Dist. 20, Art. 1, Q. 4
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/20/q/bon-sent-II-d20-a1-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *Whether in the act of intercourse in the state of innocence there would have been a corruption of integrity.*

Fourthly it is asked, whether in that act of intercourse there would have been a corruption of integrity. And that there would not, it seems:

**To the opposite side:**

1. *First*, through Augustine, in the fourteenth book of *On the City of God*: "Without any corruption of integrity the husband would be poured forth into the lap of the wife." Therefore it seems that, if man had stood [in his original condition], there would have been no corruption of integrity.

2. *Likewise*, wherever there is a corruption of integrity in a thing having sense, there is suffering or pain, because "pain is the sense of the division of parts," as the Philosopher says. If therefore in that act there had been a corruption of integrity, since it would have been in a thing having sense, there would by consequence nonetheless have been a suffering of pain; but this suffering could not exist in nature standing [unfallen]: therefore neither a corruption of integrity.

3. *Likewise*, wherever there is a corruption of integrity, there is a loss of virginal dignity; but if man had stood, in that act there would have been no loss of any dignity: therefore neither a violation of integrity.

4. *Likewise*, the corruption of integrity is a principle of destruction and a disposing toward death; for immortality bespeaks integrity and excludes corruption. If therefore, that state remaining, both man and woman were immortal: therefore they could not lose integrity through any corruption.

**On the contrary. — Foundations:**

1. It is impossible that the seed be received and emitted except through an opening of the passages; but in the act of generation there would have been a commingling of seeds: therefore there would also have been an opening of the passages. If therefore in the opening of the passages there is a violation of virginal integrity: therefore etc.

2. *Likewise*, although natural things have been worsened, they have not been taken away: therefore just as now the husband is commingled with the wife, so also then; but now it cannot be commingled without corruption of integrity: therefore neither then.

3. *Likewise*, that any virgin has conceived is a miracle and proper to the Mother of Christ alone; if therefore a miracle is above nature and contrary to nature, it seems that, nature standing, no woman could conceive while virginity and bodily integrity remained.

4. *Likewise*, the woman could not give birth with the integrity of the enclosures preserved, because the fetus could not come forth except through an opened door; for to come forth through a closed door is proper to Christ alone and naturally impossible: if therefore there would be a corruption of integrity in birth, by parity of reasoning also in conception.

> **Conclusion.** In the state of innocence, if the husband had known his wife, there would have been an opening of the enclosures, yet without pain and foulness.

**I respond:** It must be noted that the proposed question has more curiosity than utility: because, however, it has its origin in the words of Augustine, for that reason it has been introduced, chiefly for the sake of explaining that saying in which he says that the husband would be commingled with the wife without any corruption of integrity; which indeed does not seem to be intelligible. For if the woman remained intact, there would never be a carnal commingling of the man with the woman. — *On account of which it must be understood* that corruption of integrity says three things, namely the opening of the enclosures, painful suffering, and foul delight. The first belongs to nature, the second belongs to penalty, the third indeed belongs to vicious corruption, which holds the middle between fault and penalty.

If therefore the husband had known his wife in the time of nature as instituted, there would have been there an opening of the enclosures,

sicut ostendunt rationes secundo inductae — as the reasons brought forward second show; yet there would not have been there a penal suffering and a foul delight, because the generative power would neither have been corrupted nor have been infected; rather those members would obey reason, as Augustine says, just as the mouth, the hands, and the tongue obey. Hence just as the hand is opened and is closed, and the mouth is opened and is closed, and there is no suffering or pain there nor foul delight, so it would have been in nature; nor would it have been more shameful then to speak about these members than it is to speak about others. For now it is shameful to speak about it on this account, that nature shudders and blushes at that act by reason of the foulness which consists in it.

**To the reasons against:** And thus the response is plain to the reasons on the opposite side. For all proceed according to the sense in which corruption sounds of violence and penality, and of delight and foulness; and thus diminishes virginal dignity. And this is plain to one who works through them one by one.

---