Bonaventure

Quaestio III. Utrum spiritualis cognatio transeat ab uno in alterum.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footer numbering on each printed page; here p.871 carries the edition's notes 6–11 and p.872 carries its notes 1–7. In this chunk they are renumbered sequentially 1–13.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum spiritualis cognatio transeat ab uno in alterum, utpote ab uxore in virum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima, quaestione quarta, capitulo primo¹, Sciscitatur: « Constat, virum compatrem constitui illi mulieri, cuius matrimonio assumta uxor commater esse videbatur ».

2. Item, ibidem² ex Concilio Chalcedonensi: « Si quis cum duabus sororibus, aut cum duabus commatribus dormierit; secundum antiquam consuetudinem octo annis poeniteat »; ergo peccatum est contrahere cum duabus commatribus, sicut cum duabus sororibus.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia vir, qui cognoscit mulierem, necessario efficitur affinis omni consanguineo mulieris, qui est cognatus carnaliter; et hoc propter hoc, quod efficiuntur unum corpus³: ergo pari ratione, si mulier est alicui cognata spiritualiter; si iungatur alicui, necesse est, quod ille efficiatur affinis eidem.

4. Item, magis uniuntur vir et uxor in unitate carnis quam mater et filius; sed qui efficitur pater spiritualis alicuius necessario efficitur compater matris⁴: ergo multo fortius qui efficitur compater viri efficitur compater uxoris.

Contra:

1. Causa trigesima, quaestione quarta⁵: « Qui spiritualem habet compatrem, cuius filium de lavacro fontis accepit, et eius uxor commater non est, liceat eidem, compatre suo defuncto, eius viduam ducere in uxorem ».

2. Item, in sequenti capitulo⁶: « Post obitum uxoris suae cum commatre uxoris coniugia copulari nulla videtur ratio vel auctoritas prohibere ».

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia unio carnis et p. 872 spiritus simpliciter sunt disparatae: ergo per unam ad aliam non transitur⁷: ergo non videtur, quod ab uno ad alterum transeat cognatio spiritualis.

4. Item, quantumcumque vir fuerit amicus sive filius Dei, per hoc uxor non coniungitur Deo novo vinculo, nec e converso: ergo pari ratione, quando unus coniugum spiritualiter alligatur alicui, non propter hoc alligatur et alter.

Conclusio.

Conclusio. Consanguinitas spiritualis, contracta per actum alterius, non transit in alterum; sed contracta per actum proprium, et quidem post carnalem copulam, transit.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum auctoritates sint ad utramque partem, cognatio spiritualis aliquo modo transit a muliere in virum, aliquo modo non.

Sed tamen notandum, quod Magister⁸ et etiam Gratianus distinguunt sic, quod postquam alter coniugum contrahit cognationem cum aliquo, aut mutuo se cognoscunt, aut non. Si sic, tunc transit cognatio spiritualis ab uno in alterum; si non, tunc non transit. — Sed ista responsio a iurisperitis non approbatur, nec ipsum capitulum concordat, Causa trigesima, quaestione quarta⁹, Post uxoris obitum, ubi dicitur, quod « per unionem carnis non transitur ad unionem spiritus ». Si ergo aliquis vel aliqua habet cognationem spiritualem, per sequentem copulam talis cognatio in alterum non pertransit.

Et ideo aliter distinguendum, quod aliqua mulier vel aliquis vir potest contrahere cognationem spiritualem aut per actum suum, aut per actum alterius; aut quia levat alterius filium, aut quia levatur eius filius. Si per actum alterius, sic nullo modo transit nec communicatur. Si per actum proprium, aut ante carnalem copulam, aut post. Si ante, tunc non transit nec communicatur, quia « per unionem carnis sequentem non transitur ad unionem spiritus praecedentem »; et in his duobus casibus licet habere duas commatres. Si vero per actum proprium contrahit post carnalem copulam, cum vir et mulier sint una caro et unum principium, operatio sive actio unius alteri attribuitur, et in hoc casu non licet habere duas commatres, Extra, de Cognatione spirituali¹⁰, Martinus Bertham. Et ratio huius assignatur unitas principii. — Et sic solvuntur contrarietates. Et hoc continetur in his versibus:

Quae mihi, vel cuius mea natum fonte levavit, Haec mea commater fieri mea non valet uxor, Si qua meae natum non ex me fonte levavit, Hanc post fata meae non inde vetabor habere.

Concedendum ergo, quod aliquo modo transit ab uxore in virum, licet aliquae rationes ad hoc inductae sint sophisticae.

Ad 1, 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, iam patet responsio, quod auctoritates currunt secundum illas duas vias priores.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod istae coniunctiones sunt omnino disparatae; dicendum, quod non est verum, quoniam cognatio spiritualis fit per actum corporalem; et quia unum corpus sunt, ita quod unitas praecedit¹¹: ideo quod fit ab uno reputatur fieri ab alio. Sed cum unitas sequitur, non potest venire ad unitatem principii actus sacramentalis.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, dicendum, quod non est simile, propter hoc quod¹² fit per gratiam mentalem, hoc autem per actum corporalem. Et sic patet illud¹³.

---

Question III. Whether spiritual kinship passes from one person to another.

Thirdly it is asked, whether spiritual kinship passes from one person to another, for example from the wife to the husband. And that it does, it seems.

1. Causa thirty, quaestio four, chapter one¹, Sciscitatur: "It is agreed that the man is constituted co-father (compater) to that woman whose marriage the wife taken up seemed to be the co-mother (commater)."

2. Likewise, in the same place², from the Council of Chalcedon: "If anyone should sleep with two sisters, or with two co-mothers, let him do penance eight years according to the ancient custom"; therefore it is a sin to contract with two co-mothers, just as with two sisters.

3. Likewise, by reason it seems: because a man who knows a woman necessarily becomes an in-law (affinis) to every blood-relative of the woman who is her kinsman carnally; and this on account of the fact that they become one body³: therefore by parity of reasoning, if a woman is spiritually kin to someone; if she be joined to another, it is necessary that he become an in-law to the same [kinsman].

4. Likewise, husband and wife are more united in the unity of the flesh than mother and son; but he who becomes the spiritual father of someone necessarily becomes the co-father of the mother⁴: therefore much more strongly he who becomes the co-father of the husband becomes the co-father of the wife.

On the contrary:

1. Causa thirty, quaestio four⁵: "Let it be permitted to him who has a spiritual co-father, whose son he received from the laver of the font, and whose wife is not co-mother, once his co-father is dead, to take his widow as wife."

2. Likewise, in the following chapter⁶: "After the death of his own wife, that a marriage be joined with the co-mother of the wife no reason or authority seems to prohibit."

3. Likewise, by reason it seems: because the union of the flesh and p. 872 of the spirit are simply disparate: therefore through the one there is no passing to the other⁷: therefore it does not seem that spiritual kinship passes from one to another.

4. Likewise, however much a man may have been a friend or son of God, through this the wife is not joined to God by a new bond, nor the reverse: therefore by parity of reasoning, when one of the spouses is spiritually bound to someone, the other is not bound on account of this.

Conclusion.

Conclusion. Spiritual consanguinity, contracted through the act of another, does not pass into the other [spouse]; but contracted through one's own act, and indeed after carnal intercourse, it does pass.

I respond: It must be said that, since the authorities are for either side, spiritual kinship in some way passes from the wife to the husband, and in some way does not.

But nevertheless it should be noted that the Master⁸ and also Gratian distinguish thus: that after one of the spouses contracts kinship with someone, either they know each other mutually, or not. If so, then spiritual kinship passes from one to the other; if not, then it does not pass. — But this response is not approved by the jurists, nor does the chapter itself agree, Causa thirty, quaestio four⁹, After the death of the wife, where it is said that "through the union of the flesh there is no passing to the union of the spirit." If therefore a man or a woman has spiritual kinship, through subsequent intercourse such kinship does not pass over into the other.

And therefore it must be distinguished otherwise: that some woman or some man can contract spiritual kinship either through one's own act, or through the act of another; either because he raises another's son [from the font], or because his own son is raised. If through the act of another, then in no way does it pass or is it communicated. If through one's own act, either before carnal intercourse, or after. If before, then it does not pass or is communicated, because "through the subsequent union of the flesh there is no passing to the preceding union of the spirit"; and in these two cases it is permitted to have two co-mothers. But if through one's own act he contracts after carnal intercourse, since husband and wife are one flesh and one principle, the operation or action of the one is attributed to the other, and in this case it is not permitted to have two co-mothers, Extra, On Spiritual Kinship¹⁰, Martinus Bertham. And the reason for this is assigned as the unity of the principle. — And thus the contrarieties are resolved. And this is contained in these verses:

She whom, or whose child, mine raised from the font for me, This co-mother of mine cannot become my wife; But she who did not raise my child from the font from me, Her, after her husband's death, I shall not thereby be forbidden to have.

It must therefore be granted that in some way it passes from the wife to the husband, although some of the reasons adduced for this are sophistical.

To 1, 2. To what is objected on the contrary, the response is already clear, that the authorities run according to those two prior ways.

To 3. To what is objected, that these unions are wholly disparate; it must be said that it is not true, because spiritual kinship comes about through a corporeal act; and since they are one body, in such a way that the unity precedes¹¹: therefore what is done by the one is reckoned to be done by the other. But when the unity follows, it cannot attain to the unity of principle of the sacramental act.

To 4. To what is objected last, it must be said that it is not similar, on account of the fact that¹² the one comes about through mental grace, but the other through a corporeal act. And thus that [objection] is clear¹³.

---