to come together and be joined to one another; but marriage is directed to a joining and a conjunction: therefore consanguinity rather furthers than impedes.

3. Likewise, those who are bound both by nature and by will are joined by a firmer bond than those who are bound by will alone, and they dwell together and converse with one another better; but such is the case when some are joined by a carnal bond and by the marriage covenant: therefore men ought rather to be joined to kin than to strangers, since the will has nature conformed to it, and nature assists the will: therefore consanguinity affords marriage solace and support rather than an impediment.

4. Likewise, if something is repugnant to marriage and impedes it, it does this only because it is repugnant to some good of marriage and takes something away; but if blood-relations are joined, the three goods of marriage are preserved there: fidelity, offspring, and the Sacrament: therefore consanguinity, as it seems, poses no impediment to marriage.

**On the contrary:**

1. Genesis 2: *For this cause shall a man leave father and mother* etc.; it is agreed that this is not understood of a leaving in respect of cohabitation: therefore it is understood of a leaving in respect of the contracting of marriage: therefore father and mother are not lawful persons for contracting [marriage] with respect to daughter and son; but this is for no other reason than the bond of consanguinity: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Leviticus 18: *I am the Lord your God. No man shall approach to her that is near of kin to him, to uncover her nakedness*: therefore, if it is against the Lord's precept to know one near of one's own blood; since marriage is ordered to that act, no one can contract marriage with one near to him: therefore nearness of blood poses an impediment to marriage.

3. Likewise, what is against the good of offspring impedes marriage; but to contract with a blood-relation is against the good of offspring: therefore etc. Proof of the *minor*: Gregory says, and it is had in the text: «A certain Roman law permits that the son and the daughter of two brothers, or of two sisters, be joined to one another in marriage; but we have learned by experience that from such a union offspring cannot thrive».

4. Likewise, marriage is a bond of decency, as was shown above; but natural decency shrinks from uncovering the shame and nakedness of a kinsman: if therefore this nakedness is uncovered in intercourse, then whoever knows a kinswoman acts against natural decency. If therefore marriage is a decent thing, then, since consanguinity is against decency, consanguinity impedes marriage.

> **Conclusion.** Consanguinity impedes marriage in one respect on account of the dictate of the law of nature, in another on account of the prohibition of the divine law, in another on account of the statute of the Church.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the bond of consanguinity impedes marriage in one respect on account of the *dictate of the law of nature*, in another indeed on account of the *prohibition of the divine law*, in another on account of the *statute of the Church*. — The bond of consanguinity which is that of stock to offspring impedes on account of the *dictate of nature*; whence it is natural among all men that a son not be joined to his mother, and that a daughter not be joined to her father. — And if the reason for this be sought, it must be said that this is on account of the *reverence* and *honor* which ought to be shown to father and mother, and therefore they ought not to mingle; or else on account of *the succession of generation*, which ought to proceed forward, not backward; whence offspring once begotten ought not to be joined to its own principle in order to beget. And hence it is that nature dictates that *parents* are to be treated with one affection, and *spouses* ought to be treated with another affection. Therefore, on account of the dictate of nature, marriage is impeded through the first bond of consanguinity, which is that of the offspring begotten to its own principle.

On account of the prohibition of the *divine law*, marriage is impeded through consanguinity as far as the second degree, as is plain from the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, where the prohibition is made as far as the second degree. — And if the reason for this be sought, it must be said that this is on account of *decency*; for he who knows a woman uncovers her nakedness and lays bare her shame; and it is indecent to do this to a kinswoman, especially since decency dictates that a sister is not to be treated as a wife. And hence it is that in his precept the Lord says: *Thou shalt not uncover her nakedness*.

Further, on account of the *statute of the Church*, marriage is impeded from the second degree onward. — And if the reason for this be sought, it must be said that this statute was made *for the widening of love*. For since man is prone to love the one near to him, and marriage generates nearness besides and affords fuel for mutual love: hence it is that the Church has established that love should be extended to those outside, namely that marriages be contracted outside one's own kindred; and thus not only in the second degree, but also onward, for the widening of charity and for the enlarging of decency. — And so it is plain that the bond of consanguinity has to impede marriage for diverse causes; and this must be conceded.

**To the objections:**

*Ad 1.* To that, then, which is objected concerning Eve and Adam, that they were bone and flesh, it must be said that, although Eve and Adam were bone and flesh, nevertheless it was not then as it now is: for now the way of propagation and commingling is one and the same, but Eve did not come forth from Adam by way of generation, but in a supernatural manner, not by intercourse, but rather from his side; which manner of production was most fitting for wedlock, both on account of the figure, and also that the equality of the marriage bond might be signified, since [she was] from the side and adhering to it. Whence, because others do not belong to one another *in the same manner now*, therefore that manner cannot and ought not to be drawn into a precedent.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that every animal loves its like, it must be said that this is understood of likeness according to *species*; or if it be understood of likeness according to *nearness of flesh*, it still holds true that it loves. But there is one mode of affection by which a *wife* is to be loved, and another by which a *sister* is to be loved; and therefore the conjunction of natural affection is repugnant to the marital union: therefore, if there be a union through the bond of affection, it does not follow that there ought to be a union through marriage.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that nature affords firmness to the bond of the will, it must be said that this is true where voluntary affection is directed to that to which nature inclines; and since nature well ordered does not incline to intercourse with a sister, whereas marital affection inclines to knowing a wife: hence it is that natural affection does not afford the will a support, but rather an impediment.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that it is not repugnant to any good of marriage, it must be said that this can be resolved *by way of destruction*, since Gregory says that «he has learned by experience that from such a union offspring cannot thrive». — Yet it can also be said otherwise, that it impedes a greater good, which is the bond of affinity, which, being contracted thereby, is the occasion of mutual love.

Which is plain: if someone should take the daughter of his own father and thereby beget offspring, the same man is both father-in-law and father, and the same woman is both mother-in-law and mother, and the same man is both son and son-in-law, the same woman both daughter-in-law and daughter, and the same man both husband and brother, and the same woman both wife and sister: thus, with respect to the *bond* which could have existed among eight persons, [it exists] only among four; and likewise with respect to offspring. In order that these bindings might be spread abroad, and that charity might be mutually preserved through the bond of marriage, the Church established that marriage be extended to remote persons — not because marriage would be impeded among those near of kin, but because a greater good would be lost. And thus the whole is plain.

---