Dist. 41, Art. 1, Q. 3
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/41/q/bon-sent-IV-d41-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Article Unique. *On the impediment of affinity.*
### Question III. *Whether affinity presents an impediment to marriage.*

Thirdly it is asked whether affinity presents an impediment to marriage. And that it does, seems to be the case.

1. Cause 35, question 3: «Let a person be joined equally to his own kin and to the blood-relations of his wife».

2. Likewise, Leviticus 18: *Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's wife*: therefore no one can contract [marriage] with his father's wife; but this is for no other reason than the bond of affinity: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this same thing is argued *by reason*: because the nakedness of the wife is the nakedness of the husband; but the nakedness of a female blood-relation is in no way to be uncovered through the conjugal act: therefore neither is the wife of [one's] kinsman to be taken into wedlock.

4. Likewise, the bond of nearness, both in consanguinity and in affinity, is from the unity of blood: therefore, if consanguinity impedes on account of the unity of blood, by parity of reasoning affinity does too, since husband and wife become one flesh by reason of the commingling of the seeds.

**On the contrary:**

1. In the [Old] Law it was forbidden to marry a sister, and it was commanded to marry a brother's wife; and she is an affine: therefore affinity does not impede marriage.

2. Likewise, one is more joined to another who is joined *per se* and *immediately* than to one who is joined *mediately*; but a man who knows a woman can be joined to her maritally: therefore much more [may] the blood-relations of that man himself.

3. Likewise, according to the [civil] laws blood-relations succeed the deceased in his goods, in which he had ownership and possession; but a husband had ownership over his wife through marriage: therefore according to the laws blood-relations ought to and can have ownership over the body of the spouse through marriage: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, carnal commingling is for a time, and marriage is an indissoluble bond: if therefore a greater bond looses a lesser one; since carnal commingling cannot impede marriage, therefore neither [can] the affinity contracted therefrom.

> **Conclusion.** Affinity which precedes impedes the contracting of marriage and annuls a contract [already made], but not [affinity] supervening, which only takes from the guilty party the right of exacting the [conjugal] debt.

**I respond:** It must be said that affinity impedes marriage, as is had in the *Extra*, [title] *On Consanguinity and Affinity*; and this is to be understood of the affinity which precedes the contracting of marriage, not of that which supervenes. For if it precedes, it impedes the contracting and annuls what has already been contracted, because it makes the person illegitimate in the same manner and by the same grounds by which manner and by which grounds consanguinity does. But if it follows the marriage, it cannot dissolve it, since it is an indissoluble bond; if, however, it has been contracted and consummated, both are to be admonished to continence. But if it has been contracted and ratified by words of the present tense, since it cannot be dissolved unless one of the spouses enters religion, as is had in the *Extra*, [title] *On the Conversion of the Married*: it is necessarily required that he who has maliciously known some blood-relation [of his wife] render the [conjugal] debt, if she is unwilling to remain continent, or [else] enter religion — *Extra*, [title] *On Him Who Knew a Blood-relation of His Wife*: [the decretal] *Discretionem*, and below; where it is said that he is bound to render the debt, «since a spouse ought not to be deprived of his own right without fault». He himself, however, ought not to exact it, because he has rendered himself unfit, as is said under the same title: *Transmissae nobis* etc.; where it is said that «when required, let him not approach without grave sorrow of heart». — Thus therefore it must be conceded that affinity preceding marriage, as regards the first kind, so impedes marriage as consanguinity does.

1. To that which is objected, that it was commanded to marry a brother's wife, it must be said that this was true in a [particular] case, namely when a brother had died without seed. For since a perfect blessing had been promised them in [their] seed, therefore the Law ought not to permit that there be anyone who might seem [to be] without seed, if he had a kinsman who might raise up [seed for him]. But now, since this has been taken away, [affinity] so impedes altogether, as consanguinity does.

2. To that which is objected, that the man is more joined to the woman, it must be said that it is true; but since that act is consonant with and follows upon marriage, hence it is that no bond concurs there between the man and the woman which would present an impediment to marriage. — *Furthermore*, as was said before, since affinity is a bond *per accidens*, it presupposes a bond *per se*, namely consanguinity; and because no one is a blood-relation to his very self, hence it is that a woman is not made an affine to [her] husband, but to his blood-relations.

3. To that which is objected, that according to the laws blood-relations ought to succeed, it must be said that it is true in that inheritance which one can share and give to another. But a wife is so much a proper good that not even charity — which makes all things common — shares her; and therefore that [right of succession] never extends itself to the wife.

4. To that which is objected last, that carnal commingling is for a time, it must be said that, although it is for a time, nevertheless it has a perpetual effect, namely affinity, as was seen before, and through it it impedes. And thus the whole is plain.

---