Dist. 26, Art. 2, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 26
Quaestio III. Utrum carnalis commixtio sit de integritate matrimonii quoad significationem et efficaciam.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum carnalis commixtio sit de integritate matrimonii quantum ad significationem et efficaciam. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia in institutione matrimonii dicitur7: Erunt duo in carne una, et Dominus ipse repetit Matthaei decimo nono; sed hoc non est ante commixtionem: ergo commixtio est de integritate.
2. Item, Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera8: «Non dubium est, illam mulierem ad coniugium non pertinere, cum qua docetur commixtio sexuum non fuisse».
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia coniugium est signum coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae in conformitate naturae9; sed hoc solum est in commixtione: ergo etc.
4. Item, matrimonium est institutum in remedium concupiscentiae; sed hoc remedium habetur ab his solum, qui matrimonio10 sunt coniuncti: ergo hoc remedium non est per continentiam, sed per commixtionem, quia aliter non esset magis remedium nubere quam non nubere.
Contra: Quod non sit de integritate quantum ad significationem, videtur:
1. Quia perfectum matrimonium fuit inter Adam et Evam ante cognitionem carnalem, et ante dixit11: Hoc nunc os, quam eam cognosceret: ergo commixtio non est de integritate.
2. Item, perfectum matrimonium fuit inter Mariam et Ioseph, quia fuit ibi bonum prolis, fidei et Sacramenti; et sine commixtione12: ergo etc.
Item, quod non sit de integritate in ratione remedii, videtur:
3. Quia Augustinus1d dicit, quod «sanctior est copula mentium quam corporalis»: ergo maior datur ibi efficacia contra concupiscentiam in unione mentali quam carnali.
4. Item, in actu illo efficitur homo totus caro: ergo per oppositum, cum gratia, quae est remedium contra concupiscentiam, faciat spiritualem, nunquam datur in illo actu.
5. Item, in actu illo satisfit concupiscentiae; sed dum satisfit ei, ipsa intenditur; sed quod intendit concupiscentiam non est remedium, immo venenum: ergo carnalis commixtio non prodest, immo obest ad remedium matrimonii.
Conclusio. Copula carnalis non est de integritate matrimonii quoad esse necessitatis, sed solum quoad esse completionis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod integritas rei dupliciter accipitur, videlicet quantum ad esse necessitatis, vel quantum ad esse completionis sive plenitudinis. Si loquamur quantum ad esse necessitatis, verum est, quod Sacramentum matrimonii esse habet sine commixtione carnis; si autem quantum ad esse plenitudinis, sic est de eius integritate. Et sic procedunt rationes ad partes oppositas.
Et hoc patet sic. In matrimonio enim considerantur haec tria, scilicet signum, officium, remedium. Quantum ad significationem, dicendum, quod duplex est eius significatio: significat enim coniunctionem Christi et Ecclesiae per caritatem et coniunctionem per naturae conformitatem2d. — Similiter duplex est officium: unum est mutuae educationis et fomenti, et aliud procreandae prolis. — Similiter duplex est remedium: unum est quantum ad concupiscentiae defluxionem, ut scilicet non in omnem mulierem intendat; aliud quantum ad inordinationem, ut scilicet non libidine, sed amore prolis procreandae3d sive matrimoniali affectu mulierem cognoscat.
Primum igitur signatum et primum officium et primum remedium sunt in Sacramento matrimonii quantum ad coniunctionem animorum, secundum autem solum quantum ad coniunctionem corporum. Et primum est de substantia matrimonii quantum ad esse necessarium; secundum quantum ad esse plenum.
Et sic patet responsio ad utramque partem, distinguendo perfectionem duplicem sive duplicem integritatem sufficientiae et plenitudinis. Et secundum hoc distinguunt iuristae4d matrimonium, scilicet matrimonium ratum et matrimonium consummatum.
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod gratia non datur in illo actu, ergo non est remedium contra peccatum; dicendum, quod remedium aliquod contra peccatum est dupliciter: aut quia liberat a peccato commisso, et hoc est per gratiam, quae in eo confertur; quoddam, quod liberat a peccato, quod committeretur alias, et tale remedium est matrimonium, quia multi infirmi urerentur concupiscentia, nisi haberent uxorem, quam cognoscendo carnis adustionem evadunt; et in tali quantum ad usum non est necesse gratiam dari, quamvis in actu illo possit homo mereri, sicut habebitur infra5d.
Ad illud vero quod ultimo obiicitur, quod non est in remedium, immo contra, quia intendit concupiscentiam in satisfaciendo ei; dicendum, quod qui cognoscit uxorem debite concupiscentiae non satisfacit, sed potius obviat, ne uratur; et ideo non intenditur, sed remittitur in eo fervor libidinis. Sed qui cognoscit, ut delectetur, non cognoscit matrimonialiter; et talis non habet remedium, immo praestat concupiscentiae fomentum6d.
---
Question III. Whether carnal intercourse belongs to the integrity of marriage as to signification and efficacy.
Thirdly it is asked whether carnal intercourse belongs to the integrity of marriage as to signification and efficacy. And that it does, seems [to be shown]:
1. Because in the institution of marriage it is said7: They shall be two in one flesh, and the Lord himself repeats it in Matthew nineteen; but this is not [so] before intercourse: therefore intercourse belongs to the integrity.
2. Likewise, Augustine says, and it is had in the text [of the Master]8: «There is no doubt that that woman does not belong to the marriage, with whom no intercourse of the sexes is taught to have taken place».
3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because marriage is a sign of the conjunction of Christ and the Church in a conformity of nature9; but this [conjunction] is only in intercourse: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, marriage was instituted as a remedy for concupiscence; but this remedy is had only by those who are joined by marriage10: therefore this remedy is not through continence, but through intercourse, since otherwise it would not be more of a remedy to marry than not to marry.
On the contrary: That it does not belong to the integrity as to signification, seems [to be shown]:
1. Because there was a perfect marriage between Adam and Eve before carnal knowledge, and beforehand he said11: This now is bone, before he knew her: therefore intercourse does not belong to the integrity.
2. Likewise, there was a perfect marriage between Mary and Joseph, because there were present there the good of offspring, of fidelity, and of the Sacrament; and [it was] without intercourse12: therefore etc.
Likewise, that it does not belong to the integrity in the character of a remedy, seems [to be shown]:
3. Because Augustine1d says that «the coupling of minds is holier than that of bodies»: therefore greater efficacy against concupiscence is given there in the mental union than in the carnal.
4. Likewise, in that act a man is made wholly flesh: therefore, on the opposite side, since grace, which is the remedy against concupiscence, makes [him] spiritual, it is never given in that act.
5. Likewise, in that act concupiscence is satisfied; but while it is satisfied, it is itself intensified; but that which intensifies concupiscence is not a remedy, but rather a poison: therefore carnal intercourse does not profit, but rather harms the remedy of marriage.
Conclusion. Carnal coupling does not belong to the integrity of marriage as to the being of necessity, but only as to the being of completion.
I respond: It must be said that the integrity of a thing is taken in two ways, namely as to the being of necessity, or as to the being of completion or fullness. If we speak as to the being of necessity, it is true that the Sacrament of marriage has its being without carnal intercourse; but if as to the being of fullness, then it does belong to its integrity. And thus the reasons for the opposite sides proceed.
And this is made clear thus. For in marriage these three are considered, namely sign, office, remedy. As to signification, it must be said that its signification is twofold: for it signifies the conjunction of Christ and the Church through charity, and the conjunction through conformity of nature2d. — Likewise the office is twofold: one is of mutual upbringing and fostering, and the other of procreating offspring. — Likewise the remedy is twofold: one is as to the outflow of concupiscence, namely that a man not direct himself upon every woman; the other as to disorder, namely that he know the woman not from lust, but from love of offspring to be procreated3d or from marital affection.
The first thing signified, therefore, and the first office and the first remedy are in the Sacrament of marriage as to the conjunction of minds, but the second only as to the conjunction of bodies. And the first belongs to the substance of marriage as to necessary being; the second as to full being.
And thus the response to both sides is made clear, by distinguishing a twofold perfection or a twofold integrity, of sufficiency and of fullness. And according to this the jurists4d distinguish marriage, namely marriage ratified and marriage consummated.
To that, then, which is objected—that grace is not given in that act, therefore it is not a remedy against sin—it must be said that a remedy against sin is [such] in two ways: either because it frees from a sin already committed, and this is through the grace which is conferred in it; [or there is] a certain [remedy] which frees from a sin that would otherwise be committed, and such a remedy is marriage, since many weak persons would burn with concupiscence unless they had a wife, by knowing whom they escape the burning of the flesh; and in such [a remedy], as to use, it is not necessary that grace be given, although in that act a man can merit, as will be had below5d.
But to that which is objected last—that it is not for a remedy, but rather against [it], because it intensifies concupiscence in satisfying it—it must be said that he who knows his wife duly does not satisfy concupiscence, but rather withstands it, lest he burn; and therefore it is not intensified, but the fervor of lust is remitted in him. But he who knows [her] in order that he may take pleasure, does not know [her] matrimonially; and such a one does not have the remedy, but rather furnishes fuel to concupiscence6d.
---
- 7Gen. 2, 24. et Matth. 19, 5.Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5.
- 8Hic c. 6.Here, c. 6 [of the Master's text].
- 9Ut insinuat Magister, hic in lit. c. 6; cfr. ibi nota 3. — Post commixtione cod. M supplet carnali.As the Master suggests, here in the text, c. 6; cf. note 3 there. — After commixtione ["intercourse"] codex M supplies carnali ["carnal"].
- 10Codd. F L qui in matrimonio.Codices F and L [read] qui in matrimonio ["who [are joined] in marriage"].
- 11Gen. 2, 23.Genesis 2:23.
- 12Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. XXX. c. 2.See below, the Master's text, d. XXX, c. 2.
- 1dSententia haec colligitur ex Epist. 262. (alias 199.) n. 4, et ex l. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 11. n. 12, ex quibus Magister, infra d. XXX. c. 2, quaedam affert. Magis convenit Ambros., VI. Exposit. in Luc. 8, 21. n. 36: Religiosiores copulae mentium docentur esse quam corporum. — Pro corporalis cod. E corporum.This opinion is gathered from Epistle 262 (elsewhere 199), n. 4, and from the book On Marriage and Concupiscence, c. 11, n. 12, from which the Master, below at d. XXX, c. 2, adduces certain things. It agrees better with Ambrose, VI Exposition on Luke 8:21, n. 36: The couplings of minds are taught to be more religious than those of bodies. — For corporalis ["of the body"] codex E [reads] corporum ["of bodies"].
- 2dVide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — Cod. K coniunctionem etiam divinae naturae et humanae, quae est per naturae conformitatem. Post et coniunctionem edd. addunt eorundem.See here the Master's text, c. 6. — Codex K [reads] coniunctionem etiam divinae naturae et humanae, quae est per naturae conformitatem ["also the conjunction of the divine and the human nature, which is through conformity of nature"]. After et coniunctionem ["and the conjunction"] the editions add eorundem ["of the same"].
- 3dIta codd. STX, codd. IK creandae, alii vel creat, vel coeat, edd. cum aliquot codd. omittunt procreandae et subinde pro sive substituunt nec sine (quod etiam plures alii codd. exhibent).Thus codices STX; codices IK [read] creandae ["to be created"], others either creat ["creates"] or coeat ["may come together"]; the editions, with some codices, omit procreandae ["to be procreated"] and thereupon for sive ["or"] substitute nec sine ["and not without"] (which also very many other codices exhibit).
- 4dCfr. verba, quae Gratian. C. Cum initiatur (35.), C. 27. q. 2, praemittit, et C. Institutum est (39.), ibid., subiungit, ubi distinguitur triplex matrimonium, scil. initiatum, ratum et consummatum (vide infra d. 27. dub. 5.).Cf. the words which Gratian sets before canon Cum initiatur (35), C. 27, q. 2, and appends [to] canon Institutum est (39), in the same place, where a threefold marriage is distinguished, namely initiated, ratified, and consummated (see below, d. 27, dub. 5).
- 5dDub. 3; cfr. d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1. seq., d. 32. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3. Cfr. etiam quaest. praeced.Dubium 3; cf. d. 31, a. 1, q. 1 and a. 2, q. 1 following, d. 32, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3. Cf. also the preceding question.
- 6dVide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---