Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 2
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/31/q/bon-sent-IV-d31-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether conjugal intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication can be without all venial sin.*

Secondly it is asked whether conjugal intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication can be without all venial sin. And that it cannot, is shown thus:

1. So says Augustine, and it is contained in the text: "This, that married persons, overcome by concupiscence, make use of one another beyond the necessity of procreating children — this I shall place among those things for which we daily say: *Forgive us our debts*."

2. Likewise, in the first [Letter] to the Corinthians, the seventh [chapter]: *Return again to the same, lest Satan tempt you because of [your] incontinence; but this I say by way of indulgence, not by way of command*; but if it were meritorious and one could thus without sin know his wife, it ought not only to be indulged, but even commanded.

3. Likewise, Gregory says that a man who has known his wife ought not to enter the church unless he is washed; and afterwards he says that this ordinance is not extended to those who know their wives out of love of offspring alone: therefore some greater fault is in those who know [their wives] for the sake of avoiding fornication; but only a venial one: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, one who knows [his wife] in order to avoid fornication is either *driven* by the flesh, or *not*. If he is *not driven*: then he uses a remedy when he does not need it: therefore there is some disorder there, therefore [it is] venial. If he is *driven*; but such an impulse is not without sin: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine: "The weakness of the flesh is excepted through the good of marriage, lest it fall into the pit of sin"; but when one has intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication, the weakness of the flesh moves [him]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because one who uses something for that for which it exists can do this without sin; but marriage exists for the sake of avoiding fornication: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, continence is a greater good than offspring: therefore it is more permitted and more of a duty to love continence than offspring; but one who has intercourse out of love of procreating offspring can [do so] without sin: therefore likewise one who [does so] out of love of preserving continence.

4. Likewise, one who has intercourse out of love of preserving continence in another does not sin, as when a husband renders the debt to his wife lest she fall into fornication: therefore if he ought not to be more solicitous about another's continence than about his own, it is evident, etc.

> **CONCLUSION.** *The use of marriage for the sake of avoiding incontinence in another is excused from all fault, but for the sake of avoiding the same in oneself it is a venial sin.*

**I respond:** It must be said that one who has intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication does so either *in himself* or *in another*. If *in another*, so as to render the debt, this belongs to pure justice, this belongs to fidelity and is among the goods of marriage; rightly therefore he is entirely excused from fault. — But one who has intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication *in himself*, in this always sins *venially*: because either he is impelled by the flesh, or, if he is not impelled, since he does not wish to procreate offspring nor is he compelled to render the debt, there is some excess there, and therefore he sins. And *if you object* that it is permitted for a man to drink lest he thirst, so too [it is permitted] to have intercourse without sin lest he crave to fornicate; it is not similar: because here there is a movement of nature and of necessity, but in intercourse there is not; and this the Master says in the following distinction, in the first chapter: "To render the conjugal debt is no crime, but to demand [it] beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault."

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Augustine, it must be said that by *the pit of sin* he means mortal sin.

2. To that which is objected, that it exists for this; I say that it exists for this *by way of indulgence, not by way of command*; and therefore [it is] a venial sin, and in this it is ordered.

3. To that which is objected, that continence is a greater good; I say that preserving continence can happen without this, but not procreating offspring.

4. To that which is objected, that continence to be preserved is in another without fault; I say that there is no argument *from the lesser*, but *from the greater*, because there is an act of justice, by reason of which one is bound and excused, not by reason of love of continence.

---