Dist. 32, Art. 2, Q. 1
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/32/q/bon-sent-IV-d32-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the obligation of spouses in comparison with a supervening accident.*

Next, with respect to the second article, it is asked concerning the obligation of spouses as regards a supervening accident. And concerning this two questions are asked. *First* it is asked whether one must render the debt if the other becomes a leper. *Secondly*, whether one is bound to render the debt if the other becomes a fornicator, or vice versa.

### Question I. *Whether one must render the debt to a spouse if the other becomes a leper.*

And that one must render the debt to a leprous spouse, it seems:

1. Because the decretal, On the Marriage of Lepers, says: «Let wives follow their husbands, and husbands their wives, and minister to them with conjugal affection».

2. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because marriage is an insoluble bond, therefore it is not dissolved by an infirmity: therefore the power of demanding remains, even when leprosy supervenes: therefore if *the woman does not have power over her own body*, and so forth.

3. Likewise, lepers, if they are tempted to fornication, therefore can and ought to have a remedy: therefore if this man who has a wife cannot have a remedy unless she render the debt; it seems so, etc.

4. Likewise, lepers, by the very fact that they are lepers, are not bound to continence nor can they be compelled [to it]: therefore it is necessary that their wives be rendered to them.

**On the contrary:**

1. In Leviticus, chapter thirteen, it is commanded that lepers be cast out from the fellowship of the healthy: therefore, when the wife is healthy, [the leper] must by the Law be separated from the wife.

2. Likewise, leprosy is a contagious disease, therefore a disease which a person is permitted to flee: therefore a woman is not bound to cohabit with a leprous husband, and if this [is so]: therefore neither [is she bound] to render the debt.

3. Likewise, leprosy is a hereditary disease, therefore it is transmitted to the offspring: therefore, since coitus, which is the cause of deformity in the offspring, is against the good of offspring, and such [coitus] is forbidden: therefore in no way will it be lawful for a woman to have intercourse with a leper, or vice versa.

4. Likewise, just as leprosy renders one unfit for the reception of orders, so it renders one unfit for the administration of an order received: therefore, just as it renders one unfit for the contracting of marriage after betrothal, because it dissolves the betrothal; so it seems that it renders one unfit for the rendering of the debt.

> **Conclusion.** A leprous spouse has the right of demanding the debt, but the healthy one cannot be compelled to cohabit wholly.

**I respond:** It must be said that, although leprosy dissolves a betrothal, nevertheless it cannot dissolve a marriage; and therefore, when someone becomes leprous, he is both a spouse and a leper; and because he is a spouse, he has the right of demanding and of rendering the debt; but because he is a leper, he must dwell apart from the healthy: thus I say that the woman can render [the debt] to the one who demands it, but nevertheless is not obliged to cohabit wholly. Hence, as to what is said, that «husbands should follow their wives and minister to them», it is said by way of *admonition*, not of precept; nor can the healthy one be compelled to anything other than to render the debt to the infirm, and this on account of the danger of fornication. — And thus the reasons proving that he ought to render the debt are to be granted.

**To the contrary [arguments]:**

*To 1 and 2.* To the two reasons to the contrary the response is clear: because it does not follow, if one is not bound *to cohabit*, that neither [is one bound] *to render the debt*.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning offspring, it must be said that it is otherwise in *menstruating women* and in *lepers*. For *menstruating women* can at another time procreate good offspring, but *lepers* cannot, nor do they at all act against [the good of offspring], because, as far as in them lies, they would gladly beget a healthy [child]; yet for the offspring already begotten it is better to be thus than not to be at all.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning irregularity, it must be said that it is not similar: because both belong to fittingness, namely that one receive an order and that one administer in the order received. But to *contract* marriage is a matter of liberty, whereas to *render the right* [of the debt] is a matter of necessity, on account of the insolubility of the bond. And thus is clear that which he objects.

---