Dist. 30, Divisio Textus
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 30
Commentarius in Distinctionem XXX.
De consensu, qui deficit a parte rationis.
Nec solum coactio impedit vel excludit consensum etc.
Divisio textus.
Supra egit Magister de consensu, qui deficit a parte voluntatis. Hic secundo agit de consensu, qui deficit a parte rationis. Et quoniam ex hac parte potest dupliciter deficere: aut propter errorem in ratione, aut propter obliquitatem in intentione, quae aliquid dicit rationis, aliquid dicit voluntatis1; ideo primo determinat de consensu, qui fit cum errore. Secundo vero determinat de consensu, qui fit mala intentione, et per oppositum bona, ibi: Exposito, quae sit causa efficiens matrimonii.
Prima pars habet duas. Primo enim determinat in varios errores, qui incidunt circa consensum. Secundo vero determinat, qualiter consensus Mariae et Ioseph fuerit rectus et sanctus, ibi: Praemissis aliquid addendum est de modo illius consensus etc.
Tractatio quaestionum.
Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis tria quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur de consensu illo, qui est cum errore. Secundo quaeritur de consensu beatae Virginis Mariae. Tertio, de consensu illo, qui est ex libidine.
Articulus unicus.
De consensu, qui deficit a parte rationis.
---
Commentary on Distinction XXX.
On consent that is lacking on the part of reason.
Not only does coercion impede or exclude consent, etc.
Division of the text.
Above, the Master treated of consent that is lacking on the part of the will. Here, second, he treats of consent that is lacking on the part of reason. And since it can fail in a twofold way from this side: either on account of an error in reasoning, or on account of an obliquity in intention — which pertains partly to reason, partly to the will1 — therefore he first determines concerning the consent that occurs with error. Second, he determines concerning the consent that comes about through an evil intention, and, by contrast, a good one, at the point: "Having explained what is the efficient cause of marriage."
The first part has two [subparts]. In the first he determines the various errors that occur regarding consent. In the second he determines in what manner the consent of Mary and Joseph was upright and holy, at the point: "To what has been premised something must be added concerning the manner of that consent," etc.
Treatment of the questions.
For the understanding of the present distinction, three things are asked.
First, it is asked concerning that consent which occurs with error. Second, it is asked concerning the consent of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Third, concerning that consent which arises from lust.
The sole article.
On consent that is lacking on the part of reason.
---
- 1Notae ad Commentarium. Vide II. Sent. d. 38. a. 2. q. 2.Notes on the Commentary. See II Sent., d. 38, a. 2, q. 2.