Dist. 28, Art. 1, Q. 6
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/28/q/bon-sent-IV-d28-a1-q6
----------------------------------------
### Article Unique. Question VI. *Whether consent ought to be to carnal intercourse.*

Sixth and last it is asked, in what the consent [that makes marriage] ought to consist; and that it is in carnal intercourse, it seems:

1. Because Jerome thus says, that "for those who have vowed virginity, not only to marry, but even to wish to marry, is damnable"; but it would not be damnable, unless it were contrary to a vow; and it would not be contrary to a vow, unless they consented to the work of the flesh: therefore it was necessary to consent to that.

2. Likewise, in all the things to which husband and wife consent, brother and sister can licitly consent, except carnal intercourse: therefore if marriage cannot licitly be contracted between brother and sister, it is plain, etc. If you say to me that one must consent to conjugal intercourse, I ask what is called conjugal intercourse; and eventually one must come to this, that carnal intercourse is included there.

3. Likewise, Augustine says — and it is found below, in the thirtieth distinction — speaking of the most pure Virgin: "Committing her virginity to the divine disposition, she consented to carnal intercourse": if therefore no marriage is purer than that one, none holier, then in every case one ought to consent.

4. Likewise, if some woman should say: I consent to you, provided however that you do not know me, it is not marriage: therefore if that condition is contrary to the substance of marriage, then one is bound to consent to carnal intercourse.

5. Likewise, marriage was instituted for this, that they be two in one flesh: therefore it is necessary for this, that it be marriage, that they be united carnally either in the flesh or in the will: therefore there is no marriage without carnal intercourse.

**On the contrary:**
1. The Master says in the text, that "consent to cohabitation or to carnal intercourse does not make marriage."

2. Likewise, in the thirtieth distinction it is said: "Mary consented to marital intercourse, but not to carnal intercourse."

3. Likewise, Hugh expressly says this very thing in the book *On the Virginity of Mary*; and yet from her consent she contracted marriage: therefore it is not necessary to consent to carnal intercourse.

4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because no one who consents to the act of the flesh is a perfect virgin; blessed John was a perfect virgin: therefore he did not consent to the act of the flesh. And he consented to marriage because he was called by the Lord away from a wedding: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, no one who has vowed virginal continence can, without sin, consent to the act of the flesh; the blessed Virgin vowed [continence], as Augustine says, and she herself hinted at this in her response, which she gave: therefore she sinned, if she consented to the act, or to carnal intercourse. And it is certain that she married without sin: therefore, etc.

6. Likewise, it is possible for there to be between two persons a full and perfect marriage without carnal commingling: therefore it is possible for someone to consent to marriage without consenting to carnal commingling; if this can be so in reality and in effect, it can be so in consent and in cause.

> **Conclusion.** The consent that makes marriage is consent to the mutual power over one another's bodies, which, however, is given in one way in the contracting [of marriage], and in another way in the consummation of marriage.

**I respond:** It must be said that the opinion of certain persons was that, for marriage to be contracted, it is necessary to consent absolutely to carnal intercourse. And these say that the blessed Virgin and John consented, yet without sin; because John had neither vowed nor purposed to keep virginity; the blessed Virgin, because she had not vowed, but only purposed. — But this opinion does harm to the glorious Virgin, because, although it excuses from fault, it nevertheless diminishes

the glory of her virginity, so that the Virgin ought no longer to be called above all virgins; which our mind and hearing alike shrink from. Hence this opinion is quite fittingly rejected by Master Hugh.

The opinion of others — and this was the opinion of the Bishop of Auxerre — was that it is necessary to consent to carnal intercourse not in particular, but in universal; not explicitly, but implicitly. For one must consent to conjugal intercourse, which contains in itself four things, namely cohabitation, and mutual service, and the mutual power over each other's bodies, and carnal intercourse. — But this does not seem sufficient, because it is certain that the blessed Virgin well knew the law of marriage, and knew it explicitly, and thought about the act of spouses; therefore she either consented or dissented. If she consented, the first inconsistency returns; if she dissented, then she consented neither in general nor in particular.

The third opinion is that one must consent to carnal intercourse either absolutely or under a condition, namely unless God should otherwise dispose, or if it should please God; and in this way the blessed Virgin consented, as blessed Augustine seems to say, and this does not conflict with virginity. — But surely everyone who rightly consents, consents in this manner. Moreover, the consent that makes marriage is not conditional but absolute, especially since the condition does not hold; but God did not will the Virgin to be carnally joined to a man.

And therefore it must be said that the consent that makes marriage is consent to the mutual power over one another's bodies; and this is what the words mean when they say: I take you as mine [husband], or as mine [wife]; and thus the blessed Virgin and Joseph consented. — But it must be noted that the power over the body is given in one way in the contracting of marriage, and in another way in its consummation. In the contracting, it is given to one in such a way that it cannot, while that one lives, be given to another; it is likewise given to the other such that he has the right to ask [for the marital debt], and it is necessary to render it to the one asking, unless he should die to the world through the solemn vow of chastity and entrance into religious life. Since, then, the blessed Virgin knew by divine inspiration — or perhaps by Joseph's own report — that he would never wish to use the power over her body, but rather to guard her virginity; therefore she was able and bound to entrust or give it to him. She knew, too, that if he wished to exact it, he could contravene the vow by making it public; and thus that [difficulty] is resolved. — If, then, we wish to call this mutual power over the body "conjugal intercourse," in this way the blessed Virgin consented to intercourse, as do all who marry. But in the consummation of marriage the power is transferred altogether otherwise, in such a way that neither by private vow nor by solemn vow can it be opposed to the one asking for the debt. Hence the glorious Virgin consented to contract marriage, but she was certain that she would never consummate the marriage, and this she knew by revelation of the Holy Spirit, or by Joseph's report, or because she considered the publication of the vow; because in the Law it had been commanded to keep [a vow], but no one had dared to make this particular vow. And this is touched upon in that little book which Jerome translated, *On the Nativity of Mary*, which, although it is apocryphal, nevertheless contains many very true things.

1. To that, then, which is objected — that to wish to marry is said to be damnable — it must be said that Jerome speaks of those who wish to marry out of the wantonness of the flesh, and such people desire the union of bodies more than of souls.

2. To that which is objected — that in all things brother and sister, except carnal intercourse, can consent — it must be said that this is false; for they cannot give to one another the mutual power over their bodies; hence one can marry another, the other objecting.

3. To that which is objected — that Augustine says she consented to carnal intercourse — it must be said that this is understood in the sense that she consented to the mutual power over the bodies, which is ordered to carnal intercourse, but not of necessity; and the blessed Virgin consented absolutely to that mutual power over bodies, while the remainder — namely, the ordering to the act — she committed to the divine disposition, believing always that the Lord would keep her without stain. An example is the blessed Cecilia.

4. To that which is objected — that that condition impedes [marriage] — it must be said that this is true against the conferring of mutual power; for in consent to conjugal intercourse, power is given to ask for the debt, although one is not bound to render it at once, but has a way by which he may escape it; which, even though it was not known to all, was nevertheless known to spiritual minds; just as it is certain for us concerning the glorious Virgin, and it is more probably presumed concerning Joseph, since this is not a matter of positive law, but rather of divine law.

5. To that which is objected — that it is for the sake of carnal intercourse — it must be said that this is true, that the first and principal institution [of marriage] was for this, and yet this is not the whole reason or cause of marriage, as will be shown better below; indeed, it is also for the sake of faith, and of the sacrament, and of mutual upbringing; and this has been determined above, where it is treated whether carnal intercourse belongs to the integrity of the sacrament.

But let these things be said without prejudice, chiefly out of reverence for the Virgin; for we cannot deny that between Mary and Joseph there was a true marriage, since the Gospel Scripture says this, and all the Saints agree in this. Again, the piety of faith and reverence for the Virgin does not allow us to think that her most blessed and most pure and most whole soul was ever inclined, even a little, toward the act of the flesh; nor do I believe that she ever set herself in doubt about this. If anyone should say otherwise, provided he does no injury to the Virgin, no great effort need be made [to refute him]. One must, however, be diligent to see that the honor of Our Lady is in no way diminished by anyone, since even at the peril of life it ought to be kept whole.

---