Dist. 42, Art. 3, 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/42/q/bon-sent-IV-d42-a3-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether second marriages are honorable.*

In the third place it is asked whether second marriages are honorable. And that they are, seems [to be shown]:

1. Because in everything in which the character of the honest is preserved, the character of the honorable is preserved; but in second marriages the character of the honest is preserved, since the dishonor of fornication is avoided: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it is a father's glory to leave behind sons as successors in his goods, and especially good ones; but often in first marriages sons are not obtained, but in second ones [they are]; therefore it seems that for one who has no offspring it is honorable to marry a second time.

3. Likewise, all divine Sacraments are to be honored: therefore everything that holds in itself the character of a Sacrament holds the character of the honorable; but second marriages are of this kind, as was proved before: therefore second marriages are honorable.

4. Likewise, in the Law, from him who was unwilling to raise up seed for his brother the sandal was drawn off his foot, and there was spat in his face a sign of everlasting reproach, in Deuteronomy 25: therefore, if much more ought one to be solicitous for his own offspring than for another's; it seems that if someone, having no sons from a first wife, she being dead, is unwilling to contract [marriage] with another, this is a reproach to him: therefore, from the opposites, to contract [marriage] with a second is honorific. — *If you should say* that it is otherwise now under the new law, in which fruitfulness of mind is sought rather than of the womb; *it is objected* on the contrary that this does not resolve [the matter]: because, if something is good, by its repetition it does not become evil, but better, since a double is better than a single: therefore if something is honorable, by its repetition it does not become blameworthy. But first marriages are honorable: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. Everything is unseemly from which honorable persons are kept away, lest they be present; but second marriages are of this kind: therefore etc. The *major* is manifest; the *minor* is proved by that [statement] of the Council of Caesarea, which is set down in the text: "It is not fitting," it says, "for a priest to dine at the wedding of a twice-married man, since a twice-married man is in need of penance": therefore etc.

2. Likewise, everything is unseemly through which someone is made unfit for a grade of dignity for which he was previously suited; but through second marriages someone is made unfit for the grade of priesthood, for which he was previously fit: therefore to contract a second marriage is blameworthy and unseemly.

3. Likewise, everything is a reproach which renders a man notable for some vice; but second marriages are of this kind: therefore etc. And this is confirmed by that [saying] of Ambrose, which is contained in the text, that "even in the present [life] they lack glory."

4. Likewise, everything is a reproach which renders [someone] unworthy of the ecclesiastical blessing; but second marriages, although they are licit, are deprived of the blessing which is owed to that Sacrament: therefore they are reproachful.

### Conclusion.

> Second marriages, properly speaking, are not honorable; yet they are not blameworthy, but tolerable.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacrament of matrimony is useful and honorable. And although it is useful and honorable by reason of a threefold good — of fidelity, of offspring, and of the Sacrament — nevertheless, to speak by appropriation, marriage is honorable because the bed is immaculate, and this is through the good of fidelity; and [marriages] are useful because the womb is fruitful, and this is through the good of offspring. But the good of the Sacrament refers to both: to honorability, insofar as it signifies — for thus this Sacrament is great and honorable, namely by reason of the thing signified, namely in Christ and the Church — but to utility, insofar as it is a remedy for sin.

If therefore we speak of second marriages by reason of utility; thus the character of utility is preserved. For they were useful, because they were unto duty and unto remedy; and each of these is for the most part found in second marriages. If by reason of honorability; it must be said that they were honorable by reason of conjugal continence and of sacramental signification, and each of these is there imperfectly and defectively. For the sacramental signification is defective as regards truth, conjugal continence as regards probability. Therefore I say that "they lack glory," and therefore they are not honorable; yet, because they lack fault, they are not blameworthy, but are tolerable. Hence neither the Lord nor the Saints prohibit them as evil, but nevertheless do not urge them as being defective. — It must therefore be granted that, properly speaking, second marriages are not honorable, as the arguments show; and this is what Ambrose says, and it is contained in the text, that "even in the present [life] they lack glory."

1. To that, then, which is objected, that fornication is avoided; it must be said that it is avoided according to a state of imperfection; and therefore this is recognized to pertain rather to utility than to praise or honor.

2. To that which is objected concerning kinship, it must be said that this is not said according to the time of grace, but according to the time of the written law. — Or, if it now speaks of honor, this is as regards man, not as regards God, since now succession of religion is sought, not of blood; therefore this is to be attributed to utility rather than to honor.

3. To that which is objected concerning the Sacrament, it must be said that it is true that it is a Sacrament; yet it is with a defect, by reason of which it has a certain ignobility; and through this the glory is rather diminished than amplified in the contracting of such a Sacrament.

4. To that which is objected concerning the raising up of seed, it must be said that that was proper to the old law, for the reason that there was there a blessing in carnal offspring and a temporal promise; but now that law has no place. *And if you object* that the same thing repeated is better, therefore more honorable; it must be said that this is true if repetition befits its nature, as in those things which are acquired through habituation. This, however, does not hold everywhere, because baptism repeated is not better than a single [one], since repetition does not befit it; so the repetition of matrimony does not befit its signification, nor does it befit the use of honesty or of chastity, unless it be on account of the infirmity of the flesh — which makes rather for excusability than for honor.

These things having been seen, what pertains to the text is sufficiently clear.

---