Bonaventure

Quaestio IV. Utrum in coitu in statu innocentiae fuisset integritatis corruptio.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum in illo coitu esset integritatis corruptio. Et quod non, videtur:

Ad oppositum:

1. Primo per Augustinum, decimo quarto de Civitate Dei²: « Sine ulla corruptione integritatis infunderetur maritus gremio mulieris »: ergo videtur, quod si homo stetisset, nulla esset integritatis corruptio.

2. Item, ubi est corruptio integritatis in re habente sensum, est passio vel dolor, quia « dolor est sensus divisionis partium », sicut dicit Philosophus³. Si ergo in actu illo fuisset integritatis corruptio, cum esset in re habente sensum, esset nihilominus per consequens doloris passio; sed haec passio non poterat esse in natura stante: ergo nec integritatis corruptio.

3. Item, ubi est corruptio integritatis, est amissio virginalis dignitatis; sed si homo stetisset, in actu illo non fuisset alicuius dignitatis amissio: ergo nec integritatis violatio.

4. Item, corruptio integritatis est principium destructionis et disponens⁴ ad mortem; immortalitas enim integritatem dicit et privat corruptionem. Si ergo statu illo manente, tam vir quam mulier erant immortales: ergo integritatem per corruptionem aliquam non poterant perdere.

Sed contra. — Fundamenta:

1. Impossibile est, semen suscipi et emitti nisi per apertionem viarum; sed in actu generationis fuisset seminum commixtio: ergo fuisset et viarum apertio. Si igitur in apertione viarum est, integritatis virginalis violatio: ergo etc.

2. Item, quamvis naturalia sint deteriorata, non tamen sunt ablata: ergo sicut modo commiscetur maritus uxori, ita et tunc; sed nunc non potest commisceri sine corruptione integritatis: ergo nec tunc.

3. Item, quod aliqua virgo conceperit, hoc est miraculum et proprium solius Matris Christi; si ergo miraculum est supra naturam et contra naturam, videtur, quod natura stante, nulla mulier posset concipere, manente virginitate et corporis integritate.

4. Item, mulier non posset parere, salva claustrorum⁶ integritate, quia fetus non posset nisi per apertam portam exire; exire enim per ianuam clausam, hoc est solius Christi proprium et naturae impossibile: si ergo esset integritatis corruptio in partu, pari ratione et in conceptu.

Conclusio. In statu innocentiae, si vir uxorem cognovisset, fuisset claustrorum apertio, tamen sine poena et foeditate.

Respondeo: Notandum, quod proposita quaestio plus habet curiositatis quam utilitatis: quia tamen habet ortum ex verbis Augustini⁷, ideo introducta est, maxime propter explanationem illius verbi, quod dicit, quod maritus commisceretur uxori sine ulla corruptione integritatis; quod quidem non videtur esse intelligibile¹. Si enim mulier permaneret integra, nunquam esset viri ad mulierem carnis commixtio. — Propter quod intelligendum est, quod integritatis corruptio tria dicit, scilicet claustrorum apertionem, poenalem passionem et foedam delectationem. Primum est naturae, secundum est poenae, tertium vero est corruptionis vitiosae, quae tenet medium inter culpam et poenam.

Si igitur vir uxorem cognovisset in tempore naturae institutae, fuisset ibi claustrorum apertio⁵, p. 483 sicut ostendunt rationes secundo inductae; non tamen fuisset ibi poenalis passio ac foeda delectatio, quia vis generativa nec esset corrupta nec esset infecta; immo obedirent rationi illa membra, sicut dicit Augustinus⁸, sicut obediunt os, manus et lingua. Unde sicut manus aperitur et clauditur, et os aperitur et clauditur, nec est ibi passio vel poena nec delectatio foeda, sic fuisset in natura; nec turpius fuisset tunc loqui de istis membris, quam sit loqui de aliis. Nunc enim turpe est loqui propter hoc, quod natura horret et erubescit actum illum ratione foeditatis, quae in ipso consistit.

Ad rationes in oppositum: Et sic patet responsio ad rationes ad partem oppositam. Omnes enim procedunt secundum quod corruptio sonat in violentiam et poenalitatem, et in delectationem et foeditatem; et sic minuit dignitatem virginalem. Et hoc patet pertractanti singulas⁹.

---

Question IV. Whether in the act of intercourse in the state of innocence there would have been a corruption of integrity.

Fourthly it is asked, whether in that act of intercourse there would have been a corruption of integrity. And that there would not, it seems:

To the opposite side:

1. First, through Augustine, in the fourteenth book of On the City of God²: "Without any corruption of integrity the husband would be poured forth into the lap of the wife." Therefore it seems that, if man had stood [in his original condition], there would have been no corruption of integrity.

2. Likewise, wherever there is a corruption of integrity in a thing having sense, there is suffering or pain, because "pain is the sense of the division of parts," as the Philosopher says³. If therefore in that act there had been a corruption of integrity, since it would have been in a thing having sense, there would by consequence nonetheless have been a suffering of pain; but this suffering could not exist in nature standing [unfallen]: therefore neither a corruption of integrity.

3. Likewise, wherever there is a corruption of integrity, there is a loss of virginal dignity; but if man had stood, in that act there would have been no loss of any dignity: therefore neither a violation of integrity.

4. Likewise, the corruption of integrity is a principle of destruction and a disposing⁴ toward death; for immortality bespeaks integrity and excludes corruption. If therefore, that state remaining, both man and woman were immortal: therefore they could not lose integrity through any corruption.

On the contrary. — Foundations:

1. It is impossible that the seed be received and emitted except through an opening of the passages; but in the act of generation there would have been a commingling of seeds: therefore there would also have been an opening of the passages. If therefore in the opening of the passages there is a violation of virginal integrity: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, although natural things have been worsened, they have not been taken away: therefore just as now the husband is commingled with the wife, so also then; but now it cannot be commingled without corruption of integrity: therefore neither then.

3. Likewise, that any virgin has conceived is a miracle and proper to the Mother of Christ alone; if therefore a miracle is above nature and contrary to nature, it seems that, nature standing, no woman could conceive while virginity and bodily integrity remained.

4. Likewise, the woman could not give birth with the integrity of the enclosures⁶ preserved, because the fetus could not come forth except through an opened door; for to come forth through a closed door is proper to Christ alone and naturally impossible: if therefore there would be a corruption of integrity in birth, by parity of reasoning also in conception.

Conclusion. In the state of innocence, if the husband had known his wife, there would have been an opening of the enclosures, yet without pain and foulness.

I respond: It must be noted that the proposed question has more curiosity than utility: because, however, it has its origin in the words of Augustine⁷, for that reason it has been introduced, chiefly for the sake of explaining that saying in which he says that the husband would be commingled with the wife without any corruption of integrity; which indeed does not seem to be intelligible¹. For if the woman remained intact, there would never be a carnal commingling of the man with the woman. — On account of which it must be understood that corruption of integrity says three things, namely the opening of the enclosures, painful suffering, and foul delight. The first belongs to nature, the second belongs to penalty, the third indeed belongs to vicious corruption, which holds the middle between fault and penalty.

If therefore the husband had known his wife in the time of nature as instituted, there would have been there an opening of the enclosures⁵,

sicut ostendunt rationes secundo inductae — as the reasons brought forward second show; yet there would not have been there a penal suffering and a foul delight, because the generative power would neither have been corrupted nor have been infected; rather those members would obey reason, as Augustine says⁸, just as the mouth, the hands, and the tongue obey. Hence just as the hand is opened and is closed, and the mouth is opened and is closed, and there is no suffering or pain there nor foul delight, so it would have been in nature; nor would it have been more shameful then to speak about these members than it is to speak about others. For now it is shameful to speak about it on this account, that nature shudders and blushes at that act by reason of the foulness which consists in it.

To the reasons against: And thus the response is plain to the reasons on the opposite side. For all proceed according to the sense in which corruption sounds of violence and penality, and of delight and foulness; and thus diminishes virginal dignity. And this is plain to one who works through them one by one⁹.

---