Saint Bonaventure’s Doctrine on the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception

Abstract

This article seeks to shed light on the approach of Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1217/21–1274) on the highly problematic issue of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. In a context of heated debates on the matter, Saint Bonaventure presents a long and complex set of arguments that we can summarize as follows: Mary was conceived with original sin contaminating her body at first, but she was cleansed of it and sanctified immediately after her conception, at the very moment of the animation of her body, that is, when her soul gave life to her body. Therefore, the author concludes that even though the body of Mary, like that of all human beings except Christ, was conceived with original sin, it was thoroughly cleansed, and her body was sanctified from the very first moment at which it was animated by her holy soul and cleansed of all sin.

1. Introduction

Since the first centuries of our era, the Christian Church has been configuring specific essential affirmations about the person and special prerogatives of the Virgin Mary. Although at first, these affirmations were relatively restrained, the official doctrine of Christianity was expressed rather quickly in increasingly clear and exhaustive theses about the privileged status of Mary above other human beings. The heated doctrinal debates against various heresies that arose in the East during the 4th–5th centuries about the person of Jesus Christ contributed significantly to highlighting the supernatural condition of her mother, Mary. These heretical movements motivated the Church to celebrate several Ecumenical Councils in which it defined several complementary Christological and Mariological dogmas. The Council of Nicaea I (325) proclaimed as a dogma that in the unique person of Christ two different natures subsist indissolubly united: the divine and the human. Thus, when establishing this dogma, the Council of Nicaea I implicitly affirmed the thesis of the divine motherhood of Mary.

Little more than a century later, the Council of Ephesus (431) established as a dogma that the Virgin Mary is the true mother of God (Θεοτόκος), based on the thesis of the substantial union of the two different natures, the divine and the human, in the unique person of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the Virgin Mary, being the mother of the man Christ (having engendered his human nature), is necessarily the mother of God Christ, whose divine nature is hypostatically united to his human nature in the unique person of Christ.

The Church did not take long to complement this first Mariological dogma of the divine motherhood of Mary with a second one, according to which this divine motherhood was carried out in a virginal way, without male intercourse; thus, the first dogma was completed with the declaration of the virginal, divine motherhood of Mary. In this enthusiastic dynamic in favor of Marian exaltation, the Church later established the perpetual virginity of Mary as the third Mariological dogma, meaning that she was a virgin before childbirth (virgo ante partum), a virgin during childbirth (virgo in partu), and a virgin after childbirth (virgo post partum).

On the contrary, two others important Mariological theses, that of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and that of her Assumption in body and soul into heaven, will be hotly debated within Christianity for many centuries. Although both theses have been accepted as pious beliefs and even as liturgical feasts since ancient times, they only became official dogmas of the Church very recently: the thesis of the Immaculate Conception became official in 1854, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX, and the thesis of the Assumption became official in 1950, proclaimed by Pope Pius XII.

This article explores just one of the personal manifestations of the medieval debates around the thesis of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary: the position assumed on this issue by the influential Franciscan teacher Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1217/21–1274), known as the Seraphic Doctor (Doctor Seraphicus).

The doctrine of Saint Bonaventure on the thesis of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has been treated in a fairly synthetic way by some authors (Pauwels 1904, pp. 44–47; Mariotti 1904, pp. 43–60; Longpré 1987, pp. 111–26; Cecchin 2001, pp. 90–91; 2003, pp. 49–53; 2005, pp. 38–54; 2008, pp. 537–38; 2021, pp. 31–33). All these authors are satisfied with summarizing in very few, brief paragraphs the extremely complex and subtle approaches of Saint Bonaventure on this hard subject. On the contrary, I believe that in this regard, the well-argued Bonaventurian position deserves a more detailed and rigorous investigation. However, to our knowledge, no study has analyzed Bonaventure’s doctrine in all its complex argumentation. This is precisely the research objective I intend to fulfill in this article. Therefore, in the following extensive section, I will expose in detail the various arguments and counterarguments with which the Seraphic Doctor justifies his doctrinal position. In Section 3, I will summarize the essential conclusions that can be inferred from the reasoning of this Franciscan master.

2. The Position of Saint Bonaventure on the Thesis of the Immaculate Conception of Mary

The Seraphic Doctor develops his position on this issue in the three Quaestiones of Article 1 of Distinction III of the Third Book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard.1 As a scholastic methodological strategy, Bonaventure first evaluates the positions of other thinkers and rejects them, or not, before proposing his personal position on the subject.

2.1. Evaluating the Arguments in Favor of Mary’s Immaculate Conception

2.1.1. On the Eventual Sanctification of the Virgin Mary’s Body before Being Animated by the Soul

In Quest. I, the author raises the problem as to whether the flesh of the Virgin Mary was sanctified before being animated. He begins by analyzing four arguments that would confirm this thesis. The first is that if Scripture affirms of Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”; since Mary was superior to Jeremiah, it would follow that the Virgin’s flesh would have been purified before being animated.2

The second argument is based on the testimony of Saint Elizabeth, who upon seeing her cousin Mary, proclaimed that her son exulted with joy in her womb, which would mean that the future John the Baptist, before having the spirit of life, already had the spirit of grace. Therefore, since Mary is much more worthy than John, she would have sanctification before receiving the spirit of life, that is, before being animated.3

The third reason is that since the sanctifying power is more powerful than the infecting power, if the flesh can be infected before being animated, it stands to greater reason that it can be sanctified before animation; if that is valid for any creature, it is even more valid for the Virgin, whose flesh would be sanctified before being animated.4

The fourth argument is that the Virgin Mary was conceived of holy parents and a sterile mother via the intervention of the Holy Spirit; this conception was holy and immaculate and therefore, the Virgin’s flesh would have been sanctified in her very conception, before being animated.5

After exposing the reasons in favor of the thesis of the sanctification of the Virgin’s flesh before its animation, Bonaventure explains the four arguments that would invalidate this thesis. The first, proposed by Saint Bernard, affirms that the Virgin’s flesh could not be sanctified before conception since it did not yet exist, nor even at conception because of the sin that is inherent to it. The Seraphic Doctor adds to this argument that what Saint Bernard said is true not so much because of the sin of Mary’s parents but because of the sin that is inherent in one’s own flesh; so, it does not seem possible that Mary’s flesh was sanctified before receiving the soul infusion.6

The second argument against the thesis is that sanctification is a gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit which is not present in the flesh but in the soul; so, it does not seem possible that grace is infused into the flesh before the soul.7

The third argument is that being and the perfection of grace presuppose being and the perfection of nature; therefore, if sanctification is the effect of quickening grace, it seems impossible that the flesh should be sanctified before it is quickened by the soul.8

As a fourth argument, Bonaventure points out that what does not concern glorification does not concern sanctification, and the flesh before being animated does not concern glorification or resurrection. For this reason, the Virgin’s flesh was not sanctified before being animated.9

After analyzing the arguments of others for and against the thesis under study, the Seraphic Doctor exposes his personal position on the matter, taking sides for the thesis contrary to the sanctification of Mary’s flesh before its animation. In his opinion, the Virgin’s flesh was not sanctified before being animated, not because God could not purify Mary’s flesh before animating it but because sanctification is a free gift that is added to the soul, not to the flesh. According to this, to say that the Virgin’s flesh was sanctified before her animation would mean that this would be caused by the grace existing in the soul of the Virgin or in the souls of her parents. But it is impossible for this to occur through the grace existing in the soul of Mary since that would mean that her flesh was sanctified before her soul’s creation when she is instead sanctified by the grace of her soul. That would mean admitting the contradiction that the before and the after exist at the same moment, which is absurd.10

On the contrary, to claim that the sanctification of the Virgin’s flesh before being animated was caused by the grace present in the souls of her parents is also impossible. Bonaventure rejects such a possibility for three reasons. First, the grace of sanctification is not transmitted from the parents to the son since the son does not proceed from his parents according to his soul but according to his flesh (his body); therefore, Mary could not receive from her parents the grace of sanctification, which only concerns the soul.11

The Seraphic Doctor adduces as a second reason the fact that even if it were possible for sanctification to derive from the parents to the child, it would never derive from libidinous coitus since that would imply the contradiction that the holy and the libidinous are the same thing. Our author adds that St. Bernard makes this point when he says that holiness cannot exist without the sanctifying Holy Spirit, who, in turn, cannot be associated with sin, and sin necessarily occurs where libidinous pleasure occurs.12

The third reason given by Bonaventure to deny the aforementioned thesis is the following: supposing that the sanctification of Mary’s flesh had been due to the absence of libido in her parents is neither convenient nor possible since only the Virgin had the exclusive privilege of conceiving without sin and giving birth without pain; this is what Saint Bernard points out when saying that the Virgin conceived of the Holy Spirit although she was not conceived of the Holy Spirit and gave birth to a virgin but was not born of a virgin. Therefore, the Seraphic Doctor concludes that the Virgin Mary’s flesh was not sanctified before being animated, which he supports with four other arguments.13

The first is that the saying of Scripture about Jeremiah, “Before I formed you, I knew you”, does not mean knowing who is formed and predestined but rather knowing the purpose of God’s predestination; from this, it does not follow that the flesh of Jeremiah or that of the Virgin was sanctified before it was formed.14

The second argument is that when it is said of John the Baptist that the spirit of life was not yet in him when he exulted in his mother’s womb, it must be specified that in Scripture it is said that something is done when it appears and that does not exist when it does not appear. Therefore, it is said that the spirit was not in John because it did not appear since it was still in the womb, but it is said that the spirit was in him when he exulted in the womb at the coming of the Lord.15

As a third argument, facing the objection that the flesh can be stained and therefore, in the same way, it can also be sanctified before animation, Bonaventure argues that it is not the same in both cases since the generation of the flesh from the flesh is carnal, not spiritual; therefore, it is more normal that a vicious flesh could be derived from vicious flesh than that a holy flesh could be derived from parents sanctified by grace.16

Finally, the Seraphic Doctor invokes this fourth argument to deny the sanctification of the flesh of Mary. Although it is intended to say that the Virgin’s conception, as the product of conjugal intercourse within a legitimate marriage with a sterile mother, lacks actual guilt, it does not follow that she was conceived without the cause of sin (that is, the original sin) because this is how the original sin of those who engender is transmitted after legitimate coitus, just as it is transmitted after adulterous coitus.17 And it is not worth objecting that in the conception of Mary there should not be a cause of original sin due to the fact that she was generated by a sterile mother thanks to the power of the Holy Spirit; in that case, the same could be said of John the Baptist and of Isaac, who were also conceived by sterile mothers18 and were both born with original sin.

Bonaventure further adds that the Holy Spirit sometimes operates as a Spirit and sometimes as a Saint. It operates as a Spirit when it works supernaturally, as in the conception of John the Baptist by Elizabeth and of Mary by Anne; instead, it operates as a Saint when it not only works supernaturally but also sanctifies what it works on, and this only happened in the conception of God the Son, the Holy of Holies, since Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit.19

2.1.2. On the Sanctification of the Virgin Mary’s Soul before Contracting Original Sin

In the Second Question of Distinction 3 of Part 1, Article 1, of the Third Book of Comments on the Sentences of Peter Lombard,20 Bonaventure begins by asking if the Virgin Mary’s soul was sanctified before contracting original sin. To solve this question, our author follows the same methodological model as in the First Question: from the outset, he analyzes six arguments in favor and then six against before arguing his personal response to the problem.

When analyzing the first of the six arguments in favor of this thesis, the Seraphic Doctor presents the opinion of Saint Anselm, according to whom it was convenient that the conception of Jesus be made by the purest mother, of whom it was impossible to think that there was another purity higher below God. Now, the greatest purity is that in which neither actual faults nor original sin are found, and if, therefore, the Virgin was the purest, it does not seem that she contracted original sin, for which reason she seems to have been sanctified before contracting original sin.21

The second favorable argument is based on St. Augustine, who affirms that he does not want to raise questions about sins with respect to the Mother of the Lord, which seems to indicate that there were no sins committed or contracted in her (original sin).22

The third reasoning is supported by St. John Damascene when he says that, “The honor of the mother is reverted to the Son”; now, all honor is due to the Son of the Virgin, especially in terms of his immunity from sin; therefore, if it corresponds to the honor of the Son to have a pure and holy mother, it seems that the Mother of Christ would be immune from all sin, both original and current.23

The fourth argument in favor of the immaculate thesis is based on the assumption that there is always a middle ground between the extremes. In this sense, compared to those who have original sin in the soul and in the flesh, as in the children of Adam, there is someone, Christ, who lacks original sin in the soul and in the flesh; therefore, between both extremes there must be someone who, as a middle ground, has original sin either in the flesh, but not in the soul, or in the soul, but not in the flesh. Now, since it is impossible to have sin in the soul and not in the flesh, since the original birth comes from the flesh because only the flesh is transmitted, it remains only—as the Seraphic Doctor concludes—that someone has original sin only in the flesh and not in the soul: this is the Virgin Mary, who maximally acceded to Christ in all purity.24

The fifth favorable argument maintains that the sanctification of the Virgin surpasses that of all other saints; therefore, since St. John the Baptist was sanctified at birth from the womb (ex utero), it appears that the Virgin Mary was not only sanctified thus but also at birth in the womb (in utero). But, as birth in the womb occurs in the infusion of the soul, the Virgin therefore had the sanctity of divine grace at the very moment of the infusion of her soul, and so she was never infected with original sin.25

The sixth argument in favor of Mary’s Immaculate Conception argues that it was possible to give grace to the soul of the Virgin in the first moment of its creation; but, since it was convenient for God to give this soul what was convenient for it to receive, it seems that in the first moment of its creation, he gave it original grace. Therefore, since grace cannot coexist with sin, either she lost grace or did not contract original sin. But since it cannot be said that she lost grace, it seems that it must be said that she did not have original sin.26

2.2. Evaluating the Reasons Contrary to the Thesis of Mary’s Immaculate Conception

After explaining the arguments in favor of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Bonaventure analyzes the six arguments against this thesis. The first is based on the epistle to the Romans when Saint Paul affirms that “all sinned in Adam” because we all exist seminally in Adam; since the Virgin Mary also existed seminally in Adam, she also contracted original sin, like all the others.27

The second proof against the thesis is based on the sentence of Saint Augustine that “No one is freed from sins except by faith in the Redeemer”; therefore, all are saved by Christ. However, since someone who is without sin (that is, Christ) is not freed from it, it turns out that all others who are not Christ contracted original sin from which they would be freed by Christ.28

The third demonstration contrary to the above thesis is based on the position of Saint Bernard, who says that the Savior, when he came to free us all, found no one who was free from sin; therefore, he also did not find that the Virgin was free, which means that she contracted original sin.29

In the fourth proof against Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Bonaventure builds this complex reasoning. If the Virgin lacked original sin, she would have lacked the death penalty that is inherent to her; therefore, either she was done a great injustice, since she died, or she would have died in a dispensative way for the salvation of humanity. But the first alternative would be an outrage to God because then God would not be a just retributor, and the second alternative would be an outrage for Christ, because then Christ would not be a sufficient Redeemer. Thus, since both alternatives are false and impossible, it only remains to admit that Mary contracted original sin.30

As a fifth argument contrary to the above thesis, the Seraphic Doctor argues that only those who are guilty benefit from Christ’s redemption, and if the Virgin lacked original sin, she would not benefit from Christ’s redemption. And, since it is a great glory for the saints to have been redeemed by Christ, if he had not redeemed the Virgin, she would have been deprived of the nobliest glory, which is a profane and impious statement.31

Finally, Bonaventure formulates the sixth argument against the immaculist thesis: if the Virgin Mary did not have original sin, and knowing that only Christ opened the door of heaven that original sin closed us, it would happen that, if Mary had died before Christ, she would have immediately flown to heaven. This would make it absurd that Saint Paul’s sentence to the Colossians was false when he said that “Christ pleased to reconcile by himself everything that exists in heaven or on earth.”32

2.3. Bonaventure’s Position against Mary’s Immaculate Conception

After exposing the arguments for and against the mentioned thesis, the Seraphic Doctor argues his personal position on the matter, namely, affirming, in accordance with the common opinion at this time, that the Virgin’s sanctification occurred after contracting original sin.33

2.3.1. Justifying His Opinion Contrary to the Thesis of Mary’s Immaculate Conception

Now, before reasoning out his contrary position in this matter, our author once again carefully revisits the arguments of those who defend the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

In this order of ideas, Bonaventure begins by saying that some affirmed that in the Virgin’s soul at her birth, the grace of sanctification came before original sin. This is justified, according to immaculists, because it was convenient that at birth, the soul of the Virgin should be sanctified with the highest excellence above all other saints, and this excellence should be not only in terms of the abundance of holiness but also in terms of the acceleration of time so that at the moment of its creation, grace was infused, and at this very moment, its soul was infused into her flesh (body).34 The Seraphic Doctor complements the reasoning of the defenders of the Immaculate Conception, adding that since Wisdom is more mobile than all beings that move, and grace is more powerful than nature, the effect of the grace of holiness prevailed in the flesh of Mary more than the effect of the stain on the soul; from this, it follows that she did not contract original sin.35

Bonaventure adds that the position of the defenders of the Immaculate Conception seems to be based on multiple congruences, namely, because of the extraordinary honor of Christ, to whom it was fitting to be born of a most pure mother, because of the exclusive prerogative of the Virgin, who had to excel in sanctification above the other saints, and finally, for the honor of the order. Thus, just as there was a person (Christ) immune to original sin in his flesh and in his soul and in its cause and effect, and as there were people (humankind as a whole) who, on the contrary, contracted original sin in the flesh and in the soul, so too, the immaculists conclude, should there be an average person who somehow had or somehow did not have original sin: that average person is the Virgin Mary, the mediator between Christ and us, just as Christ is the mediator between God and us.36

Our author then highlights that the defenders of the Immaculate Conception rely on the testimony of Saint Anselm when he says that the Virgin was the purest, with a purity that cannot be conceived greater than that below God.37 In addition, the Seraphic Doctor points out that those in favor of the immaculate thesis claim that not only does it not oppose but it agrees with the truth of Holy Scripture and the truth of the Christian faith.38 It agrees with the truth of Holy Scripture because the Virgin was prefigured by the ark of the covenant, and her soul was prefigured by the urn in which the manna was deposited; since the urn was filled with manna before being placed in the ark of the covenant, this means that naturally, the Virgin’s soul was sanctified before being united to her flesh.39 They also affirm that their immaculist thesis does not contradict the Christian faith either when they say that the Virgin was freed from original sin by grace. However—as the defenders of the immaculate thesis point out—although this grace prevented the infection of Mary’s soul, it did not prevent the infection of her flesh, and due to that infection of her body, the penalties were maintained in the Virgin, since the grace of sanctification does not avoid penalties but guilt.40 And, although Mary was subjected to hardships, she was nevertheless freed by Christ from original sin in a very different way from the others, since the others were raised after the fall (sin), while the Virgin was sustained on the Fall so that she would not stumble, that is, Christ freed her from original sin. Thus, the defenders of the immaculate doctrine conclude that the Virgin was not infected by original sin as to the effect but only as to the cause.41

Now then, in the face of the allegations of the immaculate, Saint Bonaventure presents the arguments of those who, like him, believe that the sanctification of Mary occurred after contracting original sin, like all other human beings except her divine Son, Christ, the only one immune to original sin.42 This is what Saint Paul affirms in his epistle to the Romans, when he says that “All have sinned and need the glory of God”. This means that the grace of Christ, the only one who was born without original sin, comes to all sinners, and all need of the glory of God so that Christ frees them from sins.43 Saint Augustine expresses himself in the same sense when, commenting on John the Baptist’s phrase defining Jesus as “the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”, he says that only the one who came without sin and lacks of sin can take away the sins of the world.44

The Seraphic Doctor later ensures that the opinion denying Mary’s Immaculate Conception is more common, more reasonable, and more secure than its contrary. It is more common, because almost everyone maintains that the Virgin had original sin, as shown by the multitude of her penalties; in this regard, the author points out that there is no reason to say that Mary suffered these penalties to redeem others but rather because she contracted original sin.45 He then states that the anti-immaculate opinion is more reasonable than the opposite because the being of nature temporarily and naturally precedes the being of grace, as Saint Augustine suggests when he affirms that “to be born is first before being reborn”. In the same sense, it is said that first is to be before being good; therefore, it is first necessary that the soul be united with the flesh before the grace of God is infused into it. If, therefore, Mary’s flesh was infected by original sin, her soul would also be infected by that infection by original sin. For this reason, our author considers it necessary to affirm that the infection of original sin in Mary occurred before her sanctification.46

Third, Bonaventure emphasizes the idea that the anti-immaculate opinion is also safer than its opposite because it agrees with the piety of the faith and with the authority of the saints. In his opinion, it agrees with the authority of the saints because they commonly maintain that only Christ is exempt from original sin since “All sinned in Adam”, and no saint has been heard to affirm that the Virgin was immune to original sin.47 The author takes his reasoning to the point of ensuring that the anti-immaculate position is even more consistent with the piety of the faith. This is confirmed, according to him, because although the Mother of Christ should be the object of our reverence and devotion, this reverent devotion should be given with greater reason to Christ: all honor and all glory should be given to Him alone since He is the Redeemer and Savior of all who opened the door of heaven to all of us and died for all of us, including the Virgin Mary herself.48

In the end, the Seraphic Doctor opts in this problem to adhere to “the common opinion”, which maintains that the Virgin was sanctified after contracting original sin, considering that this contraction does not diminish her honor, which in any case, is incomparably less than that of his divine Son Jesus.49 To support his position, Bonaventure provides these six arguments.

• First, he refutes the thesis that the Virgin was pure based on these three reasons. First, because this thesis says that the supreme purity of the Virgin is below God, it means that it is inferior to the purity of Christ; therefore, Mary had some stain, be it the original or the current one. However, since she lacked actual sins, it follows that she had original sin.50 In addition, when this thesis says “nothing greater can be understood”, “understand” means to think or know rationally, and it is not possible to rationally think that Mary, born of the voluptuousness of a man, lacks original sin.51 Thirdly, when this thesis says that this conception was achieved by a purest mother, this must be understood in the sense that this supreme purity was realized when Mary conceived the Son of God; then, she was completely purified and remained the purest, from which it cannot be concluded that when she was born she was without original sin.52
• To the claim to justify Mary’s Immaculate Conception based on what St. Augustine says about sins, Bonaventure replies that this saint refers to current sins, not original sin.53
• Faced with the allegation of the immaculists that the honor of the Mother refers to the Son, our author responds that although this is true, it does not follow from this that all the honors attributable to the Son must be attributed to the Mother: in his opinion, this would not be honoring the Son but insulting him by attributing to another an honor that only belongs to him. And, as the honor of being exempt from all sin, both current and original, is only proper to the Son of God, since he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a Virgin mother, that honor should not be attributed to Mary. The other dignities are enough for her, with which she surpasses all human praise; in addition, the Virgin does not need false honors, since those that conform to the full truth are enough for her.54
• Confronting the argument of the defenders of Mary’s Immaculate Conception stating that between the extremes it is necessary to place a middle ground, Bonaventure answers that this would be true if this middle was produced by the extremes according to a certain order and congruence. But that is not the case here, since it is not convenient to put a cause without an effect, or an effect without a cause.55
• To the allegation that the Virgin’s sanctification completely surpasses that of the other saints both in magnitude and speed, our author replies that although this is true, it does not follow from this that the Virgin was sanctified in the first moment of the creation of his soul, since she only excels in what is her own.56
• Lastly, our author discusses the objection of the defenders of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, for whom it was possible that grace was infused into the Virgin in the first moment of her creation because, since “nothing was impossible for God”, it could make the Virgin immune to all sin. The Seraphic Doctor responds to this allegation by saying: it is appropriate that this privilege should be granted only to him through whom the salvation of all was produced, that is, Jesus Christ, so that no flesh may glorify before him, but only to him honor and glory would be rendered forever and ever.57

Ultimately, it is necessary to recognize the outstanding honesty with which Saint Bonaventure justifies with numerous arguments his position contrary to the immaculist thesis, which would end up being imposed as an official dogma in 1854. By assuming this position, the Seraphic Doctor was not content to gregariously uphold the most widespread opinion at the time. Rather, he took pains to scrutinize any reasoning for and against the immaculist belief before carefully proposing his own arguments against this belief. If we wanted to present in a brief (very impoverishing) synthesis Bonaventure’s arguments to oppose the immaculist doctrine, we could summarize them in these three essentials: (1) the Virgin Mary, having been conceived by her parents through sexual intercourse—which, at that time, was considered essentially linked to original sin—was not immune from this sin; (2) had she been conceived without original sin, Mary would have been equated with Christ, who is the only sinless person; (3) had she had the privilege of an Immaculate Conception, Mary would not have received the gift of Redemption from sin, which Christ comes to grant to all human beings.

2.3.2. Arguing the Virgin Mary’s Sanctification before Her Birth

In the Third Question of the Third Distinction, Part I, Article I of the Third Book of Comments on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Bonaventure studies the problem of whether the Virgin Mary was sanctified before her birth.58 Here again, following the scholastic methodology, our author exposes the reasons in favor of this thesis and then the reasons against it before providing his own position on the matter. The Seraphic Doctor proposes three reasons in favor: the first is the emphatic statement of Saint Bernard when he says that “the mother of God was without a doubt holy before birth.”59 The second is a new sentence of Saint Bernard, when he says that “What is known to have been granted to a few saints, it is not fair to believe that it has been denied to the Virgin”; if Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified in the womb, it seems much more certain that the Virgin Mary was sanctified in the womb.60 As a third argument in favor of this thesis, Bonaventure highlights the fact that the Church solemnly celebrates the nativity of the Virgin and, since it would not be fair to celebrate this liturgical feast if she had been born in sin, it follows that Mary was sanctified at birth.61 Then, the Seraphic Doctor adds this disquisition, which is actually a fourth argument in favor of Mary’s sanctification before her birth: if any person should have participated in the fullness of the grace of the Virgin’s Son, with the greatest right his Mother Mary should have participated in that grace because Mary was most suitable for that grace, and with her and in her that grace increased by being gestated in her mother’s womb. It seems logical that Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit’s grace in the very womb of her mother Anna.62

The Seraphic Doctor then exposes the arguments against the thesis of Mary’s sanctification before her birth. The first, glossing the epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans, our author says that if Christ was the first born without sin and the first to rise impassively, it turns out that Mary, having been born before Christ, was not born without sin, and therefore, she was not sanctified before birth.63 In the second argument against the thesis of Mary’s sanctification before her birth, the author refers to the affirmation of Saint Augustine, according to which the grace through which we become temples of God is only given to the reborn, who are or can be born human beings; therefore, as the Virgin was made a temple of God by her sanctification, she was not holy before she was born.64 Bonaventure raises the third proof contrary to the thesis of Mary’s sanctification before her birth in these terms: no property disappears while it has continuity with its cause but, since the soul contracts original sin through parents, it seems clear that while the offspring is united to its mother, it cannot be cleansed of original sin; therefore, it too cannot be sanctified.65

The fourth argument against this thesis is based on the principle that being ordered presupposes being different; since the grace of sanctification presupposes being different, as nothing can be conferred on a being without a discrete or separate existence, therefore, the progeny, while it is united to its mother (without having a being separate from her), cannot be sanctified.66

In the fifth argument against this latter thesis, Bonaventure considers that sanctification in the womb is an effect known only to God and that no saint is said to have been sanctified in the womb except Jeremiah and John the Baptist, the two mentioned expressly in Scripture; now, since nothing of such nature is said about the Virgin, it seems logical to conclude that Mary was not sanctified before birth.67

Having analyzed the arguments for and against the thesis under study, Bonaventure finally exposes his position on the matter, joining the defenders of the sanctification of the Virgin before her birth. In this sense, he highlights that the Church retains as an indubitable truth that the Virgin was sanctified in the womb. This statement is manifested by the fact that the whole Church celebrates the feast of the birth of Mary, something that would be impossible to do if she had not been sanctified before birth.68

Bonaventure adds that although we are certain that the Virgin was sanctified in the womb before she was born, we cannot know with certainty which day and at what instant she was sanctified. Our author concludes that Mary’s sanctification or infusion of grace occurred shortly after the infusion of the soul in her body.69

Finally, in a long and complex disquisition, the Seraphic Doctor assures that if Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified in the wombs of their mothers before being born, it stands to even greater reason the Virgin Mary had to be sanctified before being born For St. Bonaventure this is evident, especially when considering that the holiness of Mary far exceeds the purity and virginity of Jeremiah and John the Baptist, whose holiness is less than that of Mary. Furthermore, in them only virginity is given, while in Mary, virginity is given with motherhood, and if both saints were sanctified in the wombs of their mothers, it stands to greater reason that this Virgin who gestated God in her own womb should be sanctified in the womb of her mother.70

3. Conclusions

St. Bonaventure addresses with exemplary honesty the arduous and controversial issue of whether the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin. With such a moral attitude, he systematically examines with great objectivity each of the arguments in contention, both those offered by the defenders of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and those offered by the opponents of such a belief. Only after this detailed analysis of the arguments for and against this thesis does the Seraphic Doctor expose the variety of reasoning with which he justifies his own opinion on the matter.

Thus, in accordance with the majority position at that time and based on numerous arguments, among which are several extracted from the Scripture and testimonies of some saints, Bonaventure denies the Immaculate Conception of Mary. According to him, all human beings except Jesus Christ are conceived through carnal intercourse and are therefore born contaminated with the original guilt inherited from our First Parents. In this regard, the Virgin Mary, who was also conceived through carnal intercourse, could not be an exception. Moreover, Christ, the only sinless man, redeemed all humanity from sin, including Mary, who contracted original sin like all other human beings.

However, the Seraphic Doctor defends that although initially contaminated by original sin when conceived through carnal intercourse, the Virgin Mary was sanctified in the maternal womb shortly after the animation of her body (the infusion of the soul into her body) and before her birth. In his opinion, this is evident since if John the Baptist and Jeremiah were sanctified in the womb, Mary, who is far superior to both, should have been sanctified shortly after her body received the animation of her soul.

In the end, many centuries later, the Church would reject the opinion of St. Bonaventure, together with the opinions of the other deniers of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which would be defined as a dogma in 1854 by Pope Pius IX through the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus71. To substantiate this dogma doctrinally, the Church took into consideration the arguments put forward in favor of this belief throughout the centuries by countless teachers of Christian doctrine; among them, John Duns Scot, Pietro Aureolo, Francesco de Mayronis, Raymond Llull, the Pope Sixth IV, and Francisco de Santiago stand out for their remarkable roles as fervent defenders of the immaculist belief. Despite this disavowal, one must acknowledge the commendable intellectual integrity with which the Seraphic Doctor attempted to provide a credible answer to this challenging and hotly debated doctrinal problem.