Dist. 9, 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/9/q/bon-sent-IV-d9-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether a sinner who is knowingly in sin eats the body of Christ damnably.*

Secondly it is asked, whether a sinner who is knowingly in sin eats the body of Christ damnably. And it seems that he does.

1. *First to the Corinthians*, chapter eleven: *He eats and drinks judgment to himself*, speaks of the wicked; and again: *He is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord*: therefore he sins gravely.

2. Likewise, Augustine: « Even evils profit the good, as the angel of Satan profited Paul; and holy things harm the wicked »: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason*: because one who would throw the body of the Lord into a dunghill would sin most gravely; but there is no greater dunghill than a sinful man: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, in this Sacrament God offers grace to man; but a sinner receiving while in sin sets himself against grace; but one who repels the grace of God sins: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. That Sacrament is among the most noble goods; but « of the most noble or greatest goods, as Augustine says *On Free Choice*, one cannot make ill use »: therefore neither of this Sacrament: therefore the sinner does not sin in receiving.

2. Likewise, *those who are well do not need a physician, but those who are sick*: therefore since a sinner is sick, the sinner needs this medicine; but one who comes to the medicine he needs does not err; and if he does not err, he does not sin: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, no one sins by doing that to which he is bound; but a sinner is at some time bound to eat: therefore he does not sin. — *If you say* that he sins because he does not do it duly; *on the contrary*: the act is under the precept, not the manner of eating: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if eating is a sin; but just as the sinner is unworthy *to eat*, so also *to see*: therefore he sins by seeing.

### Conclusion.

> *A sinner, by receiving the body of Christ, commits a grave sin of omission and of contempt.*

**I respond:** It must be said that a sinner takes the body of Christ to himself unto damnation, not because that body imparts any stain to the soul, but because the sinner despises it, since he neglects to prepare himself—whom he knows to be unclean—and introduces the Lord into so foul a lodging. And there is here a sin of *omission* in this, that he did not prepare himself to receive so great a guest; and a sin of *contempt*, because, as far as in him lies, he does insult to Christ. Therefore the Apostle says that *he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord*, because he does insult to him and despises him.

1. To what is objected, that one cannot make ill use of this Sacrament; it must be said that this is false, because not only of the Sacrament but even of God one can make ill use, when he is loved for the sake of something else. But why one cannot make ill use of the virtues is plain, because they themselves are *good uses*, and which a man uses *formally*; yet one can make ill use of them as of an *object*: so understand it in the present case.

2. To what is objected concerning medicine, it must be said that just as bodily medicine harms one *unprepared*, so spiritual medicine is an occasion of harm to one unprepared; because medicine must be sought *with preparation*, not only bodily but also spiritual—that, namely, which is most noble.

3. To the other point it must be said that he does not sin by reason of the act, but of the circumstance; just as if someone were to give alms in contempt of God, so too this man sins, because he does a good thing in a bad way. — To what is added, that the manner is not under the precept; it must be said that even if it is not expressed by any precept, it must nonetheless most especially be attended to, as is plain from the Apostle.

4. To what is objected, that seeing would be a sin just as eating; it must be said that it is not the same: first indeed, because *seeing* is not of so great irreverence as *eating*; but secondly, because by eating the Sacrament is received and grace is offered; and when a sinner perseveres in sin at the time when the Lord visits him personally, not merely by voice, he increases the contempt: therefore he sins mortally.

Hence it must be said that there is sin in *taste* on two accounts, namely on account of *irreverence* and on account of *negligence*, because he ought to prepare himself for grace; in *sight* there is sin on neither account; but in *touch* it is in a middle way. For if there is sin, this is only on account of irreverence, because the Sacrament is not ordained to give grace by touch; but he who is spiritually unclean and foul sins if he touches, because, as far as in him lies, he does injury to so great a thing. Yet a distinction is made in *touch*: for either he is forestalled, and necessity presses, because the body of Christ would fall into an unclean place unless he gathered it; and in this way if he touches, he does not sin, because there is no irreverence; otherwise he sins. — *And if you object* that it is always a sin, because the men of Beth-shemesh were slain for seeing the ark, in the first book of Kings, chapter six; and likewise Uzzah was struck because he touched the ark,

in the second book of Kings, chapter six; it must be said that this was not a figure of those seeing and touching Christ; but the men of Beth-shemesh bear the figure of the simple who wish to see the secret things of this Sacrament, who through curiosity frequently perish and die in the faith; and Uzzah bears the figure of carnal priests who, existing in sins, approach to consecrate. For some say that he lay with his wife by night. — But the *literal* reason why they were slain is that they acted against the Lord's command, because the Lord had commanded that none of the people should see the ark. He had also commanded that the priests should carry it; and because both parties acted against the Lord's precept, therefore they were struck down.

Now it must be said that, because *taste* does irreverence simply, he who tastes sins. But because in *touch* there is irreverence, though not always nor so great, therefore he does not sin so much, and it can be that he does it without sin. Because in *sight* there is no irreverence, therefore there is no fault, unless some added condition makes the fault by its own deformity.

---