Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 22: On the Impediment of Crime
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There remain those impediments which make a person incapable of Matrimony with a certain person, but not universally with all. And these are, as we noted above, crime, difference of worship and kinship; of these, then, we must briefly discourse, and first of crime.
The canons will have it an impediment breaking Matrimony if anyone contracts marriage with her whom he has defiled by adultery; on which matter there is a whole title in the decretal letters. But yet the doctors observe that the Matrimony is not always void when anyone takes her whom he had defiled by adultery, but only in three cases.
The first case is: when the adulterer procures the death of his own spouse, or of the husband of the adulteress, that he may be able to celebrate marriage with the adulteress; or on the contrary, if the adulteress procures the death of her own husband, or of the wife of the adulterer, that she may take the adulterer as husband; and the decision of this matter is had in the chapter Super hoc, on him who took in Matrimony her whom he had defiled by adultery; and the case is understood if death in fact follows.
The second is: if the adulterers have given each other their faith about contracting Matrimony between themselves after the death of the adulterer's wife or of the adulteress's husband; for those who have so given faith to each other seem altogether about to procure the death of the other spouse. And the decision of this is had in the canon Relatum, cause 31, question 1.
The third is: if the adulterers have in fact contracted between themselves while the former spouses were living, as is had in the last chapter on him who took in Matrimony.
But these two cases are understood if each adulterer was aware of the life of the other's spouse. For otherwise, if the man deceives the adulteress, affirming that his wife is dead, or on the contrary the woman deceives the adulterer, affirming that her husband is dead, then the Matrimony is not void, as is plain from the chapter Propositum, on him who took in Matrimony.
That outside these cases a Matrimony contracted between adulterers is not broken Augustine teaches, in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 14, and in book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 10; and these testimonies of Augustine have been related among the ecclesiastical canons, cause 31, question 1, canon Denique. And so much of the crime of adultery.
But the crime of homicide without adultery breaks Matrimony in one case only: namely when both the man and the woman who desire to enter marriage between themselves agree in procuring the death of the other's spouse; as we have in the chapter Laudabilem, on the conversion of unbelievers. For otherwise, if one only procured the homicide, the other not knowing, and adultery did not precede, the Matrimony is not broken.
Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, and Philip Melanchthon in the Commonplaces, under the title on marriage, blame the Church for this impediment; and their argument is the example of David, who took Bethsabee as wife, when he had both defiled her before by adultery and killed her husband, 2 Kings 11.
But the opinion of the Church rests on most weighty testimonies of popes and councils, which are had in cause 31, question 1, the canon Nullus, which is St. Leo's, and the canon Illud and the canon Relatum, which are drawn from councils, and the chapter Super hoc and the chapter Propositum, on him who took in Matrimony her whom he defiled by adultery. And moreover on a most weighty reason. For what can be imagined more atrocious in marriage than that one of the spouses not only does not keep faith with the spouse, but even lies in wait for the life of him with whom he ought to have cherished the highest degree of friendship?
Nor is the example of David to the point. For this impediment is not of divine law, but of ecclesiastical; and in the Old Testament many things were permitted which in the new law, which is more perfect, are with the best right forbidden, such as polygamy, the bill of divorce, and many other things of that kind.
I add that even according to the ecclesiastical law that sin of David and Bethsabee would perhaps not have been a breaking impediment. For neither adultery alone, nor the homicide of a spouse committed with whatever mind, is usually judged a breaking impediment, but only that homicide of a spouse which is committed with this intention, that one may afterward possess his wife. Now Bethsabee did indeed consent to the adultery, but is in no way read to have plotted anything toward her husband's death; and so on her part there was no impediment by which she could not contract marriage with David. And David joined the homicide of Urias to the adultery, but it is not certain whether with that mind, that he might possess his wife: for before he had often tried to induce Urias to go back to his wife, that in that way the adultery might be covered.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPIT XXII.
De impedimcnlo criminis.
Supcrsunt impcdimcnln illa, quac pcrsonam in-
hnbilcm reddiintad 3Iatrimoniuin ciim ccrtn pcrso-
iia, non autcin univcrse cum omnibus. Ea vcro
sunl,ut supra notavimus, Crimen, CuUus Dispari-
l<is cl C()(inalio:{\(), his igitur hrcvilcr disscrcndum
(^-;l, ac Priinum i^c criminc.
.liibcnt canoncs impcdimcnlum csscdirimcnsMa-
Iriinonium, si (|uis ciim ca conjugiuin conlrahat,
(luam polluil por adultcrium:d(; ipia re csl inlegcr
tilulus iii ('|iislolis dccrelnlibus, sed lamcn obscr-
vnnl doclorcs,non sempcr Mntrimoniiim cssc irri-
tiim.cum (piis diicil cain.(|uain pDlIucrat pcr adul-
lcrinin, scd solum in Iribiis casibus,
Primus casus csl:Cuin adultcr procural morlcra
834
l>i; S\CHV.MI'NI() .M.VTlll.MO.MI
conjui?is siuitwcl iiiarili aiiiillorao, nl cuin luluilcra
(•onju-iiuin cclel)i;iro ix.ssilrvol CDiilra, si adullora
procurcl inortoni viri sui, vol uvoris aiiiillori. ul
ailullerum in mariluin accipial; el liahclur (ioliniijo
liiijus roi. cap. Supcrhoc, tlc eo. (|tii (luxit m ."^la-
iriinonium (luain pollucrat pcr adulloriuin. cl inlcl-
lij:ilur casus, si mors revcra sc^nialnr.
Socumius csl: Si aihiltori dcdcrinl silii inviccm,
lidcm, de >Ialriinoiiio inlcr se coiilralicndo posl
morlcm uxoris adullcri, vcl niarili adultorae: nam
i|ui ila sibi lidem dedorunt.vidcnlur oninino procu-
raliiri morlcm allcrins coMjugum. El liabelur deci-
sio hujus can. Rclalum 31. quacsl. 1.
Terliusesl: Si de faclo adullcri inler sc conlra-
\crinl, vivcnlibus prioribus conjup;ibus, ul habe-
lur cap. Finali. dc oo qui duxitin Malrimonium.
Sed inlclligunlur duo isli casus,si ulcrque adiil-
ter crat conscius vilac conjngis allcrius. Alio^iui
cnim si vir adullcram dccipiat, anirmans, coiiju-
1,'em suam csse morluain; vcl contra, mulicr adul-
lerum decipial, ; llirmans virum sunm essc mor-
luum: lunc Malrimonium non cst irrilum, ul patcl
c\ cap. Proposilum, dc co qui duxil in Malrimo-
nium.
Extra lios casus non dirimi Malrimonium inlcr
adullcros contractum, docct Augusliiius in lib. dc
hono conjugali cap. li. et in lib. 1. dc nuptiis ol
toncupisccnlia cap. 10. ct rclala sunt, hacc lcsti-
:i;onia Auguslini intcr canoncs ccclesiasticos 31,
quaest. 1. can. Dcnique. Et haec de criminc adul-
terii.
Crimcn autem homicidii sine adultcrio, in uno
Innlum casu dirimit Malrimonium, quando vidcli-
cct in morlc altcrius conjugium procuranda conve-
iiiunl, tam vir, qnam foemina, qui intcr, se conju-
gium inire cupiunt: ut habcmus cap. Laudabilem,
de conversions infidclium. Alioqui cnim, si aller
lanlura homicidiurn procuraret, allero inscio, el
adulterium non praecessit, non diriraitur Matri-
monium.
Rcprehendunt Ecclesinm ob hoc impedimcnlum
J>uthcrus in lib. de captivit. babylon. cap. de 3Ia-
trimonio, et Philippus Mclanchthon in locis lilul.
de conjugio: ct argumcntum ipsorum cst, excm-
plum Davidis, qui Bethsabeam uxorcm duxil, cum
et ipsam anlea pcr adultcrium polluisset, el virum
ojus occidisscl, 2. Reg. II.
At sentcntia Ecclesiae nititur gravissimis tc-
stimoniis ponlificum et conciliorum.quac habenlur
31. quaest. 1. can. A'itiius,qui est s. Leonis,et can.
IUud,cl can. Belalum. quaa ex conciliis deprom-
pta sunt , et can. Su^jer lioc, ct can. Proposi-
lum, de eo qui duxit in Malrimonium, qnam pol-
luit per aduIlerium.Et Praeterca gravissima ratio-
iie. Quid cnim airocius in conjugio fingi potest,
quam ut aller conjugum non solum lidem conjugi
non servet, scd eliam vitae cjus, insidietur, cum
(juo summum amicitiae gradum colere debuissct?
Aeque excmplum Davidis ad rem facit.IIoc enim
impedimentum non est de jure divino, sed eccle-
siastico:et iu Testamcnto veteri multa permitleban-
tur, quae in nova lege,quae perfectior est, oplimo
iure interdicuntur, ut polvgamia, libellus repudii
cl alia id genus niulla.
Addo, (juod etiam secundum ccclesiaslicam le-
gom, poccatum illud Davidis et nclhsabcac, for-
tass(! non fiiisscl impcdimcntum dirimciis. I\'on (•-
niin adull(>rium solum, ncqiie conjiigis homicidi-
uin (iMocuin()uc animo palralum, dirimons iinpedi-
mciilumjiidicari solol,scd illud soliiin homicidium
conjiigis, (luod oa intentionc conimiiiitur, ul (>jus
uxore (luis postea potiatur. Jam vero Dellisabca in
adiillcriudi qiiidein consciisit, sed in morlcm viro
iiullo modo (|ui(l(piani logilur macliinala: proindc
cx parte cjus non fuil impcdimenlum, quo niiims
conjtigium cum Davide conlralierc possct. David
aulcin adullorio homicidium Uriac adjnnxit, scd
non esl certum an co animo, ut uxorc cjus potirc-
tur: nam antea saepe conatus erat iuducore IJriam,
ul ad uxorcra redirel, ul co modo adulterium le-
gerctur.