Dist. 42
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/42/q/bon-sent-IV-d42-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION XLII.

### Chap. I. *On spiritual kinship.*

Concerning the famous question of the degrees of kinship we have said something, though less than sufficiently. Now let us add [something] concerning spiritual kinship, which also impedes persons, so that they are not legitimate for entering into marriages. « There are three things: consanguinity, affinity, and spiritual brotherhood (*germanitas*). Consanguinity is between those who are joined according to the line of descent. Affinity is between those who indeed are not joined by descent, but through the mediation of descent

are allied — for example, the wife of my brother's son, who is not of my kindred, [yet] through him who is of my kindred has been made my kinswoman-by-affinity, and I hers ». « Spiritual nearness is between the co-father (godfather) and the co-mother (godmother), and between those of whom one has raised the other from the sacred font, or has held [him] in catechesis or in confirmation. It is also between the carnal and the spiritual sons of the same man ».

### Chap. II. *Who are spiritual sons.*

« Spiritual sons are those whom we raise from the sacred font, or hold in catechesis or confirmation. Their spiritual sons and daughters also are those who, by the name of the threefold immersion, dip them in sacred baptism. She too is called the spiritual daughter of a priest who confesses her sins to him ». Whence Pope Symmachus: « All whom we receive in penance are so our spiritual sons, as also [are] those whom — whether while we receive them, or while [they are] immersed under the name of the threefold immersion — the water of baptism has regenerated. Sylvester also admonishes that no priest approach his own female penitent, because it is written: All whom we receive in penance are so our sons as [those] received in baptism »; « of all of whom the intercourse is disgraceful ». « That a co-father and co-mother cannot be joined to each other, nor a spiritual father to the daughter, nor the mother to the spiritual son, is taught from the Council of Mainz »: « Concerning that which you asked, if someone has taken his goddaughter to wife, and concerning him who has lain with a spiritual mother, and concerning him who baptized his own son, and his wife received him from the font for this cause, that a dissolution of the marriage might be made, whether afterward they can remain in such a union: thus it must be answered: if someone has taken his goddaughter or godmother into marriage, we judge that they must be separated and punished with grave penance. But if legitimate spouses, one or both, have done this on purpose, that they might receive their son from the font; if they wish to remain unmarried, it is good; but if not, let grave penance be enjoined on the plotter, and let them remain together; and if the transgressor of the marriage survives, let him be punished with the sharpest penance and remain without hope of marriage ». — From these things it appears that someone cannot join to himself in marriage his goddaughter or godmother; and if it has been presumed, they must be separated. But those who are legitimately joined are not on that account to be separated, because one of them has craftily raised the son from the font. — Which Nicholas also confirms, saying: « You desire to know whether a woman, who has raised from the sacred font the son of [her] husband begotten of another woman, may afterward be able to be joined to the same man. We therefore decree that they can be joined, because according to the sacred canons, except by the consent of both, under pretext of no religion ought a spouse to dismiss a spouse, since the Apostle commands: *Do not defraud one another, unless perhaps by consent for a time* » etc. Likewise: « It has been told us that certain women — some slothfully, some indeed fraudulently, in order to be separated from their husbands — have held their own sons before the bishops for confirmation. Whence we have judged it worthy that, if any woman by sloth, or by some fraud, has held her son before the bishop for confirmation, on account of the deceit or fraud, as long as she lives, let her do penance; yet let her not be separated from her husband ». Likewise Pope John: « To the thresholds of blessed Peter a man, by name Stephen, coming, made known to our prelacy that his son, placed at the extremity of life, not yet washed by the water of baptism — the absence of priests compelling — he baptized and received him with his own hands. And for a matter of this kind your reverence judged that the aforesaid man was to be separated from his wife. Which ought by no means to be done, since Scripture says: *What God has joined let not man separate*; and the Lord bids [us] not to dismiss a wife except for the cause of fornication. And we, relying on so great an authority, say that he must be let go, and that what necessity brought about must be judged blameless. For the work of baptizing is freely granted to lay faithful, if however it be necessary. Whence if the aforesaid man, looking upon his dying son, lest he should let the soul perish forever, washed [him] with the water of baptism, that he might snatch him from the power of death; he is praised as having done well. And therefore we judge that he remains joined with impunity to his wife, long since legitimately allied to him, while he lives, and that he ought not on this account to be separated ». — By these and many other authorities it is taught that spouses are not to be separated, if after a legitimate union the one raises the other's son from the font, or holds [him] in confirmation.

But to this there seems to be opposed [what] Pope Deusdedit says: « There has come to us a deacon bearing a letter of your holiness, [reporting] that certain men and women, on the past paschal Saturday, on account of a great throng of people, unknowingly had received their [own] sons from the laver. You desire therefore to know whether on this account men and women ought to return to their proper use, or not. But we, saddened by this matter, have inquired into the sayings of our predecessors and have found in the archives of the Apostolic See, that such things have already happened in many Churches, whose bishops, when they wished to know from this Apostolic See whether the men and women should return to their proper bed; the holy Fathers of blessed memory Julius, Innocent, and Celestine, with the consent of very many bishops, in the Church of the prince of the Apostles, forbidding such things, wrote back and confirmed, that in no way should the women and men receive themselves into marriage, who-

soever had received children in this manner, but should separate themselves, lest, at the devil's persuasion, such a vice grow inveterate ». Likewise: « If anyone has held his stepson or stepdaughter before the bishop for confirmation, let him be separated from his wife and never take another ». — But these things have been said either for terror — not because it should so be done, but that it might not be done, [and] must be most greatly guarded against; or they are to be understood of those who first received their sons in turn from the font, before they became spouses. — But, the aforesaid authorities being premised, it must be altogether agreed that « whether the woman has received from the font her own son, or only her husband's son, she is not on that account to be separated from her husband; which likewise must be understood of the husband ».

### Chap. III. *On the union of spiritual, or adoptive, and natural sons.*

But that spiritual, or adoptive, sons cannot be joined to natural ones, Pope Nicholas attests, thus saying: « A man ought so to love him who received him from the sacred font, as [he loves] a father. Between spiritual brothers and sons there is a gratuitous and holy communion, which is not to be called consanguinity, but is to be held [as] spiritual nearness. Whence between them I judge that a legal marriage cannot be made, because neither between those who are sons by nature, nor those who [are sons] by adoption, do the venerable laws permit marriages to be contracted. Likewise, if marriage is not contracted between those whom adoption joins, how much more ought those to cease from carnal cohabitation with one another whom the regeneration of the Holy Spirit joins through the heavenly Sacrament »?

### Chap. IV. *On the union of sons who were born before or after the co-fatherhood.*

But this some wish to understand of those sons only, to whom [the parents] have been made co-fathers; but concerning others, who were begotten before the co-fatherhood or after, they concede that they can be lawfully and licitly joined. To whom Urban the second seems to consent, saying: « Concerning the matters on which your love has consulted us, here it seems to be answered, that let it be baptism, if, necessity being urgent, a woman has baptized a boy in the name of the Trinity, and that the sons or daughters of spiritual parents begotten before or after the co-fatherhood can be legitimately joined, except that person by whom they were made co-fathers ». But Paschal the second forbids those begotten after the co-fatherhood to be joined, writing to Bishop Rhegino: « After the reception of a son from the font, or of a spiritual daughter, those who have been born of the co-father or of the co-mother cannot be joined in marriage ». — This too must be noted, which is read in the Council of Tibur: « If anyone [has taken] the daughter of his spiritual co-mother by chance, and, it so happening by the hazard of circumstances, has taken [her] into marriage, a more mature counsel being observed, let him have [her] and honorably give attention to a legitimate wedlock ».

### Chap. V. *Whether it is lawful for anyone to take two co-mothers, one after the other.*

It is also wont to be asked whether anyone may take the co-mother of [his] wife after her death. Concerning this Pope Nicholas thus writes: « Your holiness inquires of us, whether anyone may have two co-mothers, one after the other. In which you ought to remember that it is written: *They shall be two in one flesh.* Since therefore it is agreed that a man and a woman become one flesh; it remains that the man is constituted co-father to that woman, whose taken wife was co-mother; and therefore that the man cannot be joined to that woman who was his co-mother, with whom the same [man] had been made one flesh ». But to this the following seems contrary: « He who has a spiritual co-father, whose son he received from the laver, and whose wife is not co-mother, it is lawful for him, his co-father being dead, to take his widow in marriage; whom no spiritual generation separates ». Likewise, from a letter of Pope Paschal: « After the death of a wife, to be joined in marriage with the co-mother of the wife, no reason or authority seems to forbid. For one does not pass over through the union of the flesh to the union of the spirit ». — But it must be known that « the authority of Nicholas treats of him who rendered the debt to his wife, after she became co-mother of that [man]. But the other authorities treat of him whose wife, after she is abandoned by her husband, becomes co-mother of that [man] and is not known by her husband after the co-fatherhood »; or they rather treat of him whose wife dies before she is known by him.

### Chap. VI. *Whether a husband and wife may together hold a boy.*

It is also wont to be asked whether a wife with [her] husband ought together to receive a boy in baptism. Concerning this Urban says: « That a wife with [her] husband ought not together to receive a boy in baptism, is found forbidden by no authority; but that the very purity of spiritual fatherhood may be kept immune from all stain and infamy, we have decreed that both may not together presume to aspire to this. But because he has committed an expiable crime who married two co-mothers as [if] sisters, a great penance ought to be enjoined on him ».

### Chap. VII. *On second and third and thereafter marriages.*

It must also be known that not only first or second marriages are licit, but also third and

fourth are not to be condemned. Whence Augustine: « Second marriages the Apostle grants to be altogether licit ». « But concerning third and fourth, and beyond, more numerous marriages, men are wont to raise a question. But who would dare to define what I see not even the Apostle to have defined? For he says: *If her husband has fallen asleep, let her marry whom she wishes.* He does not say: the first, or the second, or the third, or however-many-th; nor is it to be defined by us what the Apostle does not define. Whence, that I may briefly answer, I ought neither to condemn those marriages, nor to take from them the modesty of number, nor against the sense of human modesty do I dare to say, that they may marry as often as they wish, nor out of my own heart, beyond the authority of Scripture, to condemn however-many marriages ». Likewise Jerome attests: « I now with free voice cry out, that neither is bigamy condemned in the Church, nay nor trigamy; and that it is thus lawful to marry a fifth and a sixth [husband], just as to marry a second husband ». — The Apostle nevertheless excludes bigamists from the priestly honor. But he does this not for the vice of bigamy, but rather for the virtue of the Sacrament, that there may be one [wife] of one [husband], as one [woman] of one [man]. — Yet [that saying] of the Council of Caesarea seems to intimate that bigamy is a sin: « It is not fitting, it says, for a presbyter to dine at the marriage of a bigamist, because, since a bigamist needs penance, who will be the presbyter who could give consent to such marriages »? But this can be understood of him who is thought to have plotted against his first wife out of desire for the second; or it is said for the seal of the Sacrament, which in a bigamist is not preserved. Ambrose also says that « first marriages only were instituted by the Lord, but second ones were permitted; and first marriages are celebrated sublimely under the blessing of God, but second ones lack even the glory [that is] in the present ».

---