Dist. 39, Dubia
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/39/q/bon-sent-IV-d39-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says, that *it evidently appears that marriage cannot be contracted by those who are of a different faith.* For from this it seems that, if someone wishes to be baptized and is a believer, then even before baptism a marriage could be contracted with him.

**I respond:** It must be said that "faith" is taken not so much for the *habit of believing* as it is taken for the *Sacrament of faith*; and this is proved by that which is said in Cause 28, question 1, *Beware, Christian*, and below: « If she is a Christian, it is not enough, unless you are both initiated by the Sacrament of baptism ». Hence Hugh was of this opinion, that this is understood with respect to the Sacrament of baptism, namely disparity of worship. Although, therefore, such a person may have faith, yet because he does not have the Sacrament of faith, he is for that reason not a legitimate person for contracting [marriage].

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *The Apostle, that it may not happen, urges [it] by the counsel of charity.* For it seems to be said badly, since from this it seems that a believer could lawfully cohabit with an unbeliever. But *on the contrary*: Cause 28, question 1, *The Jews* etc.: « An unbeliever cannot remain in union with her whose faith has already been translated into the Christian [faith] »; and in the two following chapters the same is said.

**I respond:** It must be said that on this point some have wished to distinguish, [saying] that that [saying] of the Apostle is understood of the *pagans*, who are more easily converted to the faith. But that canon is understood of the *Jews*, who are so obstinate that they would rather pervert the converts than make progress through them. — But since now all are obstinate in malice, that distinction has no place now, but [it had place] in the beginning, when both Jews and Gentiles were everywhere being converted to the faith and, with a little help, the Apostle then granted and counseled cohabitation for the salvation of the spouses. — But afterward the Jews are so obstinate in malice that they would rather pervert than be converted, while the Gentiles were still entering the faith; and then cohabitation was granted to the *Gentiles*, not to the *Jews*. — But now, because both are obstinate in malice, cohabitation is granted to neither, in order to avoid the danger of corruption, since it is always presumed, unless they wish to be converted, that they are unwilling to cohabit without reproach to the Creator.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *That on account of any illicit lusts whatever a husband can dismiss his wife*; and he proved this same thing above. But *on the contrary* Jerome is *objected*: « If a wife sins against her own soul, she is not defiled to her husband »: therefore a husband cannot dismiss her. — And this also seems [true] *by reason*: because a husband does not have power over the *soul* of his wife, but only over her *body*; but *every sin, whatever a man may commit*, except fornication, *is outside the body*; for the other sins offend the soul: therefore etc. — Likewise, this very thing is disproved by *reduction to an unfitting [conclusion]*: because, since hardly any among secular persons are found who do not sin at some time, then nearly all marriages could be lawfully separated.

**I respond:** It must be said that a division of marriage is not granted on account of fornication, except to the extent that by that fornication the other party, who is joined in marriage, is harmed or offended.

According to this, note that *fornication* is spoken of in three ways: *properly*, *commonly*, *most commonly*. Properly, fornication is said to be a sin concerning the *act of the flesh*, inasmuch as one lies with one not his own, or [a woman with a man] not her own. *Commonly*, fornication is called in Scripture *idolatry*, in which manner the Prophets frequently compare the idolaters themselves to harlot fornicatresses, as is clear in Jeremiah, chapter 2. *Most commonly*, fornication is called every *disordered lust*, by which God is offended and forsaken. — The first fornication cannot be done by a wife knowingly without an injury being done to the husband; and therefore through it a divorce can be made, even for a single act only, if it can be proved, however much the fornicator may repent. — The second, however, is then to the injury of the spouse when the spouse perseveres in it, because then it is a way of leading to corruption; and therefore through it a separation can be made, if the spouse is unwilling to repent; but if he wishes to repent and return, he cannot repudiate her. — The third fornication is then to the harm of the spouse, when it gives him occasion of scandal, as when she does not wish to live peacefully with him unless he consents to do evil; and then he can dismiss her either with respect to the bed, or with respect to cohabitation, [but] not *absolutely*, if both are believers.

And in this manner the authorities adduced for this are to be understood. For on account of other kinds of sins he cannot dismiss [her], neither with respect to the bed nor with respect to cohabitation, unless they present a great occasion of ruin and it is vehemently feared concerning a fall. For then it is permitted to dismiss, as is said here, and as is said in Cause 28, question 1, and in Matthew 18: *If your eye scandalizes you*; the Gloss: « By the *hand* and by the *right eye* can be understood a brother, a wife, and kinfolk ». Otherwise she ought not to be dismissed, but ought to be corrected, as in the *Extra*, on Divorces, *Quaesivit*, and below: « A woman ought not to be separated from her husband on account of theft or another crime of his, unless he wishes to corrupt the religion of her faith ». And thus the objections are made clear.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Your children, who are born from this union, will be unclean* etc. Here there is a question, whether one born of a believing father and an unbelieving mother ought to follow the *father* or the *mother*. And that [he ought to follow] the *mother* seems [right], because, as was held in the preceding [passages], « the offspring follows the womb ». — Likewise, offspring in the beginning « needs the maternal solace more than the paternal »: therefore he ought rather to be left to the mother; but the mother is a Jew or an unbeliever. — But *on the contrary*: Cause 28, question 1, *The Jews*, and below: « Those who are begotten of unbelieving women and believing men should follow the Christian religion, not the Jewish superstition ».

**I respond:** It must be said that the offspring either *reaches adult* age, or *not*. If he *reaches [it]*; since his salvation depends on his own free will, his consent must be sought; and if he does not wish to consent, since God grants justice to no one against his will, he can remain with the unbelieving mother or father. — But if he is a *minor*, since his salvation must be procured by the parents, who also were obliged to beget for the worship of God, and [instead] begot a child of wrath; rightly, according to both the old law and the new, as is clear in [the title] on the Conversion of unbelievers, *Ex litteris*, he ought to follow the believer

in favor of the faith and salvation of that one and of the little child and of the good of the marriage; nor can the mother take him back on account of his smallness, [claiming] that he needs her solace, nor can she allege labor, on account of the danger of damnation which threatens, lest she keep him in the error of unbelief. And all this is proved by that which is contained in the aforesaid decretal on the Conversion of unbelievers, *Ex litteris*.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *If both have believed, the marriage is confirmed through the acknowledgment of God.* Let it be supposed that first one believes, and the other departs and is unwilling to cohabit or fornicates, and afterward is converted; whether the husband must be restored to her, or whether he can plead exception on account of the injury of the dismissal or of the fornication. And that he ought to be *restored* seems [right] from this text. — Likewise, that he cannot plead exception seems [right], because in baptism all things are remitted as to guilt and penalty. — But *on the contrary* the preceding text seems [to speak]: because « the reproach of the Creator dissolves [the bond] »: therefore if it has been dissolved, it seems that, the other being unwilling, it ought not to be reintegrated. — Likewise, this believer, as soon as he was dismissed, was able to contract [marriage]: therefore he was at once absolved from the bond: therefore it does not seem that the wife can reclaim him.

**I respond:** It must be said that if the spouses come to the faith successively, if neither dismissed the other nor committed fornication, they are to be compelled to cohabit together and to treat one another with marital affection. — But if one has departed from the other, it matters who: whether a *believer* [departed] from an *unbeliever*, or the reverse. If a *believer* [departed] from an *unbeliever*, this he was able [to do] freely and without fault; hence in no way is he prejudiced. If an *unbeliever* [departed] from a believer, the believer can, even after he has come to the faith, plead exception, and if he wishes, he can take her back; yet he ought not to be compelled, because he is at once absolved from her. — But concerning the fornication a distinction must be made, because the one first converted either *gave occasion* for the fornicating, inasmuch as he repudiated [her], or *not*. If he *gave* [it], he cannot plead exception on account of the fornication; but if he *did not give* [it], then he can plead exception.

To that which is objected, that all crimes are remitted in baptism, it must be said that it is true with respect to God; but it is not necessary that they be remitted in such a way that the freedom of a neighbor is injured. And thus that is made clear, as was said above concerning penance.

---