Dist. 25, Dubia
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/25/q/bon-sent-IV-d25-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first the question is asked about what he says: *Nor from these to substitute anyone in a clerical honor, even a slight one.* For it seems to be badly said, because either this man has *an order,* or he has *nothing.* If he has *nothing:* then he will be able to be promoted by a catholic bishop with a dispensation, as is clear in the case of heretics. If he has *orders:* then he is already promoted.

**I respond** that he does not say this because a man is not *ordained,* but because he is *badly ordained.* Now one is badly ordained in two ways: either because he is ordained *by one from whom* he ought not, or because he is ordained *in a way in which* he ought not. In the first way, in three ways: either because he is ordained by a *heretic,* or by a *simoniac,* as here in the case proposed; for then, if he does so knowingly and shares in heresy or in simony, he cannot exercise the office nor is he easily dispensed, and this is what he means to say in the text. — Or he is ordained by a *catholic not his own* without the license of his proper bishop and without authority; such a one must be deposed, Cause 7, question 1, yet he can be dispensed, if such an ordainer places some hope in the ratification of the proper bishop. — Or he is ordained by a bishop who *has renounced his place and of**fice,* because such a one ought not to confer orders; but if he renounced his *place only,* he can give the minor orders and, by the bishop's license, can give all of them; and one who receives orders without the license of his proper bishop could be deposed by the rigor of law, yet he can be dispensed.

In the second way one is said to be *badly ordained* because he does not receive *in that manner* in which he ought; and then either *by theft,* or *by a leap.* If *by theft,* this is in two ways: either because he receives *two* orders and on the same day, so that he steals one of them, speaking of *sacred* orders; and the punishment for all such is deposition, as is said in distinction 77, *Subdiaconus,* Extra, *de Eo qui furtive, Innotuit* etc. But if he receives by theft *one only;* then either it *was forbidden* under the threat of anathema, and then the Pope alone dispenses, Extra, *de Eo qui furtive.* But if it *was not forbidden;* then he can be allowed to remain in the minor orders, and if he enters the cloister, the prelate can dispense with him. — But if he is ordained *by a leap,* this is in two ways: either from *malice,* or from *negligence.* If *from malice;* although he receives the character, nevertheless he must be deposed. If *in ignorance;* then, with a punishment imposed on him by the bishop, he will be able to be promoted to a lower order, while he is meanwhile suspended from the exercise of the higher, distinction 52, Extra, *de Clerico ordinato per saltum.*

Note also here that, although one may leap over one order, omitting another, nevertheless when the *priesthood* is passed over he cannot be a bishop, Extra, *de Excessibus praelatorum, Ex litteris,* at the end. But if he omitted the *diaconate,* he is a bishop, but he cannot give that order which he omitted, Cause 1, question 1. It is not so, however, in baptism, because it is the first Sacrament.

### Doubt II.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says, that *all are called simoniacs, both those who give and those who receive.* For it seems to be badly said, because Simon wished only to buy: therefore the buyers alone ought to be called *simoniacs,* and the sellers *Gehazites*. — Likewise, Gehazi did more than Simon, because Simon only wished to buy, but Gehazi sold: therefore they ought rather to be named from him.

**I respond:** It must be said that Simon wished to buy for this reason, that he might afterward sell; therefore both evil and sin are imputed to him, and therefore both are named from him.

To the objection concerning the will, it must be said that because this man, already in the time of revealed grace, wished to buy a greater and more spiritual power, and moreover wished to make a bargain: therefore he sinned rather gravely enough and more enormously than the one who sought out of a certain liberality, and who believed that it was a small thing; but the punishment of everlasting leprosy showed how great that crime was.

### Doubt III.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says, that *both are struck by the same sentence.* For it seems to be badly said, because the sellers sin more gravely, as it appears, because they value [the thing] less than the buyers do: therefore they ought to be punished more gravely. — The *contrary* seems true, because the buyer furnishes him the occasion and receives beyond the principal: therefore if the one who receives usury sins more gravely than the one who gives, it is clear, etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that as to the *kind* of sin there is uniformity, because each does injury to the grace of the Holy Spirit; but the sin is weighed as more grave according to the greater appetite and intensity of lust and according to the rank of the person selling and buying. For a bishop selling sins more gravely than a subject buying; yet because the kind of sin is the same, both are struck by the same sentence.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says: *But those who are ordained by simoniacs, whom, when they are ordained, they do not know,* etc. For it seems to be badly said, because such simoniac ordainers are irregular and have no power of exercise; and «*no one gives what he does not have*»: therefore they do not give the power of exercise. — Likewise, suppose that some simoniac, who is known to me, is tolerated by the Church, and he is my bishop, and I am compelled toward sacred orders: it is asked what I ought then to do. For if I am knowingly ordained by a simoniac, I am irregular and am punished as a simoniac. If I do not obey, I sin mortally and give scandal: therefore it seems that in such a case a man is *in a dilemma.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in the *first* case he has the power of exercise from the law, which on account of ignorance reckons such a one excused, but he has the order from a simoniac. In the *second* he ought, as far as he can, to escape it; but if he cannot, he suffers rather than acts, and is then held as excused. Hence he ought either to defer the orders, or to go to another bishop; but if he can do nothing else, he ought to bear it, and since the Church bears with it, he too ought to bear it and is excused, like one who is ignorant.

### Doubt V.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says: *Whoever sells one of these, without which the other is not had.* For it seems to be badly said, because the right of patronage is annexed to the estate inseparably: therefore since the right of patronage is spiritual and cannot be sold without simony, it is impossible that such an estate be sold without simony.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master is not speaking of *temporal things,* to which spiritual things are annexed; but on the contrary of *spiritual things,* to which temporal things are annexed, as is a prebend; and in such cases the word of the Master holds, not in the former. For the estate is not annexed to the right of patronage, but rather the reverse. — Or it must be said that he understands it of that which is so joined to the spiritual that it holds the place of the spiritual. But an estate or a farm, to which the right of patronage is annexed, truly holds the character of a temporal thing.

### Doubt VI.

Likewise upon what he says: *The simoniacal heresy is threefold,* it is asked: in what ways is simony contracted? And it is customarily said, in five ways, which are contained in these verses:

> *Money*, *tongue, fear, flesh together with popular fame*
> *Do not allow a spiritual thing to be given freely.*

Therefore according to this it seems that the Master insufficiently assigns three ways.

In connection with this the question is asked about the sufficiency of these ways. For since fame is a *good odor*, like a good example, it does not seem to be something temporal. — Likewise, in the old law the priesthood was held by right of kinship: therefore since that was not a sin, it does not seem [simony], etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that, properly speaking, simony is in the *price,* which indeed avarice intends, especially when a *bargain* intervenes, and this simony is here determined by the Master. And it can occur in three ways: because the price can be given in such a way that the simoniac does not receive it, inasmuch as it is given to those beside him; or it can be given by those beside the ordained man; or the ordained man himself can give to the ordainer, and then there is simony in the receiving of orders, and, properly speaking, in these three ways. — Or otherwise, because either *the ordained gives,* and *the other receives,* and then he is simoniacally ordained by a simoniac; or *this one gives,* but the other *does not receive,* and then simoniacally by a non-simoniac; or because *neither this one gives, nor the other receives,* but that man was otherwise a simoniac, and then he is ordained not simoniacally by a simoniac. — Within this the distinction of the *Master* is taken as sufficiently adequate, but in the *common* distinction of the ways *simony* is taken more generally, from which few today are immune in the clergy in respect of the multitude, as when the one who bestows orders bestows them from an indirect cause, or another from a disordered cause acquires either an order or a benefice; and these are the *five ways,* whose sufficiency is shown thus. If someone is disordinately moved, either from *fear wrongly humbling,* and thus there is one mode; or from *love wrongly inflaming,* and then — since love is threefold, namely the *pride of life,* which loves honors, and the *concupiscence of the flesh,* and the *concupiscence of the eyes* — under the *concupiscence of the eyes* is taken that [mode] which is in *money,* which comprehends everything earthly and base service. Under *carnal love* is taken another member, namely *the flesh,* which comprehends disordered love whether in respect of kinsfolk or in respect of others, as if someone, out of love for a harlot, were to promote the son of a harlot. But if [it be] as regards *pride,* in two ways: either as he seeks *favor,* like a hypocrite, and thus it is *favor* or popular fame; or as he seeks *to be praised,* and thus [it is] the *tongue.* And thus the sufficiency is clear. — Or so that the *gift* be distinguished — by the *hand,* by the *tongue,* and by the *heart* — and the motive twofold, fear and love, and thus there will be five modes. And through this the number and sufficiency are made clear.

To the objection concerning fame, it must be said that fame is a great good *to one not seeking it,* like a just man, but to one seeking it and laboring for it it is not a great good, like a hypocrite; whence Proverbs 10: *The memory of the just [is] with praises, and the name of the wicked shall rot.*

The objection concerning consanguinity is not similar: because the priesthood of the old law was carnal, but that of the new is spiritual. — And thus those things which concern this part are made clear.

---