Bonaventure

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each label encodes the printed page and the note's position on that page. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; notes 1–5 of p. 810 belong to the preceding a. 2, q. 3, and are not reproduced here.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit: Uxorem ducere virginem Ecclesia Romana permittit. Quare ponit, quod permittit ducere virginem? Cum enim nullo voto sint astricti, ita potuerunt ducere viduam, sicut virginem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod clerici ducentes uxores infra minores ordines possunt uxores dupliciter ducere: aut cum spe redeundi ad ministerium et officium clericatus, aut sine spe. Si cum spe; tunc permittitur, quod ducant virgines, et sic loquitur Leo Papa⁶. Si sine spe; tunc possunt quam volunt ducere; sed si ducant viduam, amplius non possunt ad officium, quod dimiserant, redire; vel si permittatur reditus ad ordines minores, inhibetur promotio ad maiores. Et ideo dicit: permittitur, supple: si volunt ad clericatum aliquo tempore redire sine impedimento⁷.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Placuit, episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos, subdiaconos etiam ab uxoribus abstinere etc. Videtur enim mala esse haec constitutio: quia nemo potest uxorem privare iure suo: ergo videtur, quodsi habent uxores, quod non possunt abstinere ab eis, etiam si velint. — Item, ponatur, quod aliquis in inferioribus ordinibus, uxore tacente et sciente, promoveatur¹, utrum debeat, cum reclamaverit, debitum sibi reddi. Et quod sic, videtur, quia votum continentiae non vovit; et iterum, si vir ingrediatur religionem, et ipsa taceat, si reclamet post apud episcopum, redire compellitur²: ergo etc.

Item quaeritur, utrum, mortuo viro, teneatur ad continentiam perpetuam talis mulier, an possit contrahere.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur, quod si non habent uxores, nunquam debent contrahere, ex quo ad sacros ordines sunt promoti; si autem habent, non possunt promoveri sine assensu uxorum secundum consuetudinem Romanae Ecclesiae; et verum est, quod requirendus est earum consensus. Quod si uxor taceat, viro suscipiente ordinem, et locum et tempus habet reclamandi; praesumitur consensisse³ et amplius reclamare non potest; et ex consensu suo lex continentiae sibi indicitur nec potest requirere virum.

Utrum autem possit contrahere; dicendum, quod, sicut dicitur trigesima secunda distinctione, canone Seriatim⁴ etc., non potest, etiam post mortem viri, immo tenetur ad continentiam perpetuam.

Sed qualiter hoc sit intelligendum, inter iurisperitos est controversia. Aliqui enim dicunt, quod mulier consentiens viro, vovere intelligitur; sed votum istud, quia non est solemnizatum, impedit matrimonium contrahendum, sed non dirimit iam contractum. — Alii dicunt, quod solemnizatur in voto viri. — Tertii dicunt, quod secus est in uxore ingressi religionem et clerici: quia uxor clerici tenetur, sed non uxor ingressi, quia dignior est clericatus quam religio, cum bigamus possit esse religiosus, non autem clericus. — Alii dicunt, et hoc videtur probabilius, quod uxor aut ignorat ius illud, quia nec scit nec sibi dicitur, aut novit. Primo modo non obligatur; secundo modo, si novit aut sibi dicitur et consentit, obligatur.

Sed quid in tanta diversitate tenendum est? Sane dici potest, quodsi uxor consentiat viro, quod ordinem sacrum suscipiat, vel quod religionem ingrediatur in conspectu personae, per quam secundum formam Ecclesiae possit fieri divortium, quod ipsa obligatur ad continentiam perpetuam cum viro, qui est eadem caro cum ipsa⁵, nec excusatur per iuris ignorantiam; nec est diversimode iudicandum in clericis et religiosis quantum ad hoc, cum utrobique corpus viri perpetuo Domino dedicetur. Et hoc expresse dicitur distinctione trigesima secunda, canone Seriatim⁶ etc.: « Neque permittitur uxor iungi eidem marito suo carnaliter nec unquam nubere, aut in eius vita aut post mortem ». Et ideo satis probabiliter dictum est, quod viro vovente et solemnizante, ipsa vovisse intelligitur; et hoc totum probatur per multa iura, quae dicuntur libro tertio, de Conversione coniugatorum⁷.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quibus penitus denegatur coniugium. Ex hoc enim videtur, quod cum talibus dispensari non possit. Quaeritur igitur: pro quibus peccatis coniugium denegatur et in quibus dispensatur?

Respondeo: Notandum est, quod in septem generibus. Primum est adulterium cum occisione, vel fidei datione; Causa trigesima prima, quaestione prima⁸. — Secundum est incestus; Causa trigesima secunda, quaestione septima, Concubuisti. — Tertium est raptus sponsae alterius; Causa vigesima septima, quaestione secunda, Statutum. — Quartum est de eo qui insidians matrimonio filium de sacro fonte levavit, et de hoc habetur Causa trigesima, quaestione prima, De eo autem. — Quintum est de eo qui occidit presbyterum; Extra, de Poenitentiis et remissionibus⁹, Qui presbyterum. — Sextum de eo qui occidit propriam uxorem; Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda. — Septimum solemniter poenitentes; Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda, De his antiqui. — In omnibus dispensatur praeterquam in primo, propter hoc quod respicit personam determinatam¹⁰.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Sancta Dei Ecclesia gladium non habet nisi spiritualem. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia Bernardus dicit ad Eugenium¹, quod habet utrumque gladium: « Et uterque gladius tam spiritualis quam materialis est Ecclesiae »; et hoc probat per illud Lucae vigesimo secundo: Sunt gladii duo; et Dominus: Satis est.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod uterque, ut dicit Bernardus, est Ecclesiae, sed differenter, quia spiritualis extrahendus est manu Ecclesiae, sed materialis non manu, sed tantum nutu²; et per hoc solvitur illud.

---

Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is doubted about that which he says: The Roman Church permits the taking of a virgin to wife. Why does he lay down that it permits the taking of a virgin? For since they are bound by no vow, they could take a widow just as [they could] a virgin.

I respond: It must be said that clerics in the minor orders who take wives can take wives in two ways: either with hope of returning to the ministry and office of the clerical state, or without hope. If with hope, then it is permitted that they take virgins, and thus Pope Leo speaks⁶. If without hope, then they can take whom they will; but if they take a widow, they can no longer return to the office which they had left; or, even if return to the minor orders be permitted, promotion to the major orders is barred. And therefore he says it permits—supply: if they wish at some time to return to the clerical state without impediment⁷.

Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: It has pleased [the Church] that bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons also abstain from wives, etc. For this constitution seems to be bad: because no one can deprive a wife of her right; therefore it seems that, if they have wives, they cannot abstain from them, even if they should wish. — Likewise, suppose that someone in the lower orders is promoted, his wife being silent and knowing¹, whether he ought, when she has protested, to render the [conjugal] debt to her. And that he ought, it seems, because he did not vow the vow of continence; and again, if the husband enters religion and she is silent, if she afterward protests before the bishop, he is compelled to return²: therefore, etc.

Likewise it is asked whether, the husband being dead, such a woman is bound to perpetual continence, or whether she can contract [marriage].

I respond: It must be said that this is understood thus: that if they do not have wives, they must never contract [marriage], since they have been promoted to sacred orders; but if they do have [them], they cannot be promoted without the assent of the wives, according to the custom of the Roman Church; and it is true that their consent must be sought. But if the wife is silent while the husband receives the order, and she has place and time for protesting, she is presumed to have consented³ and can no longer protest; and by her own consent the law of continence is imposed upon her, nor can she require [the debt of] her husband.

But whether she can contract [marriage]—it must be said that, as is stated in the thirty-second distinction, in the canon Seriatim⁴, etc., she cannot, even after the death of her husband; rather she is bound to perpetual continence.

But how this is to be understood is a matter of controversy among the jurists. For some say that a woman consenting to her husband is understood to vow; but that vow, because it is not solemnized, impedes a marriage yet to be contracted, but does not dissolve one already contracted. — Others say that it is solemnized in the husband's vow. — A third group say that it is otherwise in the wife of one who has entered religion than in the wife of a cleric: because the wife of a cleric is bound, but not the wife of one who has entered [religion], since the clerical state is worthier than the religious state, seeing that a bigamist can be a religious but not a cleric. — Others say, and this seems more probable, that the wife either is ignorant of that law, because she neither knows it nor is it told her, or she knows it. In the first way she is not bound; in the second way, if she knows it or it is told her and she consents, she is bound.

But what is to be held amid such diversity? It can rightly be said that, if the wife consents to her husband that he receive a sacred order, or that he enter religion, in the presence of the person through whom, according to the form of the Church, a divorce could be made, then she is bound to perpetual continence together with her husband, who is one flesh with her⁵, nor is she excused by ignorance of the law; nor is judgment to be given differently in the case of clerics and of religious as to this point, since in both cases the husband's body is perpetually dedicated to the Lord. And this is expressly stated in the thirty-second distinction, in the canon Seriatim⁶, etc.: « Nor is the wife permitted to be joined carnally to her same husband, nor ever to marry, either during his life or after his death ». And therefore it has been said with sufficient probability that, when the husband vows and solemnizes, she is understood to have vowed; and this whole matter is proved by many laws, which are stated in the third book, under On the Conversion of the Married⁷.

Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: To whom marriage is utterly denied. For from this it seems that with such persons no dispensation can be given. It is asked, therefore: for what sins is marriage denied, and in which is a dispensation given?

I respond: It must be noted that [it is denied] in seven kinds. The first is adultery with killing, or with the pledging of faith; Cause 31, question 1⁸. — The second is incest; Cause 32, question 7, Concubuisti. — The third is the ravishing of another's betrothed; Cause 27, question 2, Statutum. — The fourth concerns one who, plotting against a marriage, lifted a son from the sacred font [i.e. stood godfather], and about this it is found in Cause 30, question 1, De eo autem. — The fifth concerns one who has killed a priest; Extra, On Penances and Remissions⁹, Qui presbyterum. — The sixth concerns one who has killed his own wife; Cause 33, question 2. — The seventh, those doing solemn penance; Cause 33, question 2, De his antiqui. — In all a dispensation is given except in the first, on account of the fact that it regards a determinate person¹⁰.

Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that the Holy Church of God has no sword but the spiritual. For it seems false to say this, because Bernard says to Eugene¹ that she has both swords: « And each sword, the spiritual as well as the material, belongs to the Church »; and he proves this by that passage of Luke twenty-two: There are two swords; and the Lord: It is enough.

I respond: It must be said that both belong to the Church, as Bernard says, but differently, because the spiritual is to be drawn by the hand of the Church, but the material not by her hand, but only at her nod²; and by this that [objection] is resolved.

---