Bibliotheca Catholicaa library of libraries
Support
Summa Theologiae · Suppl., q. 63, a. 1

Whether a second marriage is lawful?

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, question 63, Of Second Marriages, article 1. About 2 min.

Read in the reading room → This article at New Advent

From the Supplement, compiled after Aquinas’s death from his Commentary on the Sentences and transcribed here from the 1917 to 1922 printings. About the Supplement.

Text: Summa Theologiae, Supplement to the Third Part (Supplementum Tertiae Partis), transcribed from Internet Archive scans, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. The Supplement, compiled after Aquinas’s death from his earlier Commentary on the Sentences, in the same English Dominican translation as the Gutenberg Parts. Transcribed by Bibliotheca Catholica from the OCR of four Internet Archive scans of the pre-1931 printings (Questions 1 to 33 from the 1917 Washbourne and Benziger volume, 34 to 68 from the 1922 volume, 69 to 86 from the 1921 volume, and 87 to 99 from the 1922 Benziger volume), with OCR errors corrected and doubtful passages marked, not rewritten. 99 questions and 446 articles. The two appendices printed after Question 99 are not included. Sources, SHA-256 of each OCR file, and the method are in the source record. Rights: Public domain (US)

The Supplement is not a Project Gutenberg text. It is Bibliotheca Catholica’s transcription of public-domain scans at the Internet Archive; obvious OCR errors were corrected, and passages marked “OCR uncertain” could not be confidently corrected, so check them against the linked scan page.

Objection 1: It would seem that a second marriage is unlawful. Because we should judge of things according to truth. Now Chrysostom* says that to take a second husband is in truth fornication, which is unlawful. Therefore neither is a second marriage lawful.

Obj. 2: Further, Whatever is not good is unlawful. Now Ambrose† says that a second marriage is not good. Therefore it is unlawful.

Obj. 3: Further, No one should be debarred from being present at such things as are becoming and lawful. Yet priests are debarred from being present at second marriages, as stated in the text (iv. Sent. D. 42.). Therefore they are unlawful.

Obj. 4: Further, No one incurs a penalty save for sin. Now a person incurs the penalty of irregularity on account of being married twice. Therefore a second marriage is unlawful.

[*Horn, xxxii. in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to S. John Chrysostom.]

[*On I Cor. vii. 40, and De Viduis.]

On the contrary, We read of Abraham having contracted a second marriage (Gen. xxv. i).

Further, The Apostle says (i Tim. v. 14): I will.,. that the younger, namely widows, should marry, hear children. Therefore second marriages are lawful.

I answer that, The marriage tie lasts only until death (Rom. vii. 2), wherefore at the death of either spouse the marriage tie ceases: and consequently when one dies the other is not hindered from marrying a second time on account of the previous marriage. Therefore not only second marriages are lawful, but even third and so on.

Reply Obj. 1: Chrysostom is speaking in reference to the cause which is wont at times to incite a person to a second marriage, namely concupiscence which incites also to fornication.

Reply Obj. 21: A second marriage is stated not to be good, not that it is unlawful, but because it lacks the honour of the signification which is in a first marriage, where one husband has one wife, as in the case of Christ and the Church.

Reply Obj. 3: Men who are consecrated to Divine things are debarred not only from unlawful things, but even from things which have any appearance of turpitude; and consequently they are debarred from second marriages, which lack the decorum which was in a first marriage.

Reply Obj. 4: Irregularity is not always incurred on account of a sin, and may be incurred through a defect in a sacrament.* Hence the argument is not to the point.

_______________________

Also online, linked only: the same translation at New Advent and the Latin text at Corpus Thomisticum. Neither is copied here.

Source: Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part. Internet Archive scans: Third Part, Fourth Number (QQ. LXXXIV to Suppl. XXXIII), 1917, Third Part (Supplement), QQ. XXXIV to LXVIII, 1922, Third Part (Supplement), QQ. LXIX to LXXXVI, 1921, and Third Part (Supplement), QQ. LXXXVII to XCIX and Appendices, 1922; two curled pages of the 1921 volume are read from another scan of the same printing. Public domain in the USA. Printed in 1917, 1921, and 1922, before 1931. Outside the U.S., check local copyright rules. Transcription, OCR file checksums, and method: source record.