Dist. 12, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3
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/4/d/12/q/bon-sent-IV-d12-p2-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether a man ought to withdraw himself from this Sacrament on account of bodily uncleanness.*

Thirdly, it is asked whether a man ought to withdraw himself from this Sacrament on account of bodily uncleanness. And that he ought to, it seems:

1. Because in the Law a woman who suffered menstruation was reckoned unclean; likewise a man who suffered a flux of seed, Leviticus the fifteenth; likewise a woman after childbirth, Leviticus the twelfth; and on account of these uncleannesses she was kept from entry into the temple and from eating the lamb: therefore it seems that much more strongly should men be kept from eating the true Lamb on account of bodily uncleanness.

2. Likewise, it is said *On Consecration*, distinction the second: "Every man ought, before holy communion, to abstain from his own wife for three days"; but anyone can be joined to his own wife without uncleanness of mind: therefore that saying was made only on account of uncleanness of body, and thus etc.

3. Likewise, Gregory says that "one polluted from a preceding thought ought not to approach"; either, then, this is on account of bodily uncleanness, or spiritual. Not spiritual, because on account of that thought, if pollution had not followed, he would not be impeded: therefore [it is] on account of bodily uncleanness.

4. Likewise, Deuteronomy the twenty-third: *You shall have a place* etc.; the Gloss: "God loves bodily cleanness; therefore he commands that nothing foul remain in the camp": therefore etc.

5. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because, if someone were to consecrate with unclean hands, he would assuredly sin, however holy he be: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, in this Sacrament there is not only something spiritual, but also something bodily: therefore there ought to be bodily cleanness.

**On the contrary:**
1. This food "is not the food of the belly, but of the mind": therefore one ought to withdraw [only] by uncleanness of mind alone, not of flesh.

2. Likewise, the uncleanness of venial sin displeases God more than any bodily uncleanness whatever; but on account of a venial sin committed one ought not to withdraw himself: therefore neither on account of any bodily uncleanness.

3. Likewise, bodily uncleanness, such as pollution, does not impede spiritual eating, which is more noble: therefore much less [does it impede] the sacramental [eating].

> **Conclusion.** Bodily uncleanness, joined with the spiritual, debars from communion; the other kinds of uncleanness do not impede except fittingly, according to degrees.

**I respond:** It must be said that bodily uncleanness is fourfold. A certain one is joined to the spiritual in truth, such as the pollution coming from a base thought, or from drunkenness. A certain one is joined to the spiritual by conformity, such as the pollution coming from a diabolical illusion, or from a superfluity of nature, in which an itching and a disordered delight is felt. But a certain one is *not* joined to the spiritual, yet generates a horror of uncleanness in the soul, such as the pollution coming from infirmity. And a certain one is purely bodily, generating no horror of uncleanness in the soul, such as the uncleanness on the foot.

The first uncleanness impedes, on account of the fact that a man ought to reckon himself unclean. Hence he who is thus unclean does not receive the Sacrament with reverence, unless necessity compels; and on account of the irreverence he is deprived of the fruit and incurs harm. — The second uncleanness, which is in the diabolical illusion, ought to debar fittingly; since, although it is not certain that the soul is there stained, nevertheless it can probably be doubted; and therefore he who reckons himself unclean does well. Hence Isidore, distinction the sixth: "Whoever is polluted by a nocturnal illusion, although apart from any memory of base thoughts he presents himself befouled; nevertheless let him attribute this to his own fault, that he was tempted, and let him at once wipe away his uncleanness with weeping." — The third uncleanness is indifferent, because it is only a penalty; and therefore it does not debar. If nevertheless one abstains by reason of horror, the devotion and reverence is to be praised; hence neither is a menstruating woman debarred nor even a woman after childbirth, as the laws say. Of the first you will find in the Decree, distinction the fifth; of the second, in the *Extravagantes*, the third book, *On Purification after childbirth*. — The fourth is simply indifferent among all these uncleannesses. The first impedes more, the last in no way; all nevertheless impede fittingly, according to degrees.

Hence if anyone should ask whether, always, when one is bodily polluted, he ought to desist: it must be said that if he feels that that befoulment has much inclined the soul, because in that act a man becomes flesh, whether in sleep or in waking, it would be advisable for him to show reverence to the Sacrament. But if he feels nature more disengaged, and furthermore devotion draws [him] to reception, and the solemnity too draws [him], or something which much recompenses; then I would judge that he can approach without remorse. — It must be granted, therefore, that not solely on account of the uncleanness of the flesh is one impeded, but because this uncleanness is joined to the uncleanness of mind; nor solely on account of the uncleanness of mind, because the thought quickly passes, but the uncleanness of the flesh leaves a horror behind and lasts longer and disorders [the soul]: and therefore, although the pollution be a venial sin, it nevertheless impedes more than another venial [sin], on account of the lastingness of the horror and the greater disorder.

1. To that which is objected, that bodily uncleanness, because bodily, impedes through the Law; it must be said that it does not hold, because the Law was given as a burden and as a figure, and by those uncleannesses the spiritual uncleannesses were signified.

2. To that which is objected concerning the joining with the wife, it must be said that it rarely happens that a man is joined according to that act, by exacting the debt, without there being some fault there; but if [it is] only by rendering the debt, I do not believe that he ought to withdraw except fittingly, or even for the sake of offspring: and this Gregory says, and it is had [in] Cause the thirty-third, question the fourth.

3. To that which is objected, why pollution impedes; it must be said that [it is] by reason of the pollution of the flesh joined to the pollution of the mind, because from this pollution he ought to reckon himself unclean and indisposed toward this Sacrament, for the aforesaid reason.

4. 5. 6. To that which is objected, that God loves bodily cleanness; it must be said that it is true insofar as it excites the devotion of the mind; on the contrary he abominates bodily uncleanness, which is a way to irreverence of mind; and such [uncleanness] does indeed impede. — And by this the following is clear, because a man does not handle the body of Christ with unclean hands unless he be one who applies little or no reverence.

To that concerning venial uncleanness, the solution is clear: because it does not last so [long], nor does the mind so abhor [it], nor does it so disorder [the soul].

To the last it must be said that in sacramental eating Christ comes bodily into the man, [but] not in spiritual [eating]; therefore it is not alike.