176. Bigamy

1. Philiarchus, after he committed fornication with two women, wishing to ascend to the priesthood, received first tonsure and minor orders. But, inconstant in soul, he entered marriage with a certain widow woman, who afterward was known to be his kinswoman in the fourth degree. Since therefore a marriage of this sort was void, he again intends to ascend to the priesthood; but he doubts whether he is irregular.

R. That Philiarchus first fornicated with two women gives rise to no bigamy from that, and therefore no impediment of bigamy, since there is no true, similitudinary, or interpretative marriage. I. M. 1343. But that, in an invalid marriage, already an acolyte, he married a widow, according to the more common opinion, is interpretative bigamy because of the affection of the intention, as if the husband of a widow, C. ult. de Big., and therefore irregularity is present. The less common opinion denies it, because in the aforesaid C. ult. there is question only of one ordained in sacred orders, and not of an acolyte nor of a layman; and in odious matters extension is not made from case to case, and thus Navarrus affirms that it was concluded in the Sacred Penitentiary. And D'Annib. says that he follows this opinion, ed. 3, p. 1, n. 419.

2. Titius married Caia invalidly because of an occult impediment of affinity. Caia having died, he married Sempronia, but also invalidly because of another occult impediment of affinity. The invalidity of each marriage having become known, Titius, wishing to receive sacred orders, thinks that he is bound by no impediment from this. Is this rightly thought?

R. Titius, according to the most common opinion of the doctors, is irregular from interpretative bigamy, namely if each marriage, as is supposed, was consummated. I. M. 1343.

The reason is that here not the thing itself, but the thought of the soul and the affection of the intention is attended to. C. 4, de Bigam. If this reason is valid when someone, his wife having died, receives sacred order, and then marries another wife and consummates the marriage, which second marriage is in reality null, the same reason consequently is valid when someone, although initiated in no sacred order, contracts and consummates a double marriage, although invalid. Whence it is also clear that although this irregularity, like others, is not expressed in the law, nevertheless it is most commonly affirmed. And D'Annibale, who calls the same irregularity doubtful, nevertheless, because it is most commonly affirmed, "does not dare to recede from this opinion, although received against all rules of law." Ed. 3, p. 1, n. 418.