Dist. 26, 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/26/q/bon-sent-IV-d26-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether carnal intercourse belongs to the integrity of marriage as to signification and efficacy.*

Thirdly it is asked whether carnal intercourse belongs to the integrity of marriage as to *signification* and *efficacy*. And that it does, seems [to be shown]:

1. Because in the institution of marriage it is said: *They shall be two in one flesh*, and the Lord himself repeats it in Matthew nineteen; but this is not [so] before intercourse: therefore intercourse belongs to the integrity.

2. Likewise, Augustine says, and it is had in the text [of the Master]: «There is no doubt that that woman does not belong to the marriage, with whom no intercourse of the sexes is taught to have taken place».

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by *reason*: because marriage is a *sign* of the conjunction of Christ and the Church in a conformity of nature; but this [conjunction] is only in intercourse: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, marriage was instituted as a *remedy* for concupiscence; but this remedy is had only by those who are joined by marriage: therefore this remedy is not through continence, but through intercourse, since otherwise it would not be more of a remedy to marry than not to marry.

**On the contrary:** That it does not belong to the integrity as to *signification*, seems [to be shown]:

1. Because there was a perfect marriage between Adam and Eve before carnal knowledge, and beforehand he said: *This now is bone*, before he knew her: therefore intercourse does not belong to the integrity.

2. Likewise, there was a perfect marriage between Mary and Joseph, because there were present there the good of offspring, of fidelity, and of the Sacrament; and [it was] without intercourse: therefore etc.

Likewise, that it does not belong to the integrity in the character of a remedy, seems [to be shown]:

3. Because Augustine says that «the coupling of minds is holier than that of bodies»: therefore greater efficacy against concupiscence is given there in the mental union than in the carnal.

4. Likewise, in that act a man is made wholly flesh: therefore, on the opposite side, since grace, which is the remedy against concupiscence, makes [him] spiritual, it is never given in that act.

5. Likewise, in that act concupiscence is satisfied; but while it is satisfied, it is itself intensified; but that which intensifies concupiscence is not a remedy, but rather a poison: therefore carnal intercourse does not profit, but rather harms the remedy of marriage.

> **Conclusion.** *Carnal coupling does not belong to the integrity of marriage as to the being of necessity, but only as to the being of completion.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the *integrity* of a thing is taken in two ways, namely as to the *being of necessity*, or as to the *being of completion* or fullness. If we speak as to the *being of necessity*, it is true that the Sacrament of marriage has its being without carnal intercourse; but if as to the *being of fullness*, then it does belong to its integrity. And thus the reasons for the opposite sides proceed.

And this is made clear thus. For in marriage these three are considered, namely *sign*, *office*, *remedy*. As to *signification*, it must be said that its signification is twofold: for it signifies the conjunction of Christ and the Church through *charity*, and the conjunction through *conformity of nature*. — Likewise the *office* is twofold: one is of *mutual upbringing* and fostering, and the other of *procreating offspring*. — Likewise the *remedy* is twofold: one is as to the outflow of concupiscence, namely that a man not direct himself upon every woman; the other as to *disorder*, namely that he know the woman not from lust, but from love of offspring to be procreated or from marital affection.

The first thing signified, therefore, and the first *office* and the first *remedy* are in the Sacrament of marriage as to the conjunction of *minds*, but the second only as to the conjunction of *bodies*. And the first belongs to the substance of marriage as to *necessary being*; the second as to *full being*.

And thus the response to both sides is made clear, by distinguishing a twofold perfection or a twofold integrity, of sufficiency and of fullness. And according to this the jurists distinguish marriage, namely marriage *ratified* and marriage *consummated*.

To that, then, which is objected—that grace is not given in that act, therefore it is not a remedy against sin—it must be said that a remedy against sin is [such] in two ways: either because it frees from a sin already committed, and this is through the grace which is conferred in it; [or there is] a certain [remedy] which frees from a sin that would otherwise be committed, and such a remedy is marriage, since many weak persons would burn with concupiscence unless they had a wife, by knowing whom they escape the burning of the flesh; and in such [a remedy], as to *use*, it is not necessary that grace be given, although in that act a man can merit, as will be had below.

But to that which is objected last—that it is not for a remedy, but rather against [it], because it intensifies concupiscence in satisfying it—it must be said that he who knows his wife *duly* does not satisfy concupiscence, but rather withstands it, lest he burn; and therefore it is not intensified, but the fervor of lust is remitted in him. But he who knows [her] in order that he may *take pleasure*, does not know [her] matrimonially; and such a one does not have the remedy, but rather furnishes fuel to concupiscence.

---