title: Dist. 37

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXXVII

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XXXVII

source_text:
<!-- page 800 -->

### Cap. I.
#### *In quibus ordinibus nequeat contrahi matrimonium.*

Sunt igitur quidam ordines, in quibus nullatenus potest contrahi coniugium, et si intercesserit copula, fit divortium, ut sacerdotium, diaconatus et subdiaconatus. In aliis vero permittitur sortiri coniugium, nisi religionis habitum sumserint, vel votum continentiae fecerint. Unde Leo Papa[^p800-1]: « Clericos, lectores, ostiarios, exorcistas, acolythos, si extra votum et habitum inveniuntur et continentiam profiteri nolunt, uxorem ducere virginem Ecclesia Romana permittit, non viduam, vel repudiatam; quia deinceps nec ad subdiaconatum provehi poterunt, nec laicus uxorem sortitus non virginem, vel bigamus ad clericatum ». Item ex Carthaginensi Concilio[^p800-2]: « Placuit episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos, subdiaconos etiam ab uxoribus abstinere; quod si non fecerint, etiam ab ecclesiastico removeantur officio; ceteros vero clericos ad hoc non cogit ». Item Leo Papa[^p800-3]: « Lex continentiae eadem est ministris altaris, quae episcopis et presbyteris; qui, cum essent laici, vel lectores, licite uxores ducere potuerunt; sed cum ad praedictos pervenerunt gradus, coepit eis non licere quod licuit ». Item in sexta Synodo: « Si quis eorum qui ad clerum accedunt, voluerit nuptiali lege mulieri copulari; hoc ante ordinem subdiaconatus faciat ».

<!-- page 801 -->

**Notula.** Item Calixtus Papa[^1]: « Presbyteris, diaconibus, subdiaconibus et monachis concubinas habere, seu matrimonium contrahere penitus interdicimus; contracta quoque matrimonia ab huiusmodi personis disiungi, et personas ad poenitentiam debere redigi, iuxta sacrorum canonum definitionem iudicamus ». Item Gregorius: « Nullum facere subdiaconum episcopi praesumant, nisi qui se caste victurum promiserit; quia nullus debet ad ministerium altaris accedere, nisi cuius castitas ante susceptum ministerium fuerit approbata ».

### Cap. II.
#### *De interfectoribus suarum coniugum.*

His adiiciendum est de occisoribus suarum coniugum; de quibus Nicolaus Papa[^2] scribit Radulpho Bituricensi archiepiscopo: « Interfectores suarum coniugum sine iudicio, cum non addis *adulterarum*, vel aliquid huiusmodi, quid aliud habendi sunt quam homicidae? Ac per hoc ad poenitentiam redigendi; quibus penitus denegatur coniugium ». « Hic videtur Nicolaus permittere maritis pro adulterio, aut alio huiusmodi uxores suas interficere; sed ecclesiastica disciplina spirituali gladio, non materiali, criminosos ferire iubet ». Unde idem Nicolaus[^3]: « Inter haec vestra sanctitas addere studuit, si cuius uxor adulterium perpetraverit, utrum marito eius liceat secundum mundanam legem interficere? Sed sancta Dei Ecclesia nunquam mundanis constringitur legibus, gladium non habet nisi spiritualem ». Item Pius Papa: « Quicumque propriam uxorem absque lege et sine causa interfecerit aliamque duxerit, armis depositis, publicam agat poenitentiam, et si contumax exstiterit, anathematizetur, usquequo consentiat ».

---

english:
### Cap. I.
#### *In which orders marriage cannot be contracted.*

There are, therefore, certain orders in which marriage can in no way be contracted, and if intercourse has intervened, a divorce is made — namely the priesthood, the diaconate, and the subdiaconate. In the others, however, it is permitted to obtain marriage, unless they have taken up the habit of religion, or have made a vow of continence. Whence Pope Leo[^p800-1]: "Clerics, lectors, doorkeepers, exorcists, acolytes — if they are found outside a vow and the habit and are unwilling to profess continence — the Roman Church permits to take a virgin to wife, not a widow or a woman repudiated; because thereafter neither can they be promoted to the subdiaconate, nor can a layman who has obtained a wife who is not a virgin, or a twice-married man, [be promoted] to the clerical state." Likewise from the Council of Carthage[^p800-2]: "It has been resolved that bishops, presbyters, deacons, and also subdeacons abstain from their wives; and if they shall not have done so, let them be removed even from ecclesiastical office; but the remaining clerics it does not compel to this." Likewise Pope Leo[^p800-3]: "The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar as for bishops and presbyters; who, when they were laymen or lectors, were able lawfully to take wives; but when they arrived at the aforesaid grades, that began to be unlawful for them which had been lawful." Likewise in the Sixth Synod: "If any of those who approach the clergy shall wish to be joined to a woman by the law of marriage, let him do this before the order of the subdiaconate."

**A little note.** Likewise Pope Calixtus[^1]: "We altogether forbid presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage; and marriages contracted by persons of this kind we judge, according to the definition of the sacred canons, ought to be dissolved, and the persons brought back to penance." Likewise Gregory: "Let them not presume to make anyone a subdeacon of a bishop, except one who has promised that he will live chastely; because no one ought to approach the ministry of the altar unless his chastity has been approved before he undertook the ministry."

### Cap. II.
#### *On those who kill their own wives.*

To these must be added the matter of the slayers of their own wives; concerning whom Pope Nicholas[^2] writes to Radulf, archbishop of Bourges: "Those who kill their own wives without a trial — since you do not add 'adulterous women,' or anything of this kind — what else are they to be held than homicides? And on this account they are to be brought back to penance; and marriage is altogether denied them." "Here Nicholas seems to permit husbands to kill their own wives for adultery, or for another thing of this kind; but ecclesiastical discipline bids that the criminal be struck with the spiritual sword, not the material one." Whence the same Nicholas[^3]: "Amid these matters your holiness took care to add: if anyone's wife has committed adultery, whether it is lawful for her husband to kill her according to worldly law? But the holy Church of God is never bound by worldly laws; it has no sword but the spiritual." Likewise Pope Pius: "Whoever kills his own wife without law and without cause and marries another, let him lay aside his arms and do public penance; and if he proves contumacious, let him be anathematized, until he complies."

---

la: Can. *Seriatim* (14.), dist. 32.

en: Canon *Seriatim* (14.), dist. 32.

la: Scil. quinto c. 3, C. *Placuit* (13.), ibid. Sed vocabulum *subdiaconos* deest in editione Concilii cit. et insertum est a Gratiano. — Pro *cogit* Vat. cum canone et originali *cogi*.

en: Namely [the] fifth [Council of Carthage], c. 3; C. *Placuit* (13), ibid. But the word *subdiaconos* ("subdeacons") is absent in the edition of the Council cited, and was inserted by Gratian. — For *cogit* ("it compels") the Vatican edition, with the canon and the original, [reads] *cogi* ("to be compelled").

la: Epist. 167. (alias 2.) ad Rustic. Narbon. inquisit. 3; C. *Lex continentiae* (10.), dist. 31. Seq. locus est C. *Si quis eorum* (7.), dist. 32.

en: Letter 167 (alias 2) to Rusticus of Narbonne, inquiry 3; C. *Lex continentiae* (10), dist. 31. The following passage is C. *Si quis eorum* (7), dist. 32.

la: Can. *Presbyteris* (8.), d. 27. Seq. locus est I. Regest. indict. 9, epist. 44. (alias 42.) ad Petrum subdiaconum; C. *Nullum facere* (1.), d. 28. — Notula deest in ed. 1; in codd. BC est in fine praecedentis dist. et in cod. B in margine a secunda manu; cod. D in fine addit: Innocentius II: Decrevimus, ut ii qui in ordine subdiaconatus et supra uxores duxerint, aut concubinas habuerint, officio et ecclesiastico beneficio careant. Cum enim ipsi templum Dei, vasa Domini, sacrarium Spiritus S. debeant esse et dici; indignum est, eos cubilibus et immunditiis servire (est C. *Decernimus* (2.), ibid.).

en: Canon *Presbyteris* (8.), d. 27. The following passage is Register, indiction 9, letter 44 (alias 42) to Peter the subdeacon; C. *Nullum facere* (1.), d. 28. — The "Notula" is absent in ed. 1; in codices BC it stands at the end of the preceding distinction, and in codex B in the margin by a second hand; codex D adds at the end: Innocent II: "We have decreed that those who in the order of the subdiaconate and above have taken wives, or have kept concubines, be deprived of office and of ecclesiastical benefice. For since they themselves ought to be, and to be called, the temple of God, the vessels of the Lord, the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit, it is unworthy that they should serve beds and uncleannesses" (this is C. *Decernimus* (2.), ibid.).

la: Can. *Interfectores* (5.), C. 33. q. 2. Seq. locus est apud Gratian. super hunc can.

en: Canon *Interfectores* (5.), C. 33, q. 2. The following passage is in Gratian, upon this canon.

la: Can. *Inter haec* (6.), ibid. Ultimus locus est C. *Quicumque propriam* (7.), ibid.

en: Canon *Inter haec* (6.), ibid. The last passage is C. *Quicumque propriam* (7.), ibid. ---

translators_notes:
- **Truncation repair (2026-07-18).** This chunk previously began mid-stream at the p.801 *Notula*, so the distinction header, **Cap. I**, and its rubric *In quibus ordinibus nequeat contrahi matrimonium* were missing from the corpus entirely. Cause: the IA djvu OCR garbles the real header at raw L85728 as `DISTmCTIO XXXVII.` (IN→m ligature), so the chunker matched only the page-top running-head bleed `DISTINCTIO XXXVII. 801` at L85793 and started there. Corrected raw range: **L85728–85831** (was L85793–85831); printed pages 800–801 (was 801 only). The material was covered by no chunk on either side — d.36's dubia nominally spanned to L85792 but rendered none of it, and its `line_end` has been corrected to 85727.
- **Provenance (restored material).** Cap. I re-set column-by-column from the printed-p.800 bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p800-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), left column top→bottom then right; **left bands regenerated at `split_x=2120`** because the default vol4 split (1880) clips the left column mid-word. Running head verified `800 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`; the full-width `DISTINCTIO XXXVII.` header sits below the d.36 dubia footer rule. Marginal rubrics *Leo.*, *Dubium I.*, *Can.*, *Dub.* trimmed per project convention.
- **Join verification (Cap. I → Notula → Cap. II): parses as continuous text.** Cap. I closes at the foot of p.800's right column with the Sixth Synod citation "…hoc ante ordinem subdiaconatus faciat »." and the p.801 *Notula* opens "**Item** Calixtus Papa…" — continuing the same *Item*-chained catena of authorities (Leo → Carthage → Leo → Sixth Synod → Calixtus → Gregory) with no grammatical break. The apparatus confirms the *Notula* is an appendix to Cap. I, not to Cap. II: note [^1] records that it "in codd. BC est in fine praecedentis dist." Cap. II then opens its own topic ("His adiiciendum est de occisoribus suarum coniugum"). The English join reads the same way.
- **p.800 apparatus split versus `d36-dubia`.** Printed p.800 carries **two** footer series. The **left**-footer series (nn. 1–6, Iustinian/Aristotle/Dub. praeced.) is the *dubia* series and is claimed in full by `bon-sent-IV-d36-dubia` as `[^p800-1]`…`[^p800-6]`. The **right**-footer `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block (nn. 1–3, *Seriatim* / *Placuit* / *Epist. 167*) is the *littera* series and is claimed **here** as `[^p800-1]`…`[^p800-3]`, anchored on this chunk's three Cap. I authorities (Leo, Carthaginense Concilium, Leo). **No note is double-claimed:** d.36's `## Notes` explicitly forwards the NOTAE nn. 1–3 to d.37 and disclaims them, and this chunk previously disclaimed them too — they were orphaned until now. The page-qualified labels are scoped per file, so the numeric overlap with d.36's labels is not a collision.
- **Provenance (pre-existing material).** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands for printed page 801 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p801-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; pdf = printed + 20 → pdf p. 821). Running head verified: `DISTINCTIO XXXVII.` with page number `801`. Raw OCR L85793–85831 used only as a cross-reference; the two-column OCR cascade-interleaves the columns, so the bands are authoritative per the VOL II OVERRIDE.
- **Scope.** The d.37 littera runs from the foot of printed p.800 to p.801: **Cap. I** (*In quibus ordinibus nequeat contrahi matrimonium*, p.800), the *Notula* appended to it (p.801), and **Cap. II** (*De interfectoribus suarum coniugum*, p.801). The chunk ends at "...usquequo consentiat »"; the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXVII` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` / `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` that begin lower on the same page 801 belong to the **divisio chunk**, not here.
- **Footnote hand-offs.** All three page-801 footers (`Presbyteris`, `Interfectores`, `Inter haec`) are anchored in this littera's body and are claimed here. The p.800-tail NOTAE (Leo / Carthage / Epist. 167) forwarded by d.36's dubia **are now claimed here** as `[^p800-1]`–`[^p800-3]`, following the 2026-07-18 restoration of Cap. I (see above) — the earlier disclaimer in this bullet rested on the mistaken premise that no part of this chunk sat on page 800. **Forwarded to the divisio chunk:** page 801 carries no COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO footnote markers — the commentary's apparatus begins on page 802 — so nothing is handed forward for the shared page except the shared-page fact itself.
- **Readings.** "sine iudicio" read against OCR's ambiguous glyph (Nicholas I to Radulf: killers "without a [judicial] trial"); context unambiguous, not flagged. "addis" retained as printed. No `[?]` flags.
- **Band-vs-OCR resolutions in the restored Cap. I.** All resolved at band time, none flagged: raw `laiciis uxoreni sortitus non virgiiiem` → *laicus uxorem sortitus non virginem*; `removeantur otlficio` → *removeantur officio*; `celeros` → *ceteros*; `Siinl igllur` → *Sunt igitur*; `flt divortium` → *fit divortium*; `Itein in sexta Synodo` → *Item in sexta Synodo*. Apparatus n.1: raw reads the canon number as `(H.)`; the 450 dpi band reads **(14.)** unambiguously — rendered as 14.
- **Cross-chunk digit disagreement to report (not mine to edit).** The p.800 **left**-footer note 6, held by `bon-sent-IV-d36-dubia` as `[^p800-6]`, renders "supra pag. **683**" and its `## Notes` records the band digit as ambiguous 653/683, accepted as 683 on the raw OCR's authority. On the regenerated 450 dpi left band read here the digit group is legible as **653**. Flagged for the d.36 chunk's owner; not changed from this file.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 37, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 801 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXVII.

#### *De impedimentis iuris ecclesiastici, quae sunt ordo et crimen.*

*Sunt igitur quidam ordines, in quibus nullatenus* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Haec est pars, in qua Magister principaliter determinat de his quae matrimonium impediunt simpliciter. Et habet haec pars duas, quia tale impedimentum duplex est: quoddam, quod simpliciter impedit cum omni; quoddam, quod cum quodam sic, cum quodam non: ideo secundum hoc haec pars habet duas. In prima parte determinat de his quae simpliciter impediunt et cum omni. In secunda de his quae cum aliquibus sic, cum aliquibus non, infra distinctione trigesima nona: *Post haec de dispari cultu* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima parte agit de impedimento, quod impedit propter ecclesiasticam institutionem. In secunda de eo quod impedit propter propriam obligationem, infra distinctione trigesima octava: *Nunc de voto inspiciamus* etc.

Et quoniam ecclesiastica institutio quosdam excludit a matrimonio propter excellentiam vitae, ut clericos; quosdam propter enormitatem culpae, ut uxoricidas: ideo haec pars habet duas particulas. In prima determinat de impedimento ordinis. In secunda de impedimento criminis, ibi: *His adiiciendum est de occisoribus suarum coniugum* etc. Utraque pars remanet indivisa propter brevitatem.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius brevis distinctionis secundum duo, quae in ea tanguntur, duo hic principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de ordinis impedimento.

Secundo de uxoricidio.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primum est, utrum ordines minores impediant matrimonium. Secundo, utrum ordines sacri. Tertio quaeritur quantum ad ecclesiasticum statutum, per quod sacri ordines impediant matrimonium.

<!-- page 802 -->

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *De impedimento ordinis.*

---

english:
<!-- page 801 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXVII.

#### *On the impediments of ecclesiastical law, which are order and crime.*

*There are, therefore, certain orders, in which by no means* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This is the part in which the Master principally determines concerning those things which impede matrimony absolutely (*simpliciter*). And this part has two [subdivisions], because such an impediment is twofold: one which absolutely impedes with everyone (*cum omni*); another which [impedes] with a certain [person] thus, with a certain [person] not: therefore according to this, this part has two [subdivisions]. In the first part he determines concerning those things which impede absolutely and with everyone. In the second, concerning those which [impede] with some thus, with some not, below in the thirty-ninth distinction: *After these things, concerning disparity of worship* etc.

The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first part he treats of the impediment which impedes on account of ecclesiastical institution. In the second, of that which impedes on account of a proper obligation, below in the thirty-eighth distinction: *Now let us examine concerning the vow* etc.

And since ecclesiastical institution excludes some from matrimony on account of excellence of life, such as clerics; some on account of the enormity of guilt, such as wife-slayers (*uxoricidas*): therefore this part has two little parts (*particulas*). In the first he determines concerning the impediment of order. In the second concerning the impediment of crime, there: *To these must be added [something] concerning the slayers of their own spouses* etc. Each part remains undivided on account of brevity.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this brief distinction, according to the two [things] which are touched upon in it, two [matters] are here principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the impediment of order.

Second, concerning wife-murder (*uxoricidium*).

Concerning the first, three [things] are asked. The first is, whether minor orders impede matrimony. Second, whether sacred orders [do]. Third it is asked, as regards the ecclesiastical statute, through which sacred orders impede matrimony.

<!-- page 802 -->

### ARTICLE I.

#### *On the impediment of order.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the vol4 PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{801,802}-{L,R}-*.png` (raw OCR L85832–85888 used only as a cascade-shattered reference). Two-column layout; each column read top→bottom, then reflowed as continuous prose. Full-width centered headers (COMMENTARIUS, the theme line, the *Sunt igitur* lemma, DIVISIO TEXTUS, TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM) reconstructed by stitching the L-band right edge to the R-band left edge (both bands truncate the centered headers, so each supplied the half the other clipped).

**Page span corrected.** Skeleton had `printed_pages: [801]`; verified the ARTICULUS I opener (`ARTICULUS I. / De impedimento ordinis.`) prints at the top of p. 802. Corrected to `printed_pages: [801, 802]` / `pdf_pages: [821, 822]` (offset pdf = printed + 20). Page break placed before the ARTICULUS I header.

**has_apparatus flipped false.** Skeleton had `has_apparatus: true`, but no footer is anchored to any divisio/tractatio text (no superscript markers in the body). Set to `false`; 0 apparatus entries.

**Structure of the tractatio.** Two principals ("duo hic principaliter quaeruntur"): (1) the impediment of order, (2) uxoricidium. Article I ("Circa primum quaeruntur tria") then lists three questions — minor orders, sacred orders, and the ecclesiastical statute by which sacred orders impede matrimony. Full listing rendered.

**Hand-offs.**
- *First page shared with the littera (p. 801):* the littera holds the top of p. 801 (Notula / Calixtus Papa, Cap. II *De interfectoribus suarum coniugum*, the Nicolaus/Pius quotations in the right column) and owns all three p. 801 footers (¹ ² ³). This chunk claims none of them.
- *Last page shared with `bon-sent-IV-d37-a1-q1` (p. 802):* QUAESTIO I (`Utrum ordines minores impediant matrimonium`) and its *Fundamenta*/videtur body begin immediately below this chunk's ARTICULUS I opener and belong to a1-q1, together with the p. 802 footers.

**[?] flags.** None. The divisio/tractatio prose read cleanly from the bands.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 37, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 802 -->

### Articulus I. *De impedimento ordinis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum ordines minores impediant matrimonium.*

Quantum ergo ad primum, quod minores ordines non impediant matrimonium, videtur:

1. Per multas auctoritates, quas adducit Magister in littera[^p802-1], maxime de illa Leonis Papae, quae sumta est de distinctione trigesima secunda.

2. Item, in Extra, de Clericis coniugatis[^p802-2], dicit Alexander tertius: *« Si qui clericorum infra subdiaconatum acceperint uxores, ipsos ad retinendas uxores districtione ecclesiastica compellatis ».*

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia ad minores ordines ut plurimum parvuli promoventur; sed tales non sunt cogendi ad continentiam: ergo etc.

4. Item, in ingressu religionis est status, in quo quis probat et probatur, antequam ad votum continentiae obligetur: ergo pari ratione — immo multo fortiori, cum difficilius sit in saeculo continere — status debet determinari, in quo clerici possint probare et probari, utrum velint vivere casti, et in illo non debent ad castitatem obligari; sed iste est ordinum inferiorum: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Distinctione trigesima secunda[^p802-3]: *« Lectores, cum ad annos pubertatis venerint, cogantur aut uxorem ducere, aut continentiam profiteri »*: ergo si lectores sunt in statu inferiorum ordinum, videtur, quod compellantur ad continentiam: ergo etc.

2. Item, minores clerici statim, ut sunt clerici, in sortem Dei sunt vocati, et ideo dicti sunt *clerici*, quia in sortem Dei sunt segregati; sed qui habet uxorem *est divisus*, sicut dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p802-4]: ergo nullus clericus potest nec debet habere uxorem: ergo etc.

3. Item, omnis clericus in minori officio sive ordine constitutus potest habere beneficium ecclesiasticum, maxime si intendat ulterius promoveri, saltem beneficium sine cura; sed nullus coniugatus potest nec debet habere beneficium praebendale, sicut dicitur Extra, de Clericis coniugatis[^p802-5], *Diversis fallaciis* etc.: ergo nullus clericus potest esse coniugatus.

4. Item, omnis clericus in minori officio constitutus potest gaudere privilegio clericali; sed nullus uxoratus potest gaudere privilegio clericali: ergo nullus clericus potest esse uxoratus. *Maior* manifesta est, *minor* patet per decretalem de Clericis coniugatis[^p802-6], *Ioannes*, et infra, ubi dicitur, quod *« uxoratus etiam tonsuratus non potest privilegio clericali gaudere »*. *Si tu dicas*, quod istae rationes non valent, quia qui est clericus potest non esse clericus, et ita potest esse uxoratus; *contra*: ordinis Sacramentum est per impressionem characteris: ergo sicut baptizatus non potest esse non baptizatus, ita videtur, quod clericus non possit fieri non clericus sive non ordinatus.

> **Conclusio.** *Ordines minores per se non obstant contractui et usui matrimonii; sed ministerium et beneficium, quae illis non sunt necessario annexa, in Ecclesia occidentali oppositionem habent ad matrimonium quoad usum.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in ordinibus minoribus est considerare *ordinem* et *officium* sive *ministerium* et *beneficium*; secundum haec tria possunt comparari ad matrimonium. Et *ordo minor* nullam habet oppositionem ad matrimonium ratione sui sive characteris, nec quantum ad *contractum* matrimonii nec quantum ad *usum*; sed *ministerium* et *beneficium* secundum Ecclesiam occidentalem oppositionem habent ad matrimonium quantum ad *usum* propter honestatem. Et quoniam clericus in minoribus ordinibus non tenetur nec est alligatus[^p802-7] ad *officium* nec ad *ministerium*[^p802-8]; ideo potest contrahere sine aliquo impedimento. Et ita concedendum est, quod minores ordines matrimonio non praestant impedimentum.

<!-- page 803 -->

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod lectores debent continentiam promittere; dicendum, quod illud capitulum debet intelligi, quando promoventur ad subdiaconatum, alioquin solum est consilium.

*Ad 2. 3. 4.* Ad illa vero quae obiiciuntur post, iam patet responsio. Obiicit enim de clerico quantum ad *ministerium* et quantum ad *beneficium* et *privilegium*, quae non sunt necessario annexa minoribus ordinibus; ideo nec matrimonium repugnat, ita quod non possit transferri de uno statu ad alium; impeditur tamen, ut non possit nec debeat simul in utroque statu militare, quia *nemo militans Deo debet se saecularibus negotiis implicare*[^p803-1].

english:
### Article I. *On the impediment of orders.*
### Question I. *Whether minor orders impede marriage.*

As to the first point, then — that minor orders do not impede marriage — it seems so:

1. From the many authorities that the Master adduces in the text[^p802-1], especially from that one of Pope Leo, which is taken from the thirty-second distinction.

2. Likewise, in the *Extra* [Decretals], *On Married Clerics*[^p802-2], Alexander III says: *« If any clerics below the subdiaconate should take wives, you are to compel them by ecclesiastical stringency to retain their wives ».*

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because for the most part young boys are promoted to minor orders; but such persons are not to be compelled to continence: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, at the entry into religious life there is a state in which one both tests and is tested, before one is bound to the vow of continence: therefore by like reason — indeed by a much stronger one, since it is harder to be continent in the world — a state ought to be determined in which clerics can test and be tested, whether they wish to live chastely, and in that state they ought not to be bound to chastity; but this is [the state] of the lower orders: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. At the thirty-second distinction[^p802-3]: *« Let the lectors, when they have reached the years of puberty, be compelled either to take a wife or to profess continence »*: therefore, if lectors are in the state of the lower orders, it seems that they are compelled to continence: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, minor clerics, at once, as they are clerics, are called into the lot of God, and are for that reason called *clerics*, because they are set apart into the lot of God; but he who has a wife *is divided*, as the Apostle says in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, the seventh [chapter][^p802-4]: therefore no cleric can or ought to have a wife: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, every cleric established in a minor office or order can have an ecclesiastical benefice, especially if he intends to be promoted further, at least a benefice without cure [of souls]; but no married man can or ought to have a prebendal benefice, as is said in the *Extra*, *On Married Clerics*[^p802-5], *Diversis fallaciis*, etc.: therefore no cleric can be married.

4. Likewise, every cleric established in a minor office can enjoy the clerical privilege; but no married man can enjoy the clerical privilege: therefore no cleric can be married. The *major* [premise] is manifest, the *minor* is plain from the decretal *On Married Clerics*[^p802-6], *Ioannes*, and below, where it is said that *« a married man, even though tonsured, cannot enjoy the clerical privilege »*. *If you say* that these reasonings are not valid, because he who is a cleric can be a non-cleric, and so can be married; *on the contrary*: the Sacrament of order is by the impression of a character: therefore, just as one baptized cannot be unbaptized, so it seems that a cleric cannot become a non-cleric or non-ordained.

> **Conclusion.** *Minor orders of themselves are no obstacle to the contract and the use of marriage; but the ministry and the benefice, which are not necessarily annexed to them, in the Western Church have an opposition to marriage as regards its use.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in the minor orders there is to be considered the *order* and the *office* or *ministry* and *benefice*; according to these three they can be compared to marriage. And the *minor order* has no opposition to marriage by reason of itself or of the character, neither as regards the *contract* of marriage nor as regards its *use*; but the *ministry* and *benefice*, according to the Western Church, have an opposition to marriage as regards its *use*, on account of decency. And since a cleric in the minor orders is neither bound nor tied[^p802-7] to the *office* nor to the *ministry*[^p802-8], therefore he can contract without any impediment. And so it must be granted that minor orders furnish no impediment to marriage.

<!-- page 803 -->

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected — that lectors must promise continence — it must be said that that chapter is to be understood of when they are promoted to the subdiaconate; otherwise it is only counsel.

*To 2, 3, 4.* To the things objected afterward, the response is now plain. For [the objector] argues about the cleric as regards the *ministry* and as regards the *benefice* and *privilege*, which are not necessarily annexed to minor orders; therefore neither is marriage incompatible [with them], such that one could not be transferred from one state to the other; nevertheless he is impeded, so that he cannot and ought not to serve in both states at once, because *no one serving as God's soldier ought to entangle himself in worldly affairs*[^p803-1].

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, c. 1 [of the Master's text at this distinction].

la: Libr. III. tit. 3. c. 1.

en: Book III, tit. 3, c. 1 [of the *Liber Extra*].

la: Can. 8. Cod. L cum textu originali *uxores* pro *uxorem*.

en: Canon 8. Codex L, with the original text, [reads] *uxores* for *uxorem*.

la: Vers. 33. — De *maiori* cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIV. c. 1. in fine.

en: Verse 33. — On the *major* [premise] cf. above in the Master's text, d. XXIV, c. 1, at the end.

la: Libr. III. tit. 3. c. 5.

en: Book III, tit. 3, c. 5.

la: Libr. III. tit. 3. c. 7.

en: Book III, tit. 3, c. 7.

la: Edd. *obligatus*.

en: The editions [read] *obligatus*.

la: Videtur legendum esse *beneficium*, attenta divisione supra posita.

en: It seems one should read *beneficium*, given the division set out above.

la: Epist. II. Tim. 2, 4: *Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus*.

en: 2nd Letter to Timothy 2:4: *No one serving as God's soldier entangles himself in worldly affairs*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De impedimento duplici, scilicet *ordinis* et *voti* (de ultimo agitur in dist. seq.), Concil. Trident. (Sess. XXIV. can. 9.) sic decrevit: *« Si quis dixerit, clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutos, vel regulares castitatem solemniter professos posse matrimonium contrahere, contractumque validum esse, non obstante lege ecclesiastica, vel voto; et oppositum nihil aliud esse quam damnare matrimonium; posseque omnes contrahere matrimonium, qui non sentiunt, se castitatis, etiam si voverint, habere donum, a. s.; cum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget nec patiatur, nos supra id quod possumus, tentari ».* — Impedimentum ordinis esse iuris ecclesiastici, communis opinio contra paucos tenet; est tamen constitutum ob graves rationes, ab ipso iure naturali insinuatas et ab auctore nostro q. 3. explicatas. Apud Graecos autem ordo sacer impedit quidem matrimonium contrahendum, non vero matrimonii prius contracti usum. — De 1. quaestione non est controversia; sed circa 2. primo controvertitur, utrum ab ipso exordio Ecclesiae, an tantum post prima saecula impedimentum ita valuerit, ut matrimonia in sacris ordinibus contracta essent non tantum illicita, sed etiam invalida, ut nonnulli putaverunt (cfr. Estius, hic § 1. 2.); secundo vero, utrum haec obligatio ad continentiam imponatur vi solius legis ecclesiasticae, an etiam vi voti annexi. Primam sententiam Scot. (hic n. 2. seqq.) defendit cum non paucis posterioribus; sed secundam esse valde probabilem respectu Latinorum, cum S. Bonav. tenet etiam S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 53. a. 3. 4.), licet Gotti (Theol., de Sacram. ord. q. 1. dub. 3.) eundem fere ad 1. sententiam trahere velit.

De 1. 2. et 3. quaestione praeter locos citt.: B. Albert., hic a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1-4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** On the twofold impediment, namely of *order* and of *vow* (the latter is treated in the following distinction), the Council of Trent (Session XXIV, canon 9) decreed thus: *« If anyone shall say that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract marriage, and that the contract is valid notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law or the vow; and that the opposite is nothing else than to condemn marriage; and that all can contract marriage who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even if they have vowed it — let him be anathema; since God does not deny it to those who rightly ask, nor does He suffer us to be tempted beyond what we are able ».* — That the impediment of order is of ecclesiastical law is what the common opinion, against a few, holds; yet it was established for grave reasons, intimated by the natural law itself and set out by our author in q. 3. Among the Greeks, however, sacred order does indeed impede marriage to be contracted, but not the use of a marriage previously contracted. — On the 1st question there is no controversy; but concerning the 2nd it is first disputed whether from the very beginning of the Church, or only after the first ages, the impediment had such force that marriages contracted in sacred orders were not only illicit but even invalid, as some have thought (cf. Estius here, §§ 1, 2); and secondly, whether this obligation to continence is imposed by the force of ecclesiastical law alone, or also by the force of an annexed vow. The first opinion Scotus (here n. 2 ff.) defends, with not a few later writers; but that the second is highly probable — as regards the Latins, with St. Bonaventure — St. Thomas also holds (here q. 1, a. 1, 2; Suppl. q. 53, a. 3, 4), although Gotti (*Theol.*, *On the Sacrament of order*, q. 1, dub. 3) would draw him nearly to the first opinion.

On the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd question, besides the passages cited: Bl. Albert here a. 1–3. — Peter of Tarentaise here q. 1, a. 1–4. — Richard of Middleton here a. 1, q. 1, 2. — Durandus here q. 1. — Denis the Carthusian here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands for printed pp. 802–803 (PDF 822–823; offset pdf = printed + 20), per the Vol II/IV cascade-shattered-OCR override. Raw OCR L85889–86032 (kept as `line_start`/`line_end`) consulted only for footnote-marker spacing.

**printed_pages corrected 801→802.** The skeleton frontmatter listed pp. [801, 802, 803]. The bands show **p. 801 is entirely the Littera Magistri** (Notula; Calixtus; Cap. II *De interfectoribus suarum coniugum*; the *Commentarius* header begins at the foot of p. 801) — no q1 body. This quaestio (ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I header + full body + scholion) runs pp. 802–803 only. Corrected to [802, 803] / [822, 823]. Page 801 belongs to the divisio/littera chunk.

**Running-head note.** The auto-chunker's raw OCR garbled the p. 803 running head as `DIST. XXXVII. ART. I. QUAEST. II.`; the band confirms the left running head is `DIST. XXXVII. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` (the "II." on the right page-number side reflects QUAESTIO II *beginning* lower on p. 803). The solutio + scholion at the top of p. 803 are all QUAEST. I (mine).

**Footer hand-offs.** p. 802 footnotes 1–8 are all anchored in this q1 body (obj. 1–4, contra 1–4, respondeo) — claimed in full. p. 803 footnote 1 (2 Tim 2:4, anchored at *implicare* in the solutio) is claimed here; **p. 803 footnotes 2–8 hand off to a1-q2**, whose body (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum sacer ordo matrimonium impediat…`) begins in the lower half of p. 803 and carries markers 2–8.

**Scholion disposition.** The Article I scholion is a **single numbered section (§ I)** printed at the foot of p. 803 spanning both columns; it treats all three Art. I questions (explicit "De 1. quaestione…", "circa 2…", and the combined doctor-list "De 1. 2. et 3. quaestione"). Rendered here in full, both languages, as the last subsection of both `## Latin` and `## English`. Siblings a1-q2 and a1-q3 carry no scholion.

**[?] flags.** None. Bands were clean at this dpi (Trent canon, Estius/Scot./Thom./Gotti citations, and the doctor-lists all legible).


title: Dist. 37, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt:
Utrum sacer ordo matrimonium impediat
Whether sacred order impedes marriage

source_text:
<!-- page 803 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum sacer ordo matrimonium impediat.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum sacer ordo matrimonium impediat. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per auctoritates multas, quas adducit Magister in littera[^p803-2], et sumuntur plures de distinctione trigesima secunda.

2. Item, in *Extra, de Clericis coniugatis*[^p803-3], Alexander tertius: «Si in subdiaconatu et aliis superioribus ordinibus uxores accepisse noscuntur, eos uxores dimittere compellere procuretis».

3. Item, omnis qui non vovet continentiam, est ineptus ad sacros ordines; sed qui habent uxores, sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc. Probatio maioris: Gregorius dicit, et habetur in littera[^p803-4]: «Nullum subdiaconum facere praesumant episcopi, nisi qui se promisit caste victurum»: ergo si qui promittit in manu episcopi continentiam, ipse vovet et tenetur, patet etc.

4. Item, in sacris ordinibus ministrant circa altare; sed sanctius est altare novae legis et sacrificium quam legis figurae; sed sacerdos, cum ingrediebatur sancta sanctorum, tenebatur a coniuge abstinere, sicut dicitur in Exodo[^p803-5]: ergo multo fortius ministri altaris nunc: ergo qui iugiter ministrant nunquam debent mulieribus adhaerere.

**Contra:**
1. Virtus nullam habet oppositionem cum virtute[^p803-6], ergo nec Sacramentum cum Sacramento; sed quod non habet oppositionem cum alio non praestat ei impedimentum: ergo ordinis Sacramentum nullo modo impedit matrimonium.

2. Item, oppositio est relatio aequiparantiae[^p803-7]: ergo si unum Sacramentum repugnat et impedit susceptionem alterius, pari ratione et e converso; sed matrimonium non impedit susceptionem ordinis, quia multi coniugati promoti sunt in episcopos: ergo nec ordo sacer impedit matrimonium.

3. Item, idem est ordo apud nos et apud Ecclesiam orientalem; sed apud illos ordo non impedit matrimonium, nec e converso[^p803-8]: ergo nec apud

<!-- page 804 -->
nos. *Si tu dicas*, quod apud nos est superadiectum votum, ratione cuius impedit; tunc videtur, quod impedimentum ordinis non differat ab impedimento voti.

> **Conclusio.** Sacer ordo impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit contractum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio, sicut sacri canones dicunt, sacer ordo impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit iam contractum.

Verumtamen quantum ad modum dicendi sive intelligendi inter doctores diversos diversitas opinionum resultat.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod ordo sacer impedit matrimonium propter *votum annexum*, ad quod obligatur qui suscipit ordinem sacrum. — Sed quoniam in susceptione ordinis non videtur voti emissio, aut si est emissio quantum ad *factum*, quamvis non sit quantum ad *verbum*; non videtur tunc differre ab impedimento voti; hoc falsum est, quia apud Graecos non est votum continentiae, quia illi sacerdotes licite utuntur uxoribus, et tamen nullus potuit nec potest in sacris ordinibus constitutus contrahere, sicut ex Synodo sexta[^p804-1] habetur, quae celebrata fuit apud eos, in qua se huic statuto subiecerunt praeter votum continentiae.

Ideo aliorum est opinio, quod ordo praestat impedimentum ratione *statuti ecclesiastici*, quod ligat clericos suscipientes ordines ad nunquam contrahendum.

Sed quoniam auctoritates canonum inveniuntur, quae utrumque sonare videntur, et quod in susceptione ordinis est solemnizatio voti; ideo dicendum et melius, quod etsi apud Graecos impediat, hoc non est nisi ratione statuti; et sic impedivit, ut dicunt quidam, a tempore Apostolorum[^p804-2]; tamen apud Latinos impedit et ratione statuti et ratione voti. Sicut enim ordo monachorum et habitus continentiam habet annexam per illum qui habitum instituit et regulam edidit monachalem; et ideo qui profitetur et suscipit habitum dicitur emittere votum consequenter: sic ordo apud Latinos ex ecclesiastica institutione habet inseparabiliter continentiam annexam; et ideo qui illum suscipit spontanee se obligat, ita quod illa obligatio procedit ex statuto pariter et ex voto. — Et sic patet, quod impedit et qualiter impedit.

**Ad argumenta:**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod virtus cum virtute non habet oppositionem; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad *habitum*; sed tamen *status* aliquando sunt incompossibiles, ut coniugalis et virginalis[^p804-3]. Et quoniam Sacramenta diversa *status* diversos respiciunt, ut ordo statum continentiae virginalis vel vidualis, matrimonium statum continentiae coniugalis; hinc est, quod impedit, sicut status saecularis et religiosus suo modo opponuntur.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod matrimonium non impedit ordinem; dicendum, quod verum est, si uxor fuit virgo et vult continere; sed tamen non est simile: quia *processus* in virtutibus est a statu imperfectiori ad perfectiorem, sed non debet esse *reditus*; et quoniam matrimonium collocat in statu imperfectionis, ordo vero in statu perfectionis: ideo etc.; sicut de saeculo ad religionem licet ascendere, non descendere.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, iam patet responsio: quia statutum Ecclesiae abundantius arctat Latinos quam Graecos, licet illos aliquo modo arctet; et hoc, quia Latini voluerunt se subiicere et plicare, Graeci vero in sua ruditate remanere, et ideo usque hodie in suis faecibus remanserunt[^p804-4]. Patet etiam, quod non solum ratione voti impedit, sed etiam ratione statuti ecclesiastici[^p804-5].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether sacred order impedes marriage.*

Secondly it is asked whether sacred order impedes marriage. And that it does, it seems:

1. By the many authorities which the Master adduces in the text[^p803-2], and more are taken from the thirty-second distinction.

2. Likewise, in the *Decretals, On Married Clerics*[^p803-3], Alexander III: «If in the subdiaconate and the other higher orders they are known to have taken wives, see to it that you compel them to dismiss their wives».

3. Likewise, everyone who does not vow continence is unfit for the sacred orders; but those who have wives are of this kind: therefore etc. Proof of the major: Gregory says, and it is found in the text[^p803-4]: «Let bishops presume to make no one a subdeacon, except one who has promised to live chastely»: therefore if someone promises continence into the bishop's hand, he vows and is bound, it is evident, etc.

4. Likewise, in the sacred orders they minister at the altar; but the altar and sacrifice of the new law are holier than [those of] the figure of the law; but the priest, when he entered the holy of holies, was bound to abstain from his spouse, as is said in Exodus[^p803-5]: therefore much more the ministers of the altar now: therefore those who minister continually ought never to cleave to women.

**On the contrary:**
1. Virtue has no opposition to virtue[^p803-6], therefore neither has Sacrament to Sacrament; but what has no opposition to another does not furnish it an impediment: therefore the Sacrament of order in no way impedes marriage.

2. Likewise, opposition is a relation of equiparance[^p803-7]: therefore if one Sacrament conflicts with and impedes the reception of the other, by equal reasoning also conversely; but marriage does not impede the reception of order, since many married men have been promoted to bishops: therefore neither does sacred order impede marriage.

3. Likewise, order is the same among us and in the Eastern Church; but among them order does not impede marriage, nor conversely[^p803-8]: therefore neither among

nos. *If you say* that among us a vow is superadded, by reason of which it impedes; then it seems that the impediment of order does not differ from the impediment of the vow.

> **Conclusion.** Sacred order impedes the marriage to be contracted and dissolves the contracted one.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt, as the sacred canons say, sacred order impedes the marriage to be contracted and dissolves the one already contracted.

Nevertheless, as to the manner of speaking or of understanding, a diversity of opinions arises among the various doctors.

For some say that sacred order impedes marriage on account of the *annexed vow*, to which he who receives sacred order is bound. — But since in the reception of order there does not seem to be an emission of a vow, or if there is an emission as to the *deed*, although not as to the *word*; it does not then seem to differ from the impediment of the vow; this is false, because among the Greeks there is no vow of continence, since those priests lawfully make use of wives, and yet no one established in the sacred orders could nor can contract [marriage], as is had from the sixth Synod[^p804-1], which was celebrated among them, in which they subjected themselves to this statute apart from a vow of continence.

Therefore it is the opinion of others that order furnishes the impediment by reason of the *ecclesiastical statute*, which binds clerics receiving orders never to contract.

But since authorities of the canons are found which seem to sound both ways, and [since] in the reception of order there is a solemnization of a vow; therefore it must be said, and better, that although among the Greeks it impedes, this is only by reason of the statute; and thus it has impeded, as some say, from the time of the Apostles[^p804-2]; yet among the Latins it impedes both by reason of the statute and by reason of the vow. For just as the order of monks and the habit has continence annexed through him who instituted the habit and issued the monastic rule; and therefore he who professes and receives the habit is said to emit a vow consequently: so order among the Latins, by ecclesiastical institution, has continence inseparably annexed; and therefore he who receives it binds himself spontaneously, so that that obligation proceeds from the statute equally and from the vow. — And thus it is evident that it impedes, and how it impedes.

**To the arguments:**
*To 1.* To that then which is objected, that virtue has no opposition to virtue; it must be said that this is true as to the *habit*; but nevertheless *states* are sometimes incompossible, as the conjugal and the virginal[^p804-3]. And since diverse Sacraments regard diverse *states*—as order [regards] the state of virginal or widowed continence, marriage the state of conjugal continence—hence it is that it impedes, just as the secular and the religious state are in their own way opposed.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that marriage does not impede order; it must be said that this is true, if the wife was a virgin and wishes to be continent; but nevertheless it is not similar: because *progress* in the virtues is from a more imperfect state to a more perfect, but there ought not to be a *return*; and since marriage places [one] in a state of imperfection, but order in a state of perfection: therefore etc.; just as it is permitted to ascend from the world to religion, not to descend.

*To 3.* To that which is objected last, the response is already evident: because the statute of the Church binds the Latins more abundantly than the Greeks, although it binds the latter in some way; and this, because the Latins willed to subject and bend themselves, but the Greeks to remain in their crudeness, and therefore to this day they have remained in their dregs[^p804-4]. It is also evident that it impedes not only by reason of the vow, but also by reason of the ecclesiastical statute[^p804-5].

---

en: Here, ch. 1.

la: Libr. III. tit. 3. C. *Si qui* (I.). — Post *dimittere* cod. Z addit *et poenitentiam de commisso agere*, quod etiam textus originalis habet, subiiciens insuper *per suspensionis et excommunicationis sententiam*.

en: Book III, tit. 3, canon *Si qui* (1.). — After *dimittere* codex Z adds *et poenitentiam de commisso agere* ("and to do penance for what was committed"), which the original text also has, adding besides *per suspensionis et excommunicationis sententiam* ("by a sentence of suspension and excommunication").

la: Hic c. 1. — Pro *Probatio maioris* codd. communiter, sed male *Probatio minoris*.

en: Here, ch. 1. — For *Probatio maioris* ("Proof of the major") the codices commonly, but wrongly, [read] *Probatio minoris* ("Proof of the minor").

la: Respicere videtur [Exod.] 19, 22; cfr. v. 15. et 29, 30 cum Lev. 8, 33.: C. *Tenere debet* (4.), d. 31, in quo dicitur: *Nam si priscis temporibus anno vicis suae de templo Dei sacerdotes non discedebant* [Lev. 21, 12.], *sicut de Zacharia legimus* [Luc. 1, 8.]... *quanto magis hi sacerdotes vel levitae pudicitiam ex die ordinationis suae servare debent* etc. — Mox post *altaris* eodd. R S — V bb addunt *alterius*, cod. U *nostri*.

en: It seems to refer to [Exod.] 19, 22; cf. v. 15 and 29, 30 with Lev. 8, 33: the canon *Tenere debet* (4.), d. 31, in which it is said: *For if in ancient times the priests did not depart from the temple of God during the year of their turn* [Lev. 21, 12], *as we read concerning Zacharias* [Luke 1, 8]... *how much more ought these priests or levites to keep chastity from the day of their ordination*, etc. — Just after *altaris* codices R S — V bb add *alterius*; codex U [reads] *nostri*.

la: Vide supra pag. 753, nota 7.

en: See above, p. 753, note 7.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 492, nota 2.

en: Cf. above, p. 492, note 2.

la: Vide C. *Aliter se orientalium* (14.), d. 31.

en: See the canon *Aliter se orientalium* (14.), d. 31.

la: Sive potius *Quinisexta* (πενθέκτη, quia ipsa ex intentione Graecorum complementum *quintae* et *sextae* Synodi universalis constituebatur); eadem etiam *Trullana* (a palatio imperiali Constantinopolitano) vocatur et habita fuit an. 692. Cfr. C. *Quoniam in Romani* (13.), d. 31; C. *Si quis eorum* (7.), d. 32; C. *A multis* (9.), X. de Aetate et qualitate et ordine praeficiendorum (lib. I. tit. 14.), in quo Innocent. III. dicit: *Et ad similitudinem diaconi et presbyteri subdiaconus debet continentiam observare, sicut et in sexta Synodo constitutum est* etc. Idem in C. *Cum olim* (6.), X. de Clericis coniugatis (lib. III. tit. 3.), ait: *Nos igitur attendentes, quod orientalis Ecclesia votum continentiae non admisit, quoniam orientales in minoribus ordinibus contrahunt et in superioribus utuntur matrimonio iam contracto* etc. — Edd. cum nonnullis codd. *septima*.

en: Or rather the *Quinisext* (πενθέκτη, because it was itself, by the Greeks' intention, constituted as the completion of the *fifth* and *sixth* universal Synods); the same is also called *Trullan* (from the imperial palace at Constantinople) and was held in the year 692. Cf. the canon *Quoniam in Romani* (13.), d. 31; the canon *Si quis eorum* (7.), d. 32; the canon *A multis* (9.), X, On the age and quality and order of those to be promoted (bk. I, tit. 14), in which Innocent III says: *And after the likeness of the deacon and the priest, the subdeacon ought to observe continence, as was also established in the sixth Synod*, etc. The same, in the canon *Cum olim* (6.), X, On married clerics (bk. III, tit. 3), says: *We therefore, considering that the Eastern Church did not admit a vow of continence, since the Orientals contract [marriage] in the minor orders and in the higher [orders] make use of a marriage already contracted*, etc. — The editions, with some codices, [read] *seventh*.

la: Inter canones sanctorum Apostolorum, quos Graeci in praedicta sexta Synodo observandos statuerunt (cfr. praeallegatus C. *Quoniam in Romani*), canon 25. praescribit: *Ex his qui caelibes in clerum pervenerunt, iubemus, ut lectores tantum et cantores, si velint, nuptias contrahant*. — Superius pro *impediat, hoc non est nisi ratione* edd. *non impediat, hoc est ratione*, multi codd. omittunt perperam *nisi*.

en: Among the canons of the holy Apostles, which the Greeks decreed to be observed in the aforesaid sixth Synod (cf. the previously cited canon *Quoniam in Romani*), canon 25 prescribes: *Of those who have come into the clergy unmarried, we command that only lectors and cantors, if they wish, may contract marriage.* — Above, for *impediat, hoc non est nisi ratione* the editions [read] *non impediat, hoc est ratione*; many codices wrongly omit *nisi*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 33. a. 2. q. 1. — Inferius post *vidualis* edd. addunt: *matrimonium statum continentiae virginalis vel vidualis*.

en: Cf. above, d. 33, a. 2, q. 1. — Below, after *vidualis* the editions add: *matrimonium statum continentiae virginalis vel vidualis* ("marriage [regards] the state of virginal or widowed continence").

la: Ier. 48, 11: *Requievit in faecibus suis*. — Pro *et plicare* cod. K (1 a secunda manu) melius et forte primitus *et obligare*, cod. A *explicite*.

en: Jer. 48, 11: *He hath rested upon his lees.* — For *et plicare* codex K (1, by a second hand) [reads], better and perhaps originally, *et obligare*; codex A [reads] *explicite*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page-bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{803,804}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split_x 2120 for left columns, 1780 for right columns) per the VOL II OVERRIDE (two-column, cascade-shattered OCR; PDF authoritative for Respondeo/Solutio/footers). Raw OCR range L86033–86149 (reference only). English is a fresh literal parallel translation.

**Alignment verified.** The raw opener "Secundo quaeritur, utrum sacer ordo matrimonium impediat" (L86033) aligns to the printed QUAESTIO II. Its own `QUAESTIO II.` header is present on the printed page (p. 803, right column, above the title *Utrum sacer ordo matrimonium impediat*) though OCR-garbled/displaced in the raw; the opener alignment is correct — no q-swap.

**Pages verified:** p. 803 (opener + args 1–4 + Contra 1–3, left then right column) and p. 804 (Contra-3 tail "nos.", Conclusio, Respondeo, Ad 1–3, left then right column). Question ends at "ratione statuti ecclesiastici" (note p804-5); QUAESTIO III (*Utrum Ecclesia debuerit instituere…*) begins immediately after on p. 804 and is the next chunk (a1-q3).

**Scholion.** This quaestio renders NO scholion. The Art. I SCHOLION printed at the top of p. 803 (both columns, "De impedimento duplici…") covers all of Art. I and lives in a1-q1; `has_scholion: false`.

**Apparatus split (12 entries claimed):**
- Page 803 — 7 entries, p803-2 … p803-8 (my body). **Footer hand-off:** page 803's note **1** ("Epist. II. Tim. 2, 4: *Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus*") anchors on "*nemo militans Deo… saecularibus negotiis implicare*" in the SCHOLION's right column — it is a1-q1's, NOT claimed here.
- Page 804 — 5 entries, p804-1 … p804-5 (my body); page 804's footer sequence begins at note 1, all anchored in the Respondeo/replies.

**Shared-page boundaries.** First page (803) is shared with a1-q1 (q1 replies + Scholion occupy the upper page; my q2 opens mid-page). Last page (804) is shared with a1-q3 (QUAESTIO III opens below my closing line). Only footers anchored in my body are claimed here.

**[?] flags:** none. Two minor editorial expansions marked in-text with brackets: `[Exod.]` supplied in p803-5 (the printed note gives the verse "19, 22" without the book name, understood from the argument's "in Exodo"); the Greek gloss πενθέκτη in p804-1 is OCR-garbled in the raw and re-set from the band.


title: Dist. 37, Art. 1, Q. 3

title_alt: Utrum Ecclesia debuerit instituere ut sacer ordo impediret matrimonium

source_text:
<!-- page 804 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Ecclesia debuerit instituere, ut sacer ordo impediret matrimonium.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Ecclesia debuerit hoc instituere et per tale statutum clericos ad continentiam obligare. Et quod non, videtur:

1. *Primo*, quia matrimonium est in remedium concupiscentiae; sed hic morbus maxime viget in clericis, ut patet: ergo eis non debuit denegari remedium.

<!-- page 805 -->

2. Item, difficillimum est iuvenibus abstinere a mulieribus, et ideo continentia in eis pro martyrio computatur a Hieronymo[^p805-1]; sed lex nova debet esse lex levitatis et suavitatis: ergo etc.

3. Item, ad ea quae perfectionis sunt, debemus per *consilium induci*, non *mandato obligari*: si ergo abstinere ab omni muliere perfectionis est, non videtur, quod ad hoc debuerint clerici per praeceptum obligari[^p805-2].

4. Item, non est maioris perfectionis moderna Ecclesia quam primitiva; sed tunc non fuit indicta clericis continentia[^p805-3]: ergo nec modo debuit indici.

5. Item, cultus Dei ampliandus est; sed a nullis competentius ampliatur quam ab ipsis clericis, cultoribus Dei: si ergo clerici in sacris ordinibus constituti sunt cultores Dei, cum ampliatio cultus divini non tantum sit per generationem prolis spiritualis, sed etiam carnalis, quia nati de Christianis Christiani sunt; ergo videtur tunc, quod eis competat filios generare: ergo non debent arctari ad continentiam.

6. Item, praelatorum status dicitur esse perfectissimus, quia ibi simul iuncta est contemplatio cum actione: ergo cum status clericorum debeat esse perfectus, videtur, quod statui eorum conveniat non tantum generatio prolis spiritualis per verbum et exemplum propter statum contemplationis, sed etiam generatio prolis carnalis quantum ad statum actionis: ergo videtur, quod eis non debuerit matrimonium interdici.

Quaeritur igitur, quae fuerit ratio huius statuti. Et ad oppositum possent adduci rationes, sed illae clauduntur[^p805-4] in responsione.

### Conclusio.

> Licitum, decens et expediens fuit statutum Ecclesiae, ut clerici in sacris ordinibus ad caelibatum obligentur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod istud statutum de clericorum continentia fecit Ecclesia, quia *potuit* sive licuit, quia *decuit*, quia *expediens fuit*. — *Potuit* autem Ecclesia dupliciter, tum propter *auctoritatem praelatorum* et maxime Pontificis summi, tum propter *consensum subditorum*. Propter *auctoritatem* namque potuit, quoniam, etsi omnia Sacramenta respiciant in dispensante aliquo modo, tamen illud Sacramentum praecipue inter alia. In cuius signum in ordinis datione loquitur *ut potestatem habens*[^p805-5] ille qui ordines confert; unde et dicit: *Accipe potestatem* etc. Et ideo istud onus, quod voluit summus Pontifex huic ordini sive Sacramento alligare, *potuit* et sibi licitum fuit. — Sed huic *auctoritati* et potestati successit in Latinis *voluntas obtemperandi*, quia tale statutum super se libenter receperunt; et haec duo fecerunt statutum firmum. — Sed Graeci dederunt tergum; et quia non consenserunt in tam nobile statutum, ut vasa sua servarentur munda, ablatum est eis regnum et intelligentia Scripturarum et datum est *genti facienti fructum eius*[^p805-6]. Sic igitur patet, quod *potuit*.

Nec solum *licuit*, immo etiam *decuit*; et hoc propter duo: quoniam in *actu carnali*, qui est usus *matrimonii*, ut plurimum est *libido*, et in *cohabitatione* ut plurimum est *sollicitudo*; et *libido* sive carnalis delectatio reddit foetidum et immundum, et *sollicitudo* reddit divisum[^p805-7]. Et quoniam clericum in sacris ordinibus constitutum decet esse *mundum*, cum ferat vasa Domini; decet nihilominus esse *sollicitum* et attentum, ut sollicite et diligenter serviat Domino et studeat, quomodo placeat Christo: ideo *decens* fuit, eos ab uxoribus separari, ut per omnia fierent idonei cultores ministri altaris. — Si enim illi qui comedebant panes propositionis, vasa sancta habere debebant[^p805-8]; quanto magis isti qui Agno immaculato assistunt et dispensant et sumunt, omni puritate et sanctitate debent fulgere et vasa sua *custodire in sanctificatione* et *honore*, *non in desiderii passione*? Certe hoc non tantum *decens*, sed et etiam *decentissimum* iudicabit omnis anima, quae est templum Spiritus sancti.

Et non tantum *decuit*, immo etiam *expediens* fuit: primo propter vitandum *irregularitatis periculum*, secundo propter vitandum *latrocinium*. Propter vitandum *periculum*: quia, si mulier, quae est uxor alicuius, cognoscat alium virum, et ille vir post cognoscat eam, iam irregularis est[^p805-9]; et ideo, si uxor sacerdotis Graeci fornicatur, iam amplius nec cum ipsa nec cum alia potest rem habere. Et quia difficile est talibus abstinere, frequenter in irregularitatem inciderent et cum periculo ministrarent, si uxores haberent. — Secundo vero propter vitandum *latrocinium*.

<!-- page 806 -->

Si enim episcopi et archiepiscopi nunc filios haberent, omnia bona ecclesiastica furarentur et diriperent, ita quod pauperibus pauca vel nulla remanerent. Cum enim modo congregent et ditent nepotes quasi gradibus incomputabilibus ab eis elongatos; quid facerent, si haberent filios legitimos[^p806-1]? Unusquisque attendat, quantum esset periculum. Ideo providit Spiritus sanctus hoc offendiculum auferre, et Dei consilio hoc statutum fuit in Ecclesia sancta Dei, ut clerici ad sacros ordines venientes, nullo modo matrimonio possint uti.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod clerici indigent remedio; dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen non solum est remedium matrimonium ad vitandam fornicationem, sed multo nobilius est remedium macerare carnem[^p806-2]. Unde quando otium est, et nulla est carnis maceratio, sed nutritur et impinguatur venter; tunc praestatur fomentum igni luxuriae, et ideo aliquibus videtur difficile continere; sed si occuparent se bono exercitio et carnem macerarent, alio remedio non indigerent; et istud remedium est eis concessum, quia convenit eorum statui; aliud vero est remedium, quod non competit eorum caelibatui.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod difficillimum est abstinere iuvenibus ab actu carnis; dicendum, quod re vera hoc difficillimum est, quia qui *ignem abscondit in sinu*, quomodo potest eum ferre, ut eius plantae non ardeant[^p806-3]? Difficile autem est exstinguere ignem immittendo ligna, sed facillimum est superinfundendo aquam. Si enim vis continere, necesse habes mulieres effugere et carnem macerare, maxime si iuvenis es; quodsi hoc feceris et continentiam amare coeperis, fiet tibi non solum non difficile, immo per omnia facile. Cum enim dicitur, quod lex nova est onus leve, hoc dicitur ratione caritatis, quae cetera mandata facit facilia, qua qui caret valde difficulter potest onus portare[^p806-4].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de perfectione, dicendum, quod Ecclesia nullum compellit *absoluta impulsione*, sed *sub conditione*, quae est in voluntate hominis, scilicet si velit ordinem suscipere; et hoc non est compellere *simpliciter*, sed homo tunc se obligat, quando voluntarie sumit ordinem; oportet enim, quod accipiat ipsum cum suo onere.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maioris perfectionis[^p806-5] erat Ecclesia primitiva; dicendum, quod illi non competebat, tum propter personarum *paucitatem*, tum etiam propter *paupertatem*, tum etiam propter modestiam et honestatem: propter *paucitatem*, quia oportebat, clericos fieri de novo conversos, qui ut plurimum uxores habebant, nunc autem a cunabulis instruuntur. — *Amplius*, non erant *divitiae*, et ideo non tantum timendum erat de furto; sed post Dei dispensatione Ecclesia temporalia habuit, ne, caritate refrigescente tam in laicis quam in clericis, cultus Dei periret, qui dilatari deberet; et tunc oportuit continentiam indicere. — *Tum*, propter *modestiam*, quae erat in illis; sciebant enim uxoribus melius et temperantius uti. Et sic patet illud.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de ampliatione cultus divini, dicendum, quod tot sunt qui vacant de laicis multiplicationi carnali, tam pauci, qui sciant, possint et velint vacare spirituali, quod oportuit, haec duo officia dividi; et cum divisa sint, adhuc carnalis generatio multos habet ministros, et spiritualis paucos. Non enim timendum est, quod deficiat cultus Dei propter defectum generationis carnalis; sed multum timendum est, ne tepescat propter defectum spiritualis.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de actione et contemplatione, dicendum, quod quaedam est actio, quae iuncta contemplationi non eam impedit, sed faciliorem facit, ut sunt opera misericordiae et pietatis; quaedam est, quae mentem deiicit de arce, et talis est actio coniugalis, quia, sicut dicit Augustinus[^p806-6], «nihil mentem virilem adeo de arce deiicit, ut contactus membrorum femineorum»; et hoc supra tactum fuit. Et ideo dico, quod clericis talis actio non competit, sed actio quantum ad opera misericordiae; unde eis commissa sunt bona pauperum dispensanda, ut operibus pietatis intendant, *non ut curam carnis in desideriis faciant*[^p806-7].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the Church ought to have instituted that sacred order should impede marriage.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether the Church ought to have instituted this and through such a statute to bind clerics to continence. And that [it ought] not, is seen:

1. *First*, because marriage is a remedy for concupiscence; but this disease is most vigorous in clerics, as is evident: therefore the remedy ought not to have been denied to them.

2. Likewise, it is most difficult for young men to abstain from women, and therefore continence in them is reckoned by Jerome[^p805-1] as a martyrdom; but the new law ought to be a law of lightness and sweetness: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, to those things which are of perfection we ought to be *led by counsel*, not *bound by command*: if therefore to abstain from every woman is [a matter] of perfection, it does not seem that clerics ought to have been bound to this by precept[^p805-2].

4. Likewise, the modern Church is not of greater perfection than the primitive; but then continence was not enjoined upon clerics[^p805-3]: therefore neither ought it now to be enjoined.

5. Likewise, the worship of God is to be enlarged; but by none is it more fittingly enlarged than by the clerics themselves, the worshippers of God: if therefore clerics constituted in sacred orders are worshippers of God, since the enlargement of divine worship is not only through the generation of spiritual offspring but also carnal, because those born of Christians are Christians; therefore it seems then, that it befits them to generate sons: therefore they ought not to be constrained to continence.

6. Likewise, the state of prelates is said to be most perfect, because there contemplation is at once joined with action: therefore since the state of clerics ought to be perfect, it seems that there befits their state not only the generation of spiritual offspring through word and example on account of the state of contemplation, but also the generation of carnal offspring as regards the state of action: therefore it seems that marriage ought not to have been forbidden to them.

It is asked therefore what was the reason of this statute. And to the opposite [side] reasons could be adduced, but those are enclosed[^p805-4] in the response.

### Conclusion.

> Licit, fitting, and expedient was the statute of the Church, that clerics in sacred orders should be bound to celibacy.

**I respond:** It must be said that this statute concerning the continence of clerics the Church made, because it *could* or it was licit, because it was *fitting*, because it *was expedient*. — Now the Church *could* [do this] in two ways, both on account of the *authority of the prelates* and especially of the supreme Pontiff, and on account of the *consent of the subjects*. For on account of *authority* it could, since, although all the Sacraments look to the dispenser in some way, yet that Sacrament [does so] especially among the others. As a sign of which, in the giving of orders he who confers the orders speaks *as one having power*[^p805-5]; whence also he says: *Receive power* etc. And therefore that burden, which the supreme Pontiff willed to bind to this order or Sacrament, he *could*, and it was licit for him. — But to this *authority* and power there succeeded among the Latins the *will of complying*, because they willingly received such a statute upon themselves; and these two made the statute firm. — But the Greeks turned their back; and because they did not consent to so noble a statute, that their vessels should be kept clean, the kingdom was taken from them and the understanding of the Scriptures, and it was given *to a people bringing forth its fruit*[^p805-6]. So therefore it is evident that it *could* [be done].

Nor only was it *licit*, nay even it was *fitting*; and this on account of two things: since in the *carnal act*, which is the use *of marriage*, for the most part there is *lust*, and in *cohabitation* for the most part there is *solicitude*; and *lust* or carnal delight renders [one] foul and unclean, and *solicitude* renders [one] divided[^p805-7]. And since a cleric constituted in sacred orders ought to be *clean*, since he bears the vessels of the Lord; he ought nonetheless to be *solicitous* and attentive, so that he may serve the Lord carefully and diligently and strive how he may please Christ: therefore it was *fitting* that they be separated from wives, so that through all things they might become fit worshippers, ministers of the altar. — For if those who ate the loaves of proposition ought to have holy vessels[^p805-8]; how much more these who attend upon the immaculate Lamb and dispense and receive [Him], ought to shine with all purity and sanctity and *to keep their vessels in sanctification* and *honor*, *not in the passion of desire*? Certainly this not only *fitting*, but even *most fitting* will every soul judge, which is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

And not only was it *fitting*, nay even it was *expedient*: first on account of avoiding the *danger of irregularity*, secondly on account of avoiding *theft*. On account of avoiding *danger*: because, if a woman, who is the wife of someone, should know another man, and that man afterward should know her, he is already irregular[^p805-9]; and therefore, if the wife of a Greek priest fornicates, now no longer can he have relations either with her or with another. And because it is difficult for such [men] to abstain, they would frequently fall into irregularity and would minister with danger, if they had wives. — Secondly indeed on account of avoiding *theft*.

For if bishops and archbishops now had sons, they would steal and plunder all the goods of the Church, so that little or nothing would remain for the poor. For since now they gather and enrich nephews removed from them as it were by incalculable degrees; what would they do, if they had legitimate sons[^p806-1]? Let each one consider how great the danger would be. Therefore the Holy Spirit provided to remove this stumbling-block, and by God's counsel this statute was [made] in the holy Church of God, that clerics coming to sacred orders can in no way use marriage.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that then which is objected, that clerics need a remedy; it must be said, that it is true; but yet marriage is not the only remedy for avoiding fornication, but far nobler a remedy is to macerate the flesh[^p806-2]. Whence when there is leisure, and there is no maceration of the flesh, but the belly is nourished and fattened; then fuel is furnished to the fire of lust, and therefore to some it seems difficult to be continent; but if they were to occupy themselves with good exercise and macerate the flesh, they would not need another remedy; and that remedy is granted to them, because it befits their state; but there is another remedy, which does not befit their celibacy.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that it is most difficult for young men to abstain from the carnal act; it must be said, that in very truth this is most difficult, because he who *hides fire in his bosom*, how can he carry it, so that his soles do not burn[^p806-3]? But it is difficult to extinguish fire by casting in wood, but most easy by pouring water over [it]. For if you wish to be continent, you must flee women and macerate the flesh, especially if you are young; but if you do this and begin to love continence, it will become for you not only not difficult, nay through all things easy. For when it is said, that the new law is a light burden, this is said by reason of charity, which makes the other commandments easy, [and] he who lacks it can carry the burden only with great difficulty[^p806-4].

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning perfection, it must be said, that the Church compels no one *by absolute impulsion*, but *under a condition*, which is in the will of man, namely if he wishes to receive orders; and this is not to compel *simply*, but a man then binds himself, when he voluntarily takes up an order; for it is necessary that he receive it with its burden.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that the primitive Church was of greater perfection[^p806-5]; it must be said, that it did not befit it, both on account of the *fewness* of persons, and also on account of *poverty*, and also on account of modesty and honesty: on account of *fewness*, because it was necessary that clerics be made from the newly converted, who for the most part had wives, but now they are instructed from the cradle. — *Furthermore*, there were no *riches*, and therefore there was not so much to be feared concerning theft; but afterward, by God's dispensation, the Church had temporal goods, lest, charity growing cold both in the laity and in the clerics, the worship of God, which ought to be spread, should perish; and then it was necessary to enjoin continence. — *Then*, on account of *modesty*, which was in them; for they knew how to use wives better and more temperately. And so that is evident.

*To 5.* To that which is objected concerning the enlargement of divine worship, it must be said, that there are so many of the laity who are free for carnal multiplication, [and] so few, who know, can, and will be free for the spiritual, that it was necessary that these two offices be divided; and since they are divided, still carnal generation has many ministers, and spiritual few. For it is not to be feared, that the worship of God should fail on account of a defect of carnal generation; but it is much to be feared, lest it grow lukewarm on account of a defect of the spiritual.

*To 6.* To that which is objected concerning action and contemplation, it must be said, that there is a certain action, which joined to contemplation does not impede it, but makes it easier, such as are the works of mercy and piety; there is a certain [action], which casts the mind down from the citadel, and such is conjugal action, because, as Augustine says[^p806-6], «nothing casts down the virile mind from the citadel so much as the touch of feminine members»; and this was touched upon above. And therefore I say, that such action does not befit clerics, but action as regards the works of mercy; whence to them are committed the goods of the poor to be dispensed, so that they may attend to the works of piety, *not so as to make provision for the flesh in [its] desires*[^p806-7].

---

la: Epist. 130. (alias 8.) n. 5: *Habet et servata pudicitia martyrium suum.* Cfr. Epist. 22. n. 38. — Subinde respicitur Matth. 11, 30: *Iugum enim meum suave est* etc.

en: [Jerome,] Letter 130 (elsewhere 8), n. 5: "Even chastity, when preserved, has its own martyrdom." Cf. Letter 22, n. 38. — Thereafter Matt. 11:30 is referred to: "For my yoke is sweet" etc.

la: Plurimi codd. non inepte *alligari*.

en: Very many codices, not ineptly, [read] *alligari* ("to be bound").

la: Ita cod. K (I a secunda manu); multi codd. pro *sed* habent *secundum*, ed. 1 *et secundum*, insuper plurimi codd. cum edd. *illas claudendum* pro *illae clauduntur*.

en: So cod. K (I by a second hand); many codices for *sed* have *secundum*, ed. 1 *et secundum*, moreover very many codices with the editions [read] *illas claudendum* instead of *illae clauduntur*.

la: Matth. 7, 29 (Marc. 1, 22: «*Quasi* potestatem habens», quod habent etiam codd. G M U). Cfr. supra d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 4. ad 6.

en: Matt. 7:29 (Mark 1:22: "*As* one having power," which codd. G M U also have). Cf. above d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 4, ad 6.

la: Matth. 21, 43: *Auferetur a vobis regnum Dei et dabitur genti facienti fructus eius.* — Post *ablatum est* ex codd. B K (E I a secunda manu) supplevimus *eis*.

en: Matt. 21:43: "The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you and shall be given to a people bringing forth its fruits." — After *ablatum est* we have supplied *eis* from codd. B K (E I by a second hand).

la: Secundum I. Cor. 7, 33. — Subinde respicitur Isai. 52, 11: *Mundamini qui fertis vasa Domini*, et I. Cor. 7, 32: *Qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quae Domini sunt, quomodo placeat Deo.* — Inferius voci *ministri*, pro qua R S *ministerii* (cod. aa *ministerio*), cod. O praemittit *et*. In nostra lectione sume *cultores* ut praedicatum et supple *Dei*.

en: According to 1 Cor. 7:33. — Thereafter Isa. 52:11 is referred to: "Be cleansed, you who bear the vessels of the Lord," and 1 Cor. 7:32: "He who is without a wife is solicitous about the things of the Lord, how he may please God." — Below, to the word *ministri*, for which R S [read] *ministerii* (cod. aa *ministerio*), cod. O prefixes *et*. In our reading take *cultores* as predicate and supply *Dei*.

la: Cfr. I. Reg. 21, 4. seqq. — Seq. locus est I. Thess. 4, 5.

en: Cf. 1 Kings [= 1 Sam.] 21:4 ff. — The following passage is 1 Thess. 4:5.

la: Vide supra pag. 654, nota 1.

en: See above p. 654, note 1.

la: Cfr. C. *De Syracusanae* (13.), d. 28. et C. *Diversis fallaciis* (5.), X. de Clericis coniugatis (lib. III. tit. 3.). — Superius pro *ecclesiastica* plures codd. *ecclesiarum*, cod. E *Ecclesiae*.

en: Cf. the canon *De Syracusanae* (13), d. 28, and the canon *Diversis fallaciis* (5), X, On Married Clerics (bk. III, tit. 3). — Above, for *ecclesiastica* several codices [read] *ecclesiarum*, cod. E *Ecclesiae*.

la: Vide supra d. 34. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1, et I. Cor. 9, 27: *Castigo corpus meum et in servitutem redigo.*

en: See above d. 34, a. 1, q. 1, ad 1, and 1 Cor. 9:27: "I chastise my body and bring it into subjection."

la: Prov. 6, 27. seq.: *Nunquid potest homo abscondere ignem in sinu suo, ut vestimenta illius non ardeant? Aut ambulare super prunas, ut non comburantur plantae eius?* (Ita etiam cod. U). Ibid. 26, 20: *Cum defecerint ligna, exstinguetur ignis.* Eccli. 3, 33: *Ignem ardentem exstinguit aqua.*

en: Prov. 6:27 f.: "Can a man hide fire in his bosom, so that his garments do not burn? Or walk upon coals, so that his soles are not burned?" (So also cod. U). Ibid. 26:20: "When the wood fails, the fire will be extinguished." Sir. 3:33: "Water quenches a burning fire."

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 40. q. 3.

en: Cf. III Sent., d. 40, q. 3.

la: Edd. *quod non maioris perfectionis est moderna Ecclesia quam.* Eaedem edd. inferius pro *Amplius, non erant divitiae* [codd. I K *divites*] substituunt: *Propter paupertatem, quia non tantum abundabant tunc, quantum nunc.*

en: The editions [read] *quod non maioris perfectionis est moderna Ecclesia quam.* The same editions below, for *Amplius, non erant divitiae* [codd. I K *divites*], substitute: *Propter paupertatem, quia non tantum abundabant tunc, quantum nunc.*

la: Libr. I. Soliloq. c. 10. n. 17. Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. — Superius verbis *sed facit* ex codd. L Y interseruimus *faciliorem*.

en: Bk. I of the *Soliloquies*, c. 10, n. 17. Cf. above d. 31, a. 2, q. 1, in the body. — Above, to the words *sed facit*, from codd. L Y we have inserted *faciliorem*.

la: Rom. 13, 14: *Sed induimini Dominum Iesum Christum, et carnis curam ne feceritis in desideriis.* Cfr. Gal. 5, 16. et I. Petr. 2, 11. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Rom. 13:14: "But put you on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in [its] desires." Cf. Gal. 5:16 and 1 Pet. 2:11. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from vol4 PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{804,805,806}-{L,R}-*`, split 1880 for L, regenerated at 1780 for R and 2120 for L on pp.805–806 to defeat left-column/right-column clipping), reflowed column-by-column (L top→bottom, then R). Raw OCR L86150–86405 used only as a cross-check. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (824/825/826), confirmed by running heads (`DIST. XXXVII. ART. I. QUAEST. III.` on p.805; `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV / 806`).

**Alignment.** Opener "Tertio quaeritur, utrum Ecclesia debuerit hoc instituere…" (raw ~L86158) aligns correctly with QUAESTIO III — no q-swap. QUAESTIO III begins at the *foot* of p.804 (title + opener + arg. 1 only); the bulk of p.804 above it belongs to a1-q2.

**Page-break map.** `<!-- page 804 -->` = title, opener, arg. 1. `<!-- page 805 -->` at arg. 2. `<!-- page 806 -->` placed at the sentence "Si enim episcopi et archiepiscopi…"; the true break falls one word earlier, mid-word, at "archie‑|piscopi" (the sentence straddles the p.805/806 seam). Word kept whole; marker set at the nearest sentence boundary.

**Apparatus count: 16 total** — p.805 = 9 ([^p805-1]…[^p805-9]); p.806 = 7 ([^p806-1]…[^p806-7]). Both per-page sequences are fully within this chunk's body.

**Footer hand-offs.** p.804 footers 1–5 are **entirely a1-q2's** — none is anchored in q3's body (title/opener/arg. 1 carry no markers). Note p.804-5 "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." is q2's pointer to q1's scholion; q3's own scholion pointer is the separate note [^p806-7] "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest." Nothing from p.804 claimed here. No footers forwarded onward: p.806's last body marker ([^p806-7]) closes q3; Art II (a2-q1) begins fresh at the p.807 running head.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false` — the Art I scholion (covering q1–q3) lives in a1-q1; no scholion text appears in this range beyond the two cross-reference footnotes, which are rendered as apparatus, not as a scholion section.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed** (not Bonaventure's text): *Conclusio*, *De Graecis.*, *Item pro secunda.*, *Item pro tertia.*, *Notandum.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Ratio primi*/*prima* side-glosses.

**[?] flags:** none. OCR-garbled forms silently corrected against the bands (e.g. *raorbus*→*morbus*, *Lcclesia*→*Ecclesia*, *impedirct*→*impediret*, *cultus~Dei*→*cultus Dei*, *dehucrit*→*debuerit*).