Dist. 31
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-littera
----------------------------------------
### Cap. I. *On the three goods of marriage.*

After these things, it must be said concerning the goods of marriage, what they are and in what way they excuse intercourse. There are three chief goods of marriage; whence Augustine: « The nuptial good is tripartite, namely *fidelity*, *offspring*, *Sacrament*. In *fidelity* it is attended to that, after the conjugal bond, one not come together with another man or another woman; in *offspring*, that it be lovingly received and religiously reared; in the *Sacrament*, that the marriage not be separated, and that the man or the woman dismissed not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring ».

### Cap. II. *On the twofold separation.*

Now separation is twofold, namely *bodily* and *sacramental*. *Bodily*, spouses can be separated by reason of fornication, or by common consent for the sake of religion, whether for a time or right to the end.

*Sacramentally*, however, they cannot be separated while they live, if they be legitimate persons. For the conjugal bond remains between them, even if, departing from each other, they have attached themselves to others. Whence Augustine: « So far do the once-entered rights of marriage remain between the living, that they are rather *spouses* to each other even when separated, than [spouses] with those to whom they have attached themselves ». Likewise: « There remains between the living a certain conjugal bond, which neither separation nor union with another can take away, just as the soul of an apostate, as it were withdrawing from marriage with Christ, even with faith lost does not lose the Sacrament of faith, which it received in the laver of regeneration. For it would be restored to him returning, if he had lost it in departing. But he who has withdrawn has this to the heaping-up of his punishment, not to the merit of reward ». Likewise: « As for those who have resolved by consent to abstain forever from the use of carnal concupiscence, far be it that the conjugal bond between them be broken; rather it will be the firmer, the more they keep those covenants which must be more dearly and harmoniously observed — not by the pleasure-seeking bonds of bodies, but by the willing affections of souls ». — And note that the third good of marriage is called the *Sacrament*, not because it is the marriage itself, but because it is a sign of that same sacred reality, that is, of the spiritual and inseparable union of Christ and the Church.

And it must be known that by some a marriage is contracted which these three goods do not accompany. For *fidelity* is lacking, where a man is with another woman, or a woman with another man. « This good, then, so cleaves to marriage that from it, if it be present, the marriage is the more commended; if it be not present, the marriage is not on that account annulled. For she who is an adulteress is not on that account no wife; nay, if she were no wife, she would not be an adulteress; and when this happens, a fault is committed, yet the Sacrament is not made void. — The good of *offspring* too is not present to all spouses. For some by equal vow keep continence, others by defect of age, or for some other reason, are unable to generate. Nor do all those, even who receive offspring, have the *good of offspring* ». For the *good of offspring* is said to be not the *offspring* itself or the *hope of offspring* which is not referred to religion but rather to hereditary succession — as when someone desires to have heirs of an earthly possession — but rather the hope and desire by which offspring is sought *for this end*, that it be formed in religion. Many therefore have *offspring* who nevertheless lack the *good of offspring*; nor does the marriage on that account cease to be. — The *Sacrament*, however, so inseparably cleaves to the marriage of legitimate persons that without it the marriage would seem not to exist, because there always remains between the living the *conjugal bond*, so that, even with a divorce intervening for the cause of fornication, the firmness of the conjugal bond is not dissolved. But where a marriage is contracted not between legitimate persons, that good which is called the *Sacrament* is not present, because the coupling of such persons can be dissolved, of whom it will be spoken later.

But that there is a marriage between those who come together with conjugal affection, yet not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy lust, and that they are to be called not *fornicators* but *spouses*, Augustine shows, saying: « It is wont to be asked, when a male and a female, neither he the husband nor she the wife of another, couple with each other not for the procreation of children but through incontinence, for the sake of intercourse alone, with this fidelity between them, that neither she with another nor he with another do this — whether they are to be called married. And perhaps not absurdly can this be called a *wedlock*, if it has pleased them so between themselves until the death of one of them, and if, though they were not joined for that cause, they have nevertheless not shunned the generation of offspring, so as either to be unwilling that children be born to them, or even to do something by some evil means that they not be born. But if either both, or one of these two things, be lacking, I do not find how we can call this *marriage*. For if he has taken a woman to himself for a time, until he find another worthy of his honors or his means, whom he may bring into marriage, he is in mind an adulterer — not with her whom he desires to find, but with this one, with whom he so lies that he does not have with her marital partnership ». — Behold, they are called *spouses* who come together for the sake of intercourse alone, provided they do not by some evil deceit shun the generation of offspring.

### Cap. III. *On those who procure the poisons of sterility.*

But those who procure the poisons of sterility are not *spouses*, but *fornicators*. Whence Augustine: « Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to such a pass that it even procures poisons of sterility, and, if these avail nothing, extinguishes or expels in some manner the conceived fetuses within the womb, willing its own offspring to perish before living, or, if it was already alive in the womb, to be slain before being born. Assuredly, if both are such, they are not spouses; and if from the beginning they were such, they came together not by *wedlock* but rather by *fornication*. But if both are not such, I dare to say that either she is in a certain way the *husband's harlot*, or he the *wife's adulterer* ».

### Cap. IV. *When those who procure abortion are homicides.*

Here it is wont to be asked concerning those who procure abortion, when they are to be judged homicides, or not. — Then does the fetus pertain to homicide, when it is formed

and has a soul, as Augustine on Exodus asserts: « The unformed fetus, however, where there is no living soul, the law did not will to pertain to homicide ». Augustine also says that « the unformed fetus has no soul, and therefore [the offense] is punished by a fine, and soul is not rendered for soul; but to the already *formed* body the soul *is given*, it is not *born* in the *conception* of the body, derived along with the seed. For if it exists from the soul together with the seed and the soul, then also many souls daily perish, when the seed by flux does not come to birth. First the house must be framed together, and thus the inhabitant brought in. When therefore the lineaments have not been compacted, where will the soul be »? Likewise Jerome to Algasia: « Seeds are gradually formed in the womb, and for so long it is not reckoned homicide, until the elements, being complete, take on their shapes and members ». — From these things it appears that they are homicides who procure abortion when the fetus is formed and ensouled.

### Cap. V. *On the excusing of intercourse, which is done through the goods of marriage.*

When therefore these three goods concur together in some marriage, they avail to the excusing of carnal intercourse. For when, the fidelity of the marriage-bed being kept, spouses come together for the sake of offspring, intercourse is so excused that it has no fault. But when, the good of offspring being lacking, yet fidelity being kept, they come together for the cause of incontinence, it is not so excused that it have no fault, but a venial one. Whence Augustine: « Conjugal intercourse for the sake of generating has no fault, but for the sake of satisfying concupiscence, yet with one's spouse for the sake of the fidelity of the bed, it has a venial fault ». Likewise, that which married persons, overcome by concupiscence, use with each other beyond the necessity of procreating children, I would place among those things for which we daily say: *Forgive us our debts* etc. But where these goods are lacking, namely fidelity and offspring, intercourse does not seem to be defended from crime. Whence in the maxims of Sextus the Pythagorean it is read: « Every too-ardent lover of his own wife is an adulterer ». Likewise Jerome: « The wise man loves his spouse by judgment, not by passion; the impulse of pleasure does not reign in him, nor is he carried headlong to intercourse. Nothing is more foul than to love one's wife as an adulteress. Those who say that they are joined to their wives for the cause of the human race, let them at least imitate the beasts; and after the wife's womb has swollen, let them not destroy the children, nor show themselves lovers to their wives, but husbands ». The same: « In matrimony the works of children are granted, but the pleasures which are taken from the embraces of harlots are, in a wife, condemned ».

### Cap. VI. *On the indulgence which the Apostle grants.*

But if the intercourse which is done for the sake of offspring lacks fault, what does the Apostle permit by way of indulgence? For thus he says: *But this I say by way of indulgence.* For to whom is pardon granted except to fault? By this too some wish to prove that marriage is a sin. But, as has been said above, indulgence is one thing of *concession*, another of *permission*. The Apostle had treated of marriage and of carnal intercourse, and to both he referred that saying: *But this I say by way of indulgence.* For marriages are indulged by way of concession, and also *nuptial intercourse*, which is done only for the sake of offspring. But intercourse which is beyond the necessity of generating, on account of *incontinence*, is indulged by way of *permission*, because there some fault is present, but a slight one. And therefore it is neither *commanded* nor *conceded*, but *permitted*, because it is not *praiseworthy*, but *venial*. Concerning this Augustine thus says: « Perhaps someone will say: if the Apostle granted pardon, then marriages are a sin; for to whom is pardon granted except to sin? Plainly, what he permitted to infirmity *by way of pardon* I dare to say to be a sin; for in granting *pardon*, the Apostle regards the intercourse of the married, wherein is the evil of incontinence ».

### Cap. VII. *On the evil of incontinence.*

« The evil of incontinence is that a man knows his wife even beyond the necessity of procreating children, but even there is the good of marriage. For not because *incontinence* is an evil is *marriage* therefore not good, where there is intercourse beyond the intention of generation. It is not on account of *that evil* that *this good* is culpable, but *that evil* becomes venial on account of the nuptial good »; which the Apostle does not reprove, but the evil of incontinence. Likewise: « Intercourse which is not done for the sake of offspring, marriages do not compel to be done, but *obtain that it be pardoned*; provided, however, it be not so excessive as to hinder the times which are owed to prayer, nor be changed into that use which is against nature. For intercourse necessary for the cause of generating is inculpable, and it alone is nuptial. But he who goes beyond necessity obeys not reason but lust, and to render this to one's spouse — not to exact it, but to *render* it — lest [the spouse] fornicate, pertains to the spouse. But if both are subjected to such concupiscence, they do a thing which is not of marriage; of which offense marriages are not the *encouragers*, but the *intercessors* ». « The conjugal decorum, indeed, is

chastity, the fidelity of procreating and of rendering the carnal debt; this is the work of marriage, which the Apostle defends from all sin, saying: *The virgin does not sin, if she marry* ». « Since therefore intercourse is not culpable when done with the intention of generating — which is properly to be imputed to marriage — what does the Apostle concede by way of pardon, except that spouses exact the debt of the flesh, not with the will for propagation, but with the pleasure of lust, which pleasure nevertheless falls not into fault on account of marriage, but on account of marriage receives pardon? Immoderate progression, therefore, is conceded *by way of pardon*. Wherefore hence too marriages are praiseworthy, because they cause even that which does not pertain *to themselves* to be pardoned *on their account*. For this intercourse, whereby concupiscence is served, is not carried on that the fetus be fulfilled which marriages require ». « Altogether therefore in their own kind marriages are good, because they keep the fidelity of the bed and for the sake of receiving offspring join together both sexes and abhor the impiety of separation ». To the holiness of marriage, moreover, not even an unbelieving spouse can be a hindrance, but rather the believing one profits the unbeliever, as the Apostle teaches. — From these things it is shown that spouses who come together for the sake of offspring alone, or who render the debt to those exacting it, are defended from sin by the holiness of marriage and the nuptial good. « For if conjugal intercourse could not take place without sin, the Lord would not have commanded them after the flood to couple, saying: *Increase and multiply*; since now they cannot be joined without carnal concupiscence ».

### Cap. VIII. *On the delight of the flesh, whether it be sin, or not.*

But perhaps someone will say that all fleshly concupiscence and delight which is in intercourse is evil and sin, because it is *from sin* and *inordinate*. — And we say that that concupiscence is always evil, because it is *foul* and the *penalty of sin*; but it is not always *sin*. For often a holy man is delighted according to the flesh in some thing, as by resting after labor, by eating after hunger; nor yet is such delight a sin, unless it be immoderate. So also the delight which is in conjugal intercourse, to which those three goods are present, is defended from sin. — Yet blessed Gregory seems to feel otherwise, namely that carnal union cannot take place without sin, saying: « A man sleeping with his own wife, unless washed with water, ought not to enter the church. Although diverse nations of men feel diversely about this matter and seem to observe other things; yet the usage of the Romans was always, from the more ancient ones, after union with one's own wife, to seek the purification of the laver and to abstain a little from entering the Church. Nor in saying this do we reckon marriage to be a fault; but because that lawful union of a spouse cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh, one must abstain from entering the holy place, because that pleasure can in no way be without fault ».

This, however, that it may not conflict with the aforesaid, must be understood of those who come together not for the sake of offspring, whose pleasure is not without sin. And scarcely any can be found, yet experiencing carnal embraces, who do not sometimes come together beyond the intention of procreating offspring. And however often this happens, one must abstain from entering the church. And that it is to be so understood, Gregory consequently shows: « But if anyone uses his wife, not seized by desire of pleasure, but only for the sake of begetting children, that man assuredly, whether concerning entrance into the church or concerning the receiving of the mystery of the Lord's body, is to be left to his own judgment, because he ought not to be prohibited by us from receiving who, placed in the fire, knows not how to burn. But when not the love of procreating offspring, but pleasure dominates in the work of union, let the spouses have, even concerning their own union, something to bewail. But then the man who, after union with his spouse, has been washed with water, may even worthily receive holy communion, since it is permitted him according to the prescribed sentence to enter the church ».

---