Export a Citation 
Print View
hide main text 
show main text 
hide table of contents
show table of contents
previous
2. Whether Coerced Consent Suffice for Contract of Matrimony
27. On the second main point [n.21], I say that this consent, coerced thus through fear as was said [nn.17-19], does not suffice for contract of matrimony, as is obtained expressly from Gregory IX, Decretals IV tit.1 ch.14, ‘On espousals’, and ch.28, ‘By your consultation’. Therefore, we have it that so it is.
28. But what is the reason for this?
I say that a cause and reason can be given, both from the formal cause of this contract, and from the efficient cause by which the contract has such form, and from the final cause because of which the efficient cause has given this contract such form.
29. The first point is clear, because this contract is a giving, and though it is not a generously free79 giving (supply: because given so that equal to oneself be given), yet it is a free giving simply, because it is against the idea of giving that it not be free. This then is the formal cause of matrimony (and a form cannot be proved of itself);80 and thus is it plain, on the part of the form or the formal cause of matrimony, that coerced consent is not sufficient, because it impedes liberty, which is the form of it.
30. This is plain second from the efficient cause, because God has instituted this transfer to be such, namely purely free. Hence this is not determined by the Church but only expressed. For it is plain that even in the law of nature this was required in the contract of matrimony, Genesis 2.24, “He will cleave to his wife.” One does not cleave to that which one holds unwillingly. And Genesis 24.8, 57-58, where it is said of Abraham that he said to his servant, “If the woman not wish to come with you, you will be free of your oath;” and when he sought for Rebecca, they said, “We will call the girl, and we will ask her will;” and at once her parents asked her, “Do you wish to go with this man?” She replied, “I will go.” But where is it seen to have been instituted by God? I say that in Genesis 2.24, through the mouth of Adam, “Wherefore,” he says, “a man will leave his father and will cleave to his wife.” Now this ‘leave his father’ is not to throw away or despise his father; nor does he say ‘he will be left or thrown away by his father’, but ‘he will cleave (he says) to his wife’, namely ‘his own wife’, and ‘to cleave’ is done by love. And so is it plain that this condition (namely of mutual will and mutual love and consent) God bestowed on matrimony, and instituted it.
31. Third, this is plain on the part of the end, which is the offspring to be procreated, to be religiously educated, and for the divine cult - or the indissolubility of the bond for that act; because the act looks for this giving to be simply free, for love does much for this, that such bond be preserved through mutual affection; for as was said earlier [d.26 n.33; Gratian, Decretum, p.2 cause 30 q.3 ch.4], “What someone does not love, he easily despises.” Similarly, marriages that are not free or not loved are, for the most part, destined to a bad end.
32. Also a certain person says [Richard of Middleton, Sent. IV d.29 princ. 1 q.1] that it could be said the Church makes a person, even a suitable person, illegitimate for the time for which there is coercion, because just as the Church can make illegitimate simply, so also in a particular case and for a time.
33. But this I do not believe; rather the statute of the Church requires this [sc. free gift] for the nature of this contract, from the efficient cause that determines it, and on account of the end for which it is.