Bonaventure

<!-- Latin re-set column-by-column from vol4 PDF bands pp.713–716; raw OCR L76939–77222 used as base for clean running prose only -->

Cap. I. De tribus bonis coniugii.

Post haec de bonis coniugii, quae sint et qualiter coitum excusent, dicendum est. Tria sunt principaliter bona coniugii; unde Augustinus¹: « Nuptiale bonum tripartitum est, scilicet fides, proles, Sacramentum. In fide attenditur, ne post vinculum coniugale cum alio vel alia coeatur; in prole, ut amanter suscipiatur, religiose educetur; in Sacramento, ut coniugium non separetur, et dimissus vel dimissa nec causa prolis alteri coniungatur ».

Cap. II. De duplici separatione.

Separatio autem gemina est, corporalis scilicet et sacramentalis. Corporaliter possunt separari causa fornicationis, vel ex communi consensu causa religionis, sive ad tempus, sive usque in finem.

Sacramentaliter vero separari nequeunt, dum vivunt, si legitimae personae sint. Manet enim vinculum coniugale inter eos, etiam si aliis a se discedentes adhaeserint. Unde Augustinus²: « Usque adeo manent inter viventes semel inita iura nuptiarum, ut potius sint inter se coniuges etiam separati, quam cum aliis, quibus adhaeserunt ». Item: « Manet inter viventes quoddam coniugale vinculum, quod nec separatio nec cum altero copulatio possit auferre, sicut apostatae anima, velut de coniugio Christi recedens, etiam fide perdita, Sacramentum fidei non amittit, quod lavacro regenerationis accepit. Redderetur enim redeunti, si amisisset abscedens. Habet autem hoc qui recesserit ad cumulum supplicii, non ad meritum praemii ». Item: « Quibus placuit ex consensu ab usu carnalis concupiscentiae in perpetuum continere, absit, ut vinculum inter illos coniugale rumpatur, immo firmius erit, quo magis ea pacta secum gerunt, quae carius concordiusque servanda sunt, non voluptariis corporum nexibus, sed voluntariis animorum affectibus ». — Et attende, quod tertium bonum coniugii dicitur Sacramentum, non quia sit ipsum coniugium, sed quia eiusdem rei sacrae signum est, id est spiritualis et inseparabilis coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae.

Et est sciendum, ab aliquibus contrahi coniugium, quod³ haec tria bona non comitantur. Deest enim fides, ubi vir cum alia, vel mulier cum alio coit. « Hoc igitur bonum ita coniugio adhaeret, ut ex eo, si adsit, amplius commendetur coniugium; si non adsit, non inde annihiletur. Quae enim adultera est, non ideo coniux non est; immo, si coniux non esset, adultera non foret; quod cum fit, culpa committitur, Sacramentum vero non cassatur. — Bonum quoque prolis non omnibus adest coniugibus. Quidam enim pari voto continentiam servant, alii pro aetatis defectu, vel alterius rei causa generare non valent. Nec omnes illi, etiam qui prolem recipiunt, bonum prolis habent ». Nam bonum prolis dicitur non ipsa proles vel prolis spes, quae ad religionem non refertur, immo ad hereditariam successionem — ut cum quis heredes terrenae possessionis habere desiderat — sed spes ac desiderium, quo proles ad hoc quaeritur, ut religione informetur. Multi ergo prolem habent, qui tamen bono prolis carent; nec ideo tamen coniugium esse desinit. — Sacramentum vero ita inseparabiliter coniugio adhaeret legitimarum personarum, ut sine illo coniugium non esse videatur, quia semper manet inter viventes vinculum coniugale, ut, etiam interveniente divortio fornicationis causa, coniugalis vinculi firmitas non solvatur. Ubi vero non inter legitimas personas contrahitur coniugium, non adest illud bonum, quod dicitur Sacramentum, quia potest solvi talium copula, de quibus post⁴ dicetur.

Quod vero coniugium sit inter eos qui coniugali affectu, non tamen gratia prolis, sed explendae libidinis conveniunt, nec fornicarii, sed coniuges appellentur; ostendit Augustinus⁵ inquiens: « Solet quaeri, cum masculus et femina, nec ille maritus, nec illa uxor alterius, sibimet non filiorum procreandorum, sed pro incontinentia solius concubitus causa copulantur, ea fide media, ut nec illa cum altero, nec ille cum altera faciat id; utrum nuptiae sint vocandae. Et potest forlasse non absurde hoc appellari connubium, si usque ad mortem alicuius eorum id inter eos placuerit, et prolis generationem, quamvis non ea causa coniuncti sunt, non tamen vitaverint, ut vel nolint sibi nasci filios, vel etiam opere malo aliquo agant, ne nascantur. Ceterum, si vel utrumque, vel unum horum desit, non invenio, quomodo has nuptias appellare possimus. Etenim si aliquam sibi ad tempus adhibuerit, donec aliam dignam honoribus aut suis facultatibus inveniat, quam in coniugio adducat; animo ipse adulter est nec cum illa, quam cupit invenire, sed cum ista, cum qua sic cubat, ut cum ea non habeat maritale consortium ». — Ecce coniuges dicuntur qui solius concubitus causa conveniunt, si tamen prolis generationem aliquo dolo malo non vitent.

Cap. III. De his qui procurant venena sterilitatis.

Qui vero venena sterilitatis procurant non coniuges, sed fornicarii sunt. Unde Augustinus⁶: « Aliquando eousque pervenit haec libidinosa crudelitas vel libido crudelis, ut etiam venena sterilitatis procuret et, si nihil valuerit, conceptos foetus intra viscera aliquo modo exstinguat vel fundat, volendo, suam prolem prius interire quam vivere, aut si in utero vivebat, occidi, antequam nasci. Prorsus, si ambo tales sint, coniuges non sunt; et si ab initio tales fuerunt, non sibi per connubium, sed per stuprum potius convenerunt. Si vero ambo tales non sunt, audeo dicere, aut illa quodam modo est mariti meretrix, aut ille adulter uxoris ».

Cap. IV. Quando sint homicidae qui procurant abortum.

Hic quaeri solet de his qui abortum procurant, quando iudicentur homicidae, vel non. — Tunc puerperium ad homicidium pertinet, quando formatum est

et animam habet, ut Augustinus super Exodo⁷ asserit: « Informe autem puerperium, ubi non est anima viva, lex ad homicidium pertinere noluit ». Dicit etiam Augustinus, quod « informe puerperium animam non habet, ideoque multatur pecunia, non redditur anima pro anima; sed iam formato corpori anima datur, non in conceptu corporis nascitur cum semine derivata. Nam si cum semine et anima existit de anima, tunc et multae animae quotidie pereunt, cum semen fluxu non proficit nativitati. Primum oportet, domum compaginari et sic habitatorem induci. Cum ergo lineamenta compacta non fuerint, ubi erit anima »? Item Hieronymus⁸ ad Algasiam: « Semina paulatim formantur in utero, et tamdiu non reputatur homicidium, donec elementa confecta suas imagines membraque suscipiant ». — Ex his apparet, tunc eos homicidas esse, qui abortum procurant, cum formatum est et animatum puerperium.

Cap. V. De excusatione coitus, quae fit per bona coniugii.

Cum igitur haec tria bona in aliquo coniugio simul concurrunt, ad excusationem coitus carnalis valent. Quando enim, servata fide tori, causa prolis coniuges conveniunt, sic excusatur coitus, ut culpam non habeat. Quando vero, deficiente bono prolis, fide tamen servata, conveniunt causa incontinentiae, non sic excusatur, ut non habeat culpam, sed venialem. Unde Augustinus⁹: « Coniugalis concubitus generandi gratia non habet culpam, concupiscentiae vero satiandae, sed tamen cum coniuge propter tori fidem, venialem habet culpam ». Item, hoc, quod coniugati, victi concupiscentia, utuntur invicem ultra necessitatem liberos procreandi, ponam in his, pro quibus quotidie dicimus: Dimitte nobis debita nostra etc. Ubi autem haec bona desunt, fides scilicet et proles, non videtur coitus defendi a crimine. Unde in sententiolis Sexti Pythagorici legitur: « Omnis ardentior amator propriae uxoris adulter est ». Item Hieronymus¹⁰: « Sapiens iudicio amat coniugem, non affectu; non regnat in eo impetus voluptatis, nec praeceps fertur ad coitum. Nihil est foedius quam uxorem amare quasi adulteram. Qui dicunt, se causa humani generis uxoribus iungi, imitentur saltem pecudes; et postquam venter uxoris intumuerit, non perdant filios nec amatores se uxoribus exhibeant, sed maritos ». Idem: « In matrimonio opera liberorum concessa sunt, voluptates autem, quae de meretricum amplexibus capiuntur, in uxore damnatae ».

Cap. VI. De indulgentia, quam facit Apostolus.

Sed si concubitus, qui fit causa prolis, culpa caret, quid Apostolus secundum indulgentiam permittit? Ita enim ait¹¹: Hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam. Cui enim praestatur venia nisi culpae? Per hoc etiam quidam probare volunt, nuptias esse peccatum. Sed, ut supra praedictum est, indulgentia alia est concessionis, alia permissionis. Egerat Apostolus de nuptiis et de carnali coitu et ad utrumque retulit illud: Hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam. Indulgentur enim nuptiae secundum concessionem et concubitus nuptialis, qui fit tantum causa prolis. Concubitus vero, qui est praeter necessitatem generandi ob incontinentiam, indulgetur secundum permissionem, quia ibi aliqua culpa est, sed levis. Ideoque non iubetur nec conceditur, sed permittitur, quia non est laudabilis, sed venialis. De hoc Augustinus¹² sic ait: « Forte aliquis dicet: si veniam concessit Apostolus, ergo peccatum sunt nuptiae; cui enim venia nisi peccato conceditur? Plane, quod infirmitati permisit secundum veniam audeo dicere peccatum esse; veniam namque concedens, Apostolus concubitum attendit coniugatorum, ubi est incontinentiae malum ».

Cap. VII. De malo incontinentiae.

« Incontinentiae malum est, quod vir cognoscit uxorem etiam ultra necessitatem procreandi liberos, sed et ibi est nuptiarum bonum. Non enim, quia incontinentia malum est, ideo coniugium, ubi est concubitus praeter intentionem generationis, non est bonum. Non propter illud malum culpabile est hoc bonum, sed illud malum fit veniale propter bonum nuptiale »; quod non reprehendit Apostolus, sed malum incontinentiae. Item: « Concubitum, qui non fit causa prolis, nuptiae non cogunt fieri, sed impetrant ignosci; si tamen non ita sit nimius, ut impediat tempora, quae orationi debentur, nec immutetur in eum usum, qui est contra naturam. Concubitus enim necessarius causa generandi inculpabilis, et solus ipse nuptialis est. Ille vero, qui ultra necessitatem progreditur, non rationi, sed libidini obsequitur, et hunc non exigere, sed reddere coniugi, ne fornicetur, ad coniugem pertinet. Si vero ambo tali concupiscentiae subiguntur, rem faciunt, quae non est nuptiarum; cuius delicti non sunt nuptiae hortatrices, sed deprecatrices¹³ ». « Decus quidem coniugale est

castitas, procreandi et reddendi carnalis debiti fides, hoc est opus nuptiarum, quod ab omni peccato defendit Apostolus dicens: Non peccat virgo, si nupserit ». « Cum igitur culpabilis non sit generandi intentione concubitus, qui proprie nuptiis imputandus est; quid secundum veniam concedit Apostolus, nisi quod coniuges debitum carnis exposcunt, non propaginis voluntate, sed libidinis voluptate, quae tamen voluptas non propter nuptias cadit in culpam, sed propter nuptias accipit veniam? Immoderata igitur progressio secundum veniam conceditur. Quocirca et hinc laudabiles sunt nuptiae, quia etiam illud quod non pertinet ad se, ignosci faciunt propter se. Non enim iste concubitus, quo servitur concupiscentiae, agitur, ut impleatur foetus, quem postulant nuptiae ». « Omnino igitur in genere suo nuptiae bonae sunt, quia fidem tori servant et prolis suscipiendae causa utrumque sexum commiscent et impietatem separationis horrent¹⁴ ». Sanctitati etiam coniugii nec coniux infidelis obesse potest, sed potius fidelis prodest infideli, ut Apostolus docet. — Ex his ostenditur, quod coniuges, qui causa prolis tantum conveniunt, vel qui exigentibus debitum reddunt, defendit a peccato sanctitas coniugii bonumque nuptiale. « Si enim absque peccato non posset fieri concubitus coniugalis, non praecepisset Dominus post diluvium eos copulari, dicens: Crescite et multiplicamini; cum iam sine carnali concupiscentia non possint commisceri ».

Cap. VIII. De carnis delectatione, quae peccatum sit, vel non.

Sed forte aliquis dicet, omnem carnis concupiscentiam et delectationem, quae est in coitu, malum esse et peccatum, quia ex peccato est et inordinata. — Et nos dicimus, illam concupiscentiam semper malam esse, quia foeda est et poena peccati; sed non semper peccatum est. Saepe enim delectatur vir sanctus secundum carnem in aliqua re, ut requiescendo post laborem, edendo post esuriem; nec tamen talis delectatio est peccatum, nisi sit immoderata. Sic et delectatio, quae est in coitu coniugali, cui adsunt illa tria bona, a peccato defenditur. — Videtur tamen beatus Gregorius¹⁵ aliter sentire, scilicet quod sine peccato non possit fieri carnalis commixtio, dicens: « Vir cum propria coniuge dormiens, nisi lotus aqua, ecclesiam intrare non debet. Quamvis diversae hominum nationes de hac re diversa sentiant et alia custodire videantur; Romanorum tamen semper ab antiquioribus usus fuit, post admixtionem propriae coniugis et lavacri purificationem quaerere et ab ingressu Ecclesiae paululum temperare. Nec hoc dicentes, culpam deputamus esse coniugium; sed quia ipsa licita admixtio coniugis sine voluptate carnis fieri non potest, a sacri loci ingressu est abstinendum, quia voluptas ipsa sine culpa esse nullatenus potest ».

Hoc autem, ne praedictis obviet, intelligendum est in illis qui non gratia prolis conveniunt, quorum voluptas non est sine peccato. Et vix aliqui reperiri possunt adhuc amplexus carnales experientes, qui non interdum conveniant praeter intentionem procreandae prolis. Hoc autem quoties fit, ab ingressu ecclesiae abstinendum est. Et quod ita intelligendum sit, Gregorius¹⁶ consequenter ostendit: « Si quis vero sua coniuge, non cupidine voluptatis raptus, sed tantum creandorum liberorum gratia utitur, iste profecto sive de ingressu ecclesiae, sive de sumendo corporis dominici mysterio suo est iudicio relinquendus, quia prohiberi a nobis non debet accipere qui in igne positus nescit ardere. Cum vero non amor procreandae sobolis, sed voluptas dominatur in opere commixtionis; habeant coniuges etiam de commixtione sua quod defleant. Tunc autem vir, qui¹⁷ post admixtionem coniugis lotus aqua fuerit, etiam sacram communionem valeat accipere, cum ei secundum praefinitam sententiam ecclesiam licuerit intrare ».

---

Cap. I. On the three goods of marriage.

After these things, it must be said concerning the goods of marriage, what they are and in what way they excuse intercourse. There are three chief goods of marriage; whence Augustine¹: « The nuptial good is tripartite, namely fidelity, offspring, Sacrament. In fidelity it is attended to that, after the conjugal bond, one not come together with another man or another woman; in offspring, that it be lovingly received and religiously reared; in the Sacrament, that the marriage not be separated, and that the man or the woman dismissed not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring ».

Cap. II. On the twofold separation.

Now separation is twofold, namely bodily and sacramental. Bodily, spouses can be separated by reason of fornication, or by common consent for the sake of religion, whether for a time or right to the end.

Sacramentally, however, they cannot be separated while they live, if they be legitimate persons. For the conjugal bond remains between them, even if, departing from each other, they have attached themselves to others. Whence Augustine²: « So far do the once-entered rights of marriage remain between the living, that they are rather spouses to each other even when separated, than [spouses] with those to whom they have attached themselves ». Likewise: « There remains between the living a certain conjugal bond, which neither separation nor union with another can take away, just as the soul of an apostate, as it were withdrawing from marriage with Christ, even with faith lost does not lose the Sacrament of faith, which it received in the laver of regeneration. For it would be restored to him returning, if he had lost it in departing. But he who has withdrawn has this to the heaping-up of his punishment, not to the merit of reward ». Likewise: « As for those who have resolved by consent to abstain forever from the use of carnal concupiscence, far be it that the conjugal bond between them be broken; rather it will be the firmer, the more they keep those covenants which must be more dearly and harmoniously observed — not by the pleasure-seeking bonds of bodies, but by the willing affections of souls ». — And note that the third good of marriage is called the Sacrament, not because it is the marriage itself, but because it is a sign of that same sacred reality, that is, of the spiritual and inseparable union of Christ and the Church.

And it must be known that by some a marriage is contracted which³ these three goods do not accompany. For fidelity is lacking, where a man is with another woman, or a woman with another man. « This good, then, so cleaves to marriage that from it, if it be present, the marriage is the more commended; if it be not present, the marriage is not on that account annulled. For she who is an adulteress is not on that account no wife; nay, if she were no wife, she would not be an adulteress; and when this happens, a fault is committed, yet the Sacrament is not made void. — The good of offspring too is not present to all spouses. For some by equal vow keep continence, others by defect of age, or for some other reason, are unable to generate. Nor do all those, even who receive offspring, have the good of offspring ». For the good of offspring is said to be not the offspring itself or the hope of offspring which is not referred to religion but rather to hereditary succession — as when someone desires to have heirs of an earthly possession — but rather the hope and desire by which offspring is sought for this end, that it be formed in religion. Many therefore have offspring who nevertheless lack the good of offspring; nor does the marriage on that account cease to be. — The Sacrament, however, so inseparably cleaves to the marriage of legitimate persons that without it the marriage would seem not to exist, because there always remains between the living the conjugal bond, so that, even with a divorce intervening for the cause of fornication, the firmness of the conjugal bond is not dissolved. But where a marriage is contracted not between legitimate persons, that good which is called the Sacrament is not present, because the coupling of such persons can be dissolved, of whom it will be spoken later⁴.

But that there is a marriage between those who come together with conjugal affection, yet not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy lust, and that they are to be called not fornicators but spouses, Augustine⁵ shows, saying: « It is wont to be asked, when a male and a female, neither he the husband nor she the wife of another, couple with each other not for the procreation of children but through incontinence, for the sake of intercourse alone, with this fidelity between them, that neither she with another nor he with another do this — whether they are to be called married. And perhaps not absurdly can this be called a wedlock, if it has pleased them so between themselves until the death of one of them, and if, though they were not joined for that cause, they have nevertheless not shunned the generation of offspring, so as either to be unwilling that children be born to them, or even to do something by some evil means that they not be born. But if either both, or one of these two things, be lacking, I do not find how we can call this marriage. For if he has taken a woman to himself for a time, until he find another worthy of his honors or his means, whom he may bring into marriage, he is in mind an adulterer — not with her whom he desires to find, but with this one, with whom he so lies that he does not have with her marital partnership ». — Behold, they are called spouses who come together for the sake of intercourse alone, provided they do not by some evil deceit shun the generation of offspring.

Cap. III. On those who procure the poisons of sterility.

But those who procure the poisons of sterility are not spouses, but fornicators. Whence Augustine⁶: « Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to such a pass that it even procures poisons of sterility, and, if these avail nothing, extinguishes or expels in some manner the conceived fetuses within the womb, willing its own offspring to perish before living, or, if it was already alive in the womb, to be slain before being born. Assuredly, if both are such, they are not spouses; and if from the beginning they were such, they came together not by wedlock but rather by fornication. But if both are not such, I dare to say that either she is in a certain way the husband's harlot, or he the wife's adulterer ».

Cap. IV. When those who procure abortion are homicides.

Here it is wont to be asked concerning those who procure abortion, when they are to be judged homicides, or not. — Then does the fetus pertain to homicide, when it is formed

and has a soul, as Augustine on Exodus⁷ asserts: « The unformed fetus, however, where there is no living soul, the law did not will to pertain to homicide ». Augustine also says that « the unformed fetus has no soul, and therefore [the offense] is punished by a fine, and soul is not rendered for soul; but to the already formed body the soul is given, it is not born in the conception of the body, derived along with the seed. For if it exists from the soul together with the seed and the soul, then also many souls daily perish, when the seed by flux does not come to birth. First the house must be framed together, and thus the inhabitant brought in. When therefore the lineaments have not been compacted, where will the soul be »? Likewise Jerome⁸ to Algasia: « Seeds are gradually formed in the womb, and for so long it is not reckoned homicide, until the elements, being complete, take on their shapes and members ». — From these things it appears that they are homicides who procure abortion when the fetus is formed and ensouled.

Cap. V. On the excusing of intercourse, which is done through the goods of marriage.

When therefore these three goods concur together in some marriage, they avail to the excusing of carnal intercourse. For when, the fidelity of the marriage-bed being kept, spouses come together for the sake of offspring, intercourse is so excused that it has no fault. But when, the good of offspring being lacking, yet fidelity being kept, they come together for the cause of incontinence, it is not so excused that it have no fault, but a venial one. Whence Augustine⁹: « Conjugal intercourse for the sake of generating has no fault, but for the sake of satisfying concupiscence, yet with one's spouse for the sake of the fidelity of the bed, it has a venial fault ». Likewise, that which married persons, overcome by concupiscence, use with each other beyond the necessity of procreating children, I would place among those things for which we daily say: Forgive us our debts etc. But where these goods are lacking, namely fidelity and offspring, intercourse does not seem to be defended from crime. Whence in the maxims of Sextus the Pythagorean it is read: « Every too-ardent lover of his own wife is an adulterer ». Likewise Jerome¹⁰: « The wise man loves his spouse by judgment, not by passion; the impulse of pleasure does not reign in him, nor is he carried headlong to intercourse. Nothing is more foul than to love one's wife as an adulteress. Those who say that they are joined to their wives for the cause of the human race, let them at least imitate the beasts; and after the wife's womb has swollen, let them not destroy the children, nor show themselves lovers to their wives, but husbands ». The same: « In matrimony the works of children are granted, but the pleasures which are taken from the embraces of harlots are, in a wife, condemned ».

Cap. VI. On the indulgence which the Apostle grants.

But if the intercourse which is done for the sake of offspring lacks fault, what does the Apostle permit by way of indulgence? For thus he says¹¹: But this I say by way of indulgence. For to whom is pardon granted except to fault? By this too some wish to prove that marriage is a sin. But, as has been said above, indulgence is one thing of concession, another of permission. The Apostle had treated of marriage and of carnal intercourse, and to both he referred that saying: But this I say by way of indulgence. For marriages are indulged by way of concession, and also nuptial intercourse, which is done only for the sake of offspring. But intercourse which is beyond the necessity of generating, on account of incontinence, is indulged by way of permission, because there some fault is present, but a slight one. And therefore it is neither commanded nor conceded, but permitted, because it is not praiseworthy, but venial. Concerning this Augustine¹² thus says: « Perhaps someone will say: if the Apostle granted pardon, then marriages are a sin; for to whom is pardon granted except to sin? Plainly, what he permitted to infirmity by way of pardon I dare to say to be a sin; for in granting pardon, the Apostle regards the intercourse of the married, wherein is the evil of incontinence ».

Cap. VII. On the evil of incontinence.

« The evil of incontinence is that a man knows his wife even beyond the necessity of procreating children, but even there is the good of marriage. For not because incontinence is an evil is marriage therefore not good, where there is intercourse beyond the intention of generation. It is not on account of that evil that this good is culpable, but that evil becomes venial on account of the nuptial good »; which the Apostle does not reprove, but the evil of incontinence. Likewise: « Intercourse which is not done for the sake of offspring, marriages do not compel to be done, but obtain that it be pardoned; provided, however, it be not so excessive as to hinder the times which are owed to prayer, nor be changed into that use which is against nature. For intercourse necessary for the cause of generating is inculpable, and it alone is nuptial. But he who goes beyond necessity obeys not reason but lust, and to render this to one's spouse — not to exact it, but to render it — lest [the spouse] fornicate, pertains to the spouse. But if both are subjected to such concupiscence, they do a thing which is not of marriage; of which offense marriages are not the encouragers, but the intercessors¹³ ». « The conjugal decorum, indeed, is

chastity, the fidelity of procreating and of rendering the carnal debt; this is the work of marriage, which the Apostle defends from all sin, saying: The virgin does not sin, if she marry ». « Since therefore intercourse is not culpable when done with the intention of generating — which is properly to be imputed to marriage — what does the Apostle concede by way of pardon, except that spouses exact the debt of the flesh, not with the will for propagation, but with the pleasure of lust, which pleasure nevertheless falls not into fault on account of marriage, but on account of marriage receives pardon? Immoderate progression, therefore, is conceded by way of pardon. Wherefore hence too marriages are praiseworthy, because they cause even that which does not pertain to themselves to be pardoned on their account. For this intercourse, whereby concupiscence is served, is not carried on that the fetus be fulfilled which marriages require ». « Altogether therefore in their own kind marriages are good, because they keep the fidelity of the bed and for the sake of receiving offspring join together both sexes and abhor the impiety of separation¹⁴ ». To the holiness of marriage, moreover, not even an unbelieving spouse can be a hindrance, but rather the believing one profits the unbeliever, as the Apostle teaches. — From these things it is shown that spouses who come together for the sake of offspring alone, or who render the debt to those exacting it, are defended from sin by the holiness of marriage and the nuptial good. « For if conjugal intercourse could not take place without sin, the Lord would not have commanded them after the flood to couple, saying: Increase and multiply; since now they cannot be joined without carnal concupiscence ».

Cap. VIII. On the delight of the flesh, whether it be sin, or not.

But perhaps someone will say that all fleshly concupiscence and delight which is in intercourse is evil and sin, because it is from sin and inordinate. — And we say that that concupiscence is always evil, because it is foul and the penalty of sin; but it is not always sin. For often a holy man is delighted according to the flesh in some thing, as by resting after labor, by eating after hunger; nor yet is such delight a sin, unless it be immoderate. So also the delight which is in conjugal intercourse, to which those three goods are present, is defended from sin. — Yet blessed Gregory¹⁵ seems to feel otherwise, namely that carnal union cannot take place without sin, saying: « A man sleeping with his own wife, unless washed with water, ought not to enter the church. Although diverse nations of men feel diversely about this matter and seem to observe other things; yet the usage of the Romans was always, from the more ancient ones, after union with one's own wife, to seek the purification of the laver and to abstain a little from entering the Church. Nor in saying this do we reckon marriage to be a fault; but because that lawful union of a spouse cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh, one must abstain from entering the holy place, because that pleasure can in no way be without fault ».

This, however, that it may not conflict with the aforesaid, must be understood of those who come together not for the sake of offspring, whose pleasure is not without sin. And scarcely any can be found, yet experiencing carnal embraces, who do not sometimes come together beyond the intention of procreating offspring. And however often this happens, one must abstain from entering the church. And that it is to be so understood, Gregory¹⁶ consequently shows: « But if anyone uses his wife, not seized by desire of pleasure, but only for the sake of begetting children, that man assuredly, whether concerning entrance into the church or concerning the receiving of the mystery of the Lord's body, is to be left to his own judgment, because he ought not to be prohibited by us from receiving who, placed in the fire, knows not how to burn. But when not the love of procreating offspring, but pleasure dominates in the work of union, let the spouses have, even concerning their own union, something to bewail. But then the man who¹⁷, after union with his spouse, has been washed with water, may even worthily receive holy communion, since it is permitted him according to the prescribed sentence to enter the church ».

---