← Back to Distinction 31

Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 31

Textus Latinus
p. 724

Quaestio II. Utrum coitus coniugalis causa fornicationis vitandae possit esse sine omni peccato veniali.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum coitus coniugalis causa fornicationis vitandae possit esse sine omni peccato veniali. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Ita dicit Augustinus, et habetur in littera1: «Hoc, quod coniugati, victi concupiscentia, utuntur invicem ultra necessitatem procreandi liberos, ponam in his, pro quibus quotidie dicimus: Dimitte nobis debita nostra».

2. Item, primae ad Corinthios septimo2: Iterum revertimini in id ipsum, ne tentet vos satanas propter incontinentiam; hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam, non secundum imperium; sed si meritorium esset et sine peccato sic uxorem cognoscere posset, non tantum deberet indulgeri, verum etiam praecipi.

p. 725

3. Item, Gregorius3 dicit, quod vir, qui cognovit uxorem, non debet ecclesiam ingredi, nisi lavetur; et post dicit, hanc constitutionem non extendi ad eos qui uxores solo amore prolis cognoscunt: ergo aliqua culpa amplior est in his qui cognoscunt causa fornicationis vitandae; sed non nisi venialis: ergo etc.

4. Item, qui cognoscit ad vitandam fornicationem, aut impellitur a carne, aut non. Si non impellitur: ergo utitur remedio, cum non indiget: ergo aliqua inordinatio est ibi, ergo veniale. Si impellitur; sed impulsus talis non est sine peccato4: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Augustinus5: «Infirmitas carnis excipitur per bonum matrimonii, ne cadat in foveam peccati»; sed cum coit causa fornicationis vitandae, infirmitas carnis movet: ergo etc.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia qui utitur aliquo ad illud, ad quod est, potest hoc facere sine peccato; sed coniugium est propter fornicationem vitandam6: ergo etc.

3. Item, maius bonum est continentia quam proles: ergo magis licitum et debitum est amare continentiam quam prolem; sed qui coit amore prolis procreandae potest sine peccato7: ergo qui amore continentiae servandae similiter.

4. Item, qui coit amore continentiae servandae in altero non peccat, ut cum vir reddit debitum uxori, ne in fornicationem labatur: ergo si non magis debet esse sollicitus de aliena continentia quam de sua, patet etc.

CONCLUSIO. Usus matrimonii ad vitandam incontinentiam in altero excusatur ab omni culpa, sed ad vitandam eandem in se est peccatum veniale.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod qui coit causa fornicationis vitandae, aut hoc est in se, aut in altero. Si in altero, ut reddat debitum, hoc est purae iustitiae, hoc est fidei et est de bonis matrimonii; recte ideo omnino a culpa excusatur. — Qui vero coit causa fornicationis vitandae in se, in hoc semper peccat venialiter: quia aut pulsatur a carne, aut si non pulsatur, ex quo non vult procreare prolem nec compellitur debitum reddere, aliqua superfluitas est ibi, et ideo peccat. Et si tu obiicias, quod licet homini bibere, ne sitiat, sic etiam sine peccato coire, ne fornicari appetat; non est simile: quia hic est motus naturae et necessitatis8, in coitu vero non; et hoc dicit Magister in sequenti distinctione in primo capitulo: «Reddere debitum coniugale nullius est criminis, exigere autem ultra generandi necessitatem culpae est venialis».

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Augustino, dicendum quod foveam peccati vocat peccatum mortale.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ad hoc est; dico, quod ad hoc est secundum indulgentiam, non secundum imperium9; et ideo veniale peccatum, et in hoc ordinatur.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod continentia maius bonum est; dico, quod continentiam servare contingit sine hoc, sed non prolem procreare.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod continentia servanda est in altero sine culpa; dico, quod non est locus a minori, sed a maiori10, quia ibi est actus iustitiae, ratione cuius tenetur et excusatur, non ratione amoris continentiae11.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether conjugal intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication can be without all venial sin.

Secondly it is asked whether conjugal intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication can be without all venial sin. And that it cannot, is shown thus:

1. So says Augustine, and it is contained in the text1: "This, that married persons, overcome by concupiscence, make use of one another beyond the necessity of procreating children — this I shall place among those things for which we daily say: Forgive us our debts."

2. Likewise, in the first [Letter] to the Corinthians, the seventh [chapter]2: Return again to the same, lest Satan tempt you because of [your] incontinence; but this I say by way of indulgence, not by way of command; but if it were meritorious and one could thus without sin know his wife, it ought not only to be indulged, but even commanded.

3. Likewise, Gregory3 says that a man who has known his wife ought not to enter the church unless he is washed; and afterwards he says that this ordinance is not extended to those who know their wives out of love of offspring alone: therefore some greater fault is in those who know [their wives] for the sake of avoiding fornication; but only a venial one: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, one who knows [his wife] in order to avoid fornication is either driven by the flesh, or not. If he is not driven: then he uses a remedy when he does not need it: therefore there is some disorder there, therefore [it is] venial. If he is driven; but such an impulse is not without sin4: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. Augustine5: "The weakness of the flesh is excepted through the good of marriage, lest it fall into the pit of sin"; but when one has intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication, the weakness of the flesh moves [him]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because one who uses something for that for which it exists can do this without sin; but marriage exists for the sake of avoiding fornication6: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, continence is a greater good than offspring: therefore it is more permitted and more of a duty to love continence than offspring; but one who has intercourse out of love of procreating offspring can [do so] without sin7: therefore likewise one who [does so] out of love of preserving continence.

4. Likewise, one who has intercourse out of love of preserving continence in another does not sin, as when a husband renders the debt to his wife lest she fall into fornication: therefore if he ought not to be more solicitous about another's continence than about his own, it is evident, etc.

CONCLUSION. The use of marriage for the sake of avoiding incontinence in another is excused from all fault, but for the sake of avoiding the same in oneself it is a venial sin.

I respond: It must be said that one who has intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication does so either in himself or in another. If in another, so as to render the debt, this belongs to pure justice, this belongs to fidelity and is among the goods of marriage; rightly therefore he is entirely excused from fault. — But one who has intercourse for the sake of avoiding fornication in himself, in this always sins venially: because either he is impelled by the flesh, or, if he is not impelled, since he does not wish to procreate offspring nor is he compelled to render the debt, there is some excess there, and therefore he sins. And if you object that it is permitted for a man to drink lest he thirst, so too [it is permitted] to have intercourse without sin lest he crave to fornicate; it is not similar: because here there is a movement of nature and of necessity8, but in intercourse there is not; and this the Master says in the following distinction, in the first chapter: "To render the conjugal debt is no crime, but to demand [it] beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault."

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Augustine, it must be said that by the pit of sin he means mortal sin.

2. To that which is objected, that it exists for this; I say that it exists for this by way of indulgence, not by way of command9; and therefore [it is] a venial sin, and in this it is ordered.

3. To that which is objected, that continence is a greater good; I say that preserving continence can happen without this, but not procreating offspring.

4. To that which is objected, that continence to be preserved is in another without fault; I say that there is no argument from the lesser, but from the greater10, because there is an act of justice, by reason of which one is bound and excused, not by reason of love of continence11.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Hic c. 5; his verbis, Hug. a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 7, c. 3, ut ipse dicit, sententiam Augustini de Bono nuptiarum exhibet. Cfr. Petr. Lombard. in I. Cor. 7, 1. Respicitur in ipsa Matth. 6, 12. — Plures codd. omittunt Augustinus.
    Here c. 5; in these words Hugh of St. Victor, Summa Sententiarum tr. 7, c. 3, as he himself says, sets forth the opinion of Augustine's On the Good of Marriage. Cf. Peter Lombard on 1 Cor. 7, 1. Reference is made in it to Matt. 6:12. — Several codices omit Augustinus.
  2. 2
    Vers. 5, seq. Post incontinentiam Vulgata addit vestram. — Inferius edd. cum paucis codd. omittunt et ac deberet, legentes: meritorium esset sine peccato sic uxorem cognoscere, posset non tantum indulgeri etc.
    Verse 5f. After incontinentiam the Vulgate adds vestram. — Below, the editions with a few codices omit et ac deberet, reading: meritorium esset sine peccato sic uxorem cognoscere, posset non tantum indulgeri, etc.
  3. 3
    Registr. epist. XI. indict. 4. epist. 64. ad Augustin. Anglor. episc. (resp. ad 10. interrog.). Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 8. — Non pauci codd. et ed. 1 hoc arg. cum praecedente coniungunt, substituto Ideo pro Item. Post dicit edd. addunt super Osee.
    Register of letters, bk. XI, indiction 4, letter 64, to Augustine bishop of the English (reply to the 10th inquiry). See here the text of the Master, c. 8. — Not a few codices and ed. 1 join this argument with the preceding, substituting Ideo for Item. After dicit the editions add super Osee.
  4. 4
    Cfr. II. Sent. d. 21. dub. 4.
    Cf. 2 Sent. d. 21, dub. 4.
  5. 5
    Libr. I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 16. n. 18, exponens illud I. Cor. 7, 2: Propter fornicationem etc., ait: Ac sic infirmitas incontinentiae, ne cadat in ruinam flagitiorum, excipiatur honestate nuptiarum. Cfr. de Bono coniugali, c. 6. n. 6.
    Bk. I On Marriage and Concupiscence, c. 16, n. 18, expounding that text of 1 Cor. 7:2, Propter fornicationem etc., he says: And thus the weakness of incontinence, lest it fall into the ruin of shameful deeds, is excepted by the honorableness of marriage. Cf. On the Good of Marriage, c. 6, n. 6.
  6. 6
    Vide I. Cor. 7, 2.
    See 1 Cor. 7:2.
  7. 7
    Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced. — In fine arg. cum cod. Z supplevimus similiter.
    As was shown in the preceding question. — At the end of the argument we have supplied similiter together with codex Z.
  8. 8
    Edd. cum pluribus codd. legunt: motus naturae, in coitu vero non, nec [nonnulli codd. omittunt nec] etiam necessitatis; et hoc etc.
    The editions with several codices read: motus naturae, in coitu vero non, nec [some codices omit nec] etiam necessitatis; et hoc, etc.
  9. 9
    Epist. I. Cor. 7, 6. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.
    [First] Epistle to the Corinthians 7:6. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 6.
  10. 10
    Cfr. tom. I. pag. 835, nota 5.
    Cf. vol. I, p. 835, note 5.
  11. 11
    Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion on the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 3→