B. To the Arguments for the Opposite

60. As to the first argument for the opposite [n.6], I concede that the ordination of a simoniac is invalid as to execution, but he does receive order, and therefore he only needs it that his suspension be relaxed.

61. As to the second [n.7], the consequence does not hold, because it is given to a minister of the Church to be minister in conferring, not in taking away.

62. As to the third [n.8], it will be touched on below what the way is that the Church can make persons illegitimate and can thus make them unfitted so that they not be suitable for contracting marriage [Ord. IV d.37, q.1]. But here, from the fact that a character is conferred, there is no like power in taking it away.

63. And when the argument is made that that [marriage] is more according to the law of nature than this [ordination through a bishop], it is true in that a contracted marriage is ratified, but not that every person, notwithstanding any impediment, can contract the marriage. For it is more of the law of nature that what God impresses on nature, which is not repugnant to sin (either formally or to it as demeritorious cause), perpetually remain in the soul than that any man or any woman be fit to contract marriage. And therefore any unfitness of persons for this act [of marriage] is not as contrary to the law of nature as is a character impressed on someone being destroyed.