Dist. 27
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 27
Cap. I. Quae sint consideranda in coniugio.
Post hoc advertendum est, quid sit coniugium, et quae sit efficiens causa coniugii, et causa, propter quam contrahi debeat, et quae sint bona coniugii, et quomodo per ea excusetur coitus carnalis, et quae sint legitimae personae ad matrimonium. Sunt et alia plura in matrimonio consideranda, quae sub compendio perstringemus.
Cap. II. Quid sit coniugium.
« Sunt igitur nuptiae vel matrimonium viri mulieris coniunctio maritalis inter legitimas personas, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens1 ». « Ad individuam consuetudinem pertinet, quod absque consensu alterius neuter continentiam profiteri potest, vel orationi vacare »; et quod inter eos, dum vivunt, vinculum coniugale permanet, ut alii se copulare non li-
ceat; et ut invicem alter alteri exhibeat quod quisque sibi. Hac autem descriptione legitimorum et fidelium tantum matrimonium includitur.
Cap. III. De consensu, qui efficit coniugium.
Efficiens autem causa matrimonii est consensus, non quilibet, sed per verba expressus, nec de futuro, sed de praesenti. Si enim consentiunt in futurum, dicentes: accipiam te in virum, et ego te in uxorem; non est iste consensus efficax matrimonii. Item, si consentiant mente et non exprimant verbis vel aliis certis signis; nec talis consensus efficit matrimonium. Si autem verbis explicant quod tamen corde non volunt; si non sit coactio ibi vel dolus, obligatio illa verborum, quibus consentiunt dicentes: accipio te in virum, et ego te in uxorem, matrimonium facit.
Quod autem consensus matrimonium faciat, subditis probatur testimoniis. Ait enim Isidorus2: « Consensus facit matrimonium ». Item Nicolaus Papa: « Sufficiat solus secundum leges eorum consensus, de quorum coniunctionibus agitur; qui solus, si forte in nuptiis defuerit, cetera etiam cum ipso coitu celebrata frustrantur ». Item Ioannes Chrysostomus: « Matrimonium quidem non facit coitus, sed voluntas; et ideo non solvit illud separatio corporis ». Item Ambrosius: « Non defloratio virginitatis facit coniugium, sed pactio coniugalis ». — Ex his apparet, quod consensus, id est pactio coniugalis, matrimonium facit; et ex tunc coniugium est, etiam si non praecesserit vel secuta sit copula carnalis.
Cap. IV. Quando incipit esse coniugium.
Quod enim ab ipsa desponsatione, in qua pactio coniugalis exprimitur, coniuges sint, Sanctorum testimonia probant. Ait enim Ambrosius3: « Cum initiatur coniugium, coniugii nomen adsciscitur; cum coniungitur viro, coniugium est, non cum viri admixtione cognoscitur ». Item Isidorus: « Coniuges verius appellantur a prima desponsationis fide, quamvis adhuc inter eos ignoretur coniugalis concubitus ». Item Augustinus: « Coniux vocatur ex prima desponsationis fide, quam concubitu non cognoverat nec fuerat cogniturus. Nec peierat nec mendax manserat coniugii appellatio, ubi nec fuerat nec futura erat carnis ulla commixtio. Propter quod fidele coniugium ambo parentes Christi vocari meruerunt non solum illa mater, sed etiam ille pater eius, sicut coniux matris eius, utrumque mente, non carne ». — Ex his evidenter insinuatur, quod ex tempore, quo intercedit consensus voluntarius ac maritalis, qui solus coniugium facit, veri coniuges sunt sponsus et sponsa.
Cap. V. De opinione quorundam, qui dicunt, coniugium non esse ante carnalem copulam.
Quidam tamen asserunt, verum coniugium non contrahi ante traditionem et carnalem copulam, nec vere coniuges esse aliquos, antequam intercedat commixtio sexus; sed a prima fide desponsationis vir sponsus, et mulier sponsa est, non coniux. Sponsos autem et sponsas coniuges frequenter appellari dicunt, non quia sint, sed quia futuri sunt, cuius rei sponsionem invicem fecerunt. Et secundum hoc verba praemissarum auctoritatum intelligenda fore tradunt.
Cap. VI. Quod sponsa potest eligere monasterium sine sponsi consensu.
Quod vero inter sponsam et coniugem plurimum intersit, ex eo astruunt, quia licet sponsae ante carnalem copulam, inconsulto vel nolente sponso, monasterium eligere; quo facto, sponso etiam licet aliam ducere. Coniugatus vero vel coniugata nec continentiam, nisi ex communi consensu, servare valet nec monasterium petere, nisi uterque continentiam pariter profiteatur. Quod vero liceat sponsae monasterium eligere, auctoritatibus Sanctorum probatur. Ait enim Eusebius Papa4: « Desponsatam puellam non licet parentibus alii viro tradere, tamen licet sibi monasterium eligere ». Item Gregorius: « Decreta legalia desponsatam, si converti voluerit, nullo penitus censuerunt damno mulctari ». « Refert etiam Hieronymus, quod Macarius, inter Christi eremitas praecipuus, celebrato nuptiarum convivio, cum vespere thalamum esset ingressurus, ex urbe egrediens transmarina petiit et eremi solitudinem sibi elegit. Beatus etiam Alexius similiter ex nuptiis divina gratia vocatus, sponsam deseruit et nudus Christo famulari coepit. — His auctoritatibus et exemplis liquet, licere sponsis sine consensu suarum sponsarum, et e converso, continentiam profiteri ».
Cap. VII. Quod coniugatus sine coniugis consensu nequit profiteri continentiam.
Hoc autem coniugatis nullatenus licet. Non enim potest vir melioris vitae propositum sumere sine uxoris consensu, et e converso. Unde Gregorius5, scribens
Theoctistae patriciae: « Sunt qui dicunt, religionis gratia coniugia debere solvi. Verum sciendum est, quia, etsi hoc lex humana concessit, tamen lex divina prohibuit. Si vero utrisque conveniat continentem vitam ducere, hoc quis audeat accusare? Sic enim multos Sanctorum novimus cum suis coniugibus et prius continentem vitam duxisse et post ad sanctae Ecclesiae regimina migrasse. Si vero continentiam, quam vir appetit, mulier non sequitur, aut quam uxor appetit, vir recusat; coniugium dividi non potest, quia scriptum est: Mulier potestatem suae carnis non habet, sed vir; similiter et vir potestatem sui corporis non habet, sed mulier ». Idem: « Agathosa, latrix praesentium, questa est, virum suum contra voluntatem suam in monasterium esse conversum. Quapropter experientiae tuae praecipimus, ut diligenti inquisitione discutiat, ne forte eius voluntate conversus sit, vel ipsa se mutare promiserit. Et si hoc tua diligentia repererit; et illum in monasterio permanere provideat et hanc, sicut promisit, mutare compellat. Si vero nihil horum est, nec quoddam fornicationis crimen, propter quod licet uxorem dimittere, praedictam mulierem commisisse cognoveris; ne illius conversio uxori relictae in saeculo fieri possit perditionis occasio, volumus, ut maritum suum illi, etiam si iam tonsuratus est, reddere debeas, omni excusatione cessante; quia nisi fornicationis causa virum uxorem dimittere nulla ratio concedit. Postquam enim copulatione coniugii viri et mulieris unum corpus efficitur, non potest ex parte converti et ex parte remanere in saeculo ». Item ex octava synodo6: « Si quis coniugatus converti ad monasterium velit, non est recipiendus, nisi prius a coniuge castimoniam profitente fuerit absolutus. Tales igitur tunc sine culpa sequuntur Christum, relicto saeculo, si habent ex pari voluntate castitatis consensum ». Item: « Si vir et uxor divertere pro sola religiosa inter se consenserint vita, nullatenus sine conscientia episcopi fiat, ut ab eo singulariter proviso constituantur loco. Nam uxore nolente, vel altero illorum, etiam pro tali re matrimonium non solvitur ».
Cap. VIII. De adulterinis coniugiis.
Item Augustinus7: « Si abstines sine uxoris voluntate, tribuis ei fornicandi licentiam, et peccatum illius tuae imputabitur abstinentiae ». Item Nicolaus Papa8: « Scripsit nobis Thietberga regina, regia se velle dignitate vel copula exui et sola vita privata esse contentam, desiderare. Cui scripsimus, non hoc aliter fieri posse, nisi eandem vitam vir eius Lotharius elegerit ». — Ex his patet, quod coniugati sine communi consensu continentiam profiteri, vel habitum religionis sumere non valent; et si fecerint, revocari debent.
Sponsi vero possunt sine communi consensu monasterium eligere; unde videtur inter sponsum et sponsam coniugium non esse. Ideoque asserunt, a prima fide desponsationis coniuges appellari, non re praesentium, sed spe futurorum, quia ex fide, quam ex desponsatione sibi invicem debent, postea efficiuntur coniuges. Praemissas etiam auctoritates, quibus asseritur, quod consensus matrimonium facit, ita intelligi volunt, ut consensus vel pactio coniugalis non ante coitum faciat matrimonium, sed in coitu. Sicut enim defloratio virginitatis non facit matrimonium, nisi praecedat pactio coniugalis; ita nec pactio coniugalis, antequam adsit copula carnalis. Ex pactione igitur coniugali sponsi et sponsae fiunt ante coitum, in coitu vero efficiuntur coniuges. Facit enim pactio coniugalis, ut quae prius erat sponsa in coitu fiat coniux.
His autem ita respondemus. Fit aliquando desponsatio, ubi est compromissio viri et mulieris de contrahendo matrimonio, non est autem ibi consensus de praesenti; et est desponsatio habens consensum de praesenti, id est pactionem coniugalem, quae sola facit coniugium. In illa ergo desponsatione, ubi est pollicitatio contrahendi matrimonium, sponsi tantum et sponsae fiunt, non coniuges; et talibus sponsis licet sine communi consensu continentiam profiteri et monasterium eligere. In ea vero desponsatione, ubi est consensus de praesenti, coniugium contrahitur, et ab illius desponsationis prima fide veri coniuges appellantur. Secundum hanc distinctionem desponsationis de sponsis varie loquuntur doctores.
Cap. IX. Quod multipliciter sponsus et sponsa accipitur.
Aliquando enim sponsas vocant, quae talem habuerunt desponsationem, ubi fuit pactio coniugalis de praesenti; et illae vere coniuges sunt. Unde Gregorius9: « Si quis uxorem desponsaverit vel subarrhaverit, quamquam postmodum, praeveniente die mortis eius, nequiverit eam ducere in uxorem; tamen nulli de consanguinitate eius licet accipere eam in coniugio; et si inventum fuerit factum, separetur omnino ». Item Iulius Papa: « Si quis desponsaverit uxorem vel subarrhaverit, et vel praeveniente die mortis eius, vel irruentibus quibusdam causis, eam non cognoverit; nec frater eius nec ullus de consanguinitate eius eandem sibi tollat in uxorem ullo unquam tempore ». Item Gregorius: « Qui desponsatam proximi sui puellam ceperit in coniugium, anathema sit ipse et omnes consentientes ei, quia secundum legem Dei mori decernitur. Nam
divinae legis mos est, sponsas appellare coniuges, ut in Evangelio: Accipe Mariam coniugem tuam; et in Deuteronomio: Si quis alterius sponsam in agro vel in quolibet loco oppresserit, vel adduxerit in domum suam; moriatur, quia uxorem proximi sui violavit, non quae iam uxor erat, sed quae a parentibus uxor fieri debebat ». — Ex his colligitur, quod sponsae quaedam coniuges sunt ante commixtionem sexuum. — Sed forte illud movet quod in fine capituli dicitur: Non quae iam uxor erat, sed quae uxor fieri debebat. Quod non ita debet intelligi, quasi uxor vere non fuerit, ex quo pactio coniugalis intercessit; sed quia nondum traducta fuerat, nec res uxoria intercesserat, scilicet concubitus coniugalis.
Vocatur10 etiam sponsa, quae sic viro desponsata est, ut non intercesserit consensus de praesenti, sed sponsio futuri. Secundum quem modum illud decretum intelligitur: « Si quis sponsam filii oppresserit, et post filius eius eam duxerit; pater postea non habeat uxorem, nec mulier virum; filius, qui patris facinus ignoravit, aliam ducat ». Si coniux illa fuisset, quod utique foret, si in sponsalibus pactio coniugalis intercessisset, non permitteretur sponso aliam ducere. Moechis autem poena non nubendi ex rigore infligitur, ut alii terreantur. Item ex eodem11: « Quidam desponsavit uxorem et dotavit et cum ea coire non potuit, quam clanculo frater eius corrupit et gravidam reddidit; decretum est, ut, quamvis nupta non potuerit esse legitimo viro, desponsatam tamen fratri frater habere non possit; sed moechus et moecha fornicationis quidem vindictam sustineant, licita vero eis coniugia non negentur ». De illa desponsatione hoc intelligi debet, ubi non fuit consensus coniugalis de praesenti, alioquin non liceret eis alias sortiri coniugia. Secundum hoc etiam illud intelligi debet: « Statutum est a sacro conventu, ut, si quis sponsam alterius rapuerit, publica poenitentia mulctetur et sine spe coniugii maneat. Et si ipsa eidem crimini consentiens non fuerit, licentia nubendi alii non negetur12 ». « Apparet, hanc fuisse desponsatam sine pactione coniugali de praesenti, et ideo non fuisse coniugem; cui, vivente sponso, alteri nubendi licentia non negatur ». Sunt enim quaedam nuptialia pacta de futuro, ex quibus sponsi et sponsae vocantur nec exinde coniuges sunt; et est quaedam pactio coniugalis de praesenti, quae sponsum et sponsam etiam coniuges facit. Et utraque pactio desponsatio vel sponsalia interdum dicuntur, proprie tamen sponsalia dicuntur quaedam solemnia pacta nuptialia.
De nuptialibus pactis, ubi est tantum sponsio futuri, ait Augustinus13: « Institutum est, ut iam pactae sponsae non statim tradantur, ne vilem habeat maritus datam, quam non suspiravit sponsus dilatam ».
Cap. X. Quae sponsa sit vidua, mortuo sponso, et quae non.
Et est sciendum, quod illa sponsa, quae tantum in futuro est pacta, mortuo sponso, non remanet vidua, quia non fuerat vir eius. Unde si quis eam duxerit, ad sacros ordines conscendere non prohibetur, quia non duxit viduam. Viduae enim maritus aeque, sicut bigamus, sacerdos fieri prohibetur; ex tali autem copula nullus arcetur a sacris ordinibus. Secundum hoc intelligendum est quod ait Pelagius Papa14 de illo qui, mortuo sponso eius, sponsam ducit in uxorem: « Nihil est, inquit, quantum ad hunc articulum attinet, quod ei obviet de canonicis institutis, quin ad sacros ordines promoveri valeat ». Si vero talis sponsa fuisset, inter quam et sponsum eius consensus de praesenti intercessisset, eo mortuo, vidua remansisset; cui copulatus in coniugio ulterius ad sacros ordines non accederet, cum viduam duxerit. Non est igitur ambigendum, quin solus de praesenti consensus coniugium efficiat, et exinde veri coniuges appellentur. Ideo post talem consensum si quis alii se copulaverit, etiam si carnis commixtio illic sequatur, ad priorem copulam revocandus est.
---
Chap. I. On what things are to be considered in marriage.
After this it must be noted what marriage is, and what is the efficient cause of marriage, and the cause on account of which it ought to be contracted, and what are the goods of marriage, and how through them carnal intercourse is excused, and who are the legitimate persons for matrimony. There are also many other things to be considered in marriage, which we shall run through in brief compass.
Chap. II. What marriage is.
« Marriage, then, or matrimony, is the marital union of a man and a woman between legitimate persons, retaining an undivided common manner of life1. » « To the undivided common life it pertains that without the consent of the other neither can profess continence, or be free for prayer »; and that between them, while they live, the conjugal bond remains, so that it is not permitted to unite with an-
other; and that mutually the one render to the other what each [owes] to himself. By this description only legitimate and faithful matrimony is included.
Chap. III. On the consent which effects marriage.
Now the efficient cause of matrimony is consent — not any consent whatever, but one expressed through words, and not concerning the future, but concerning the present. For if they consent regarding the future, saying: I will take you as husband, and I you as wife; this consent is not effective of matrimony. Likewise, if they consent in mind and do not express it by words or by other certain signs; neither does such consent effect matrimony. But if they express in words what nevertheless they do not will in their heart; if there be no coercion there or deceit, that obligation of the words by which they consent, saying: I take you as husband, and I you as wife, effects matrimony.
That consent effects matrimony is proved by the testimonies adduced below. For Isidore2 says: « Consent makes matrimony ». Likewise Nicholas the Pope: « Let the consent alone suffice, according to their laws, of those whose union is in question; which alone, if it happen to be lacking in the nuptials, the rest, even celebrated with intercourse itself, are frustrated ». Likewise John Chrysostom: « Matrimony indeed intercourse does not make, but the will; and therefore separation of body does not dissolve it ». Likewise Ambrose: « Not the deflowering of virginity makes marriage, but the conjugal pact ». — From these it appears that consent, that is the conjugal pact, makes matrimony; and from then on it is marriage, even if carnal union has not preceded or followed.
Chap. IV. When marriage begins to be.
That from the very betrothal, in which the conjugal pact is expressed, they are spouses, the testimonies of the Saints prove. For Ambrose3 says: « When marriage is initiated, the name of marriage is taken on; when she is joined to the man, it is marriage, not when she is known by the man's intercourse ». Likewise Isidore: « They are more truly called spouses from the first pledge of betrothal, although as yet conjugal intercourse be unknown between them ». Likewise Augustine: « She is called spouse from the first pledge of betrothal, whom he had not known by intercourse nor was about to know. Nor had the appellation of marriage perjured itself nor remained false, where there neither had been nor was to be any mingling of flesh. On account of which both merited to be called the faithful marriage, the parents of Christ, not only that mother, but also that father of his, as the spouse of his mother — both in mind, not in flesh ». — From these it is evidently insinuated that from the time at which voluntary and marital consent intervenes, which alone makes marriage, the betrothed man and betrothed woman are true spouses.
Chap. V. On the opinion of certain persons who say that marriage does not exist before carnal union.
Yet some assert that true marriage is not contracted before the handing-over and carnal union, nor are any truly spouses before the mingling of the sexes intervenes; but from the first pledge of betrothal the man is a betrothed man, and the woman a betrothed woman, not a spouse. But betrothed men and betrothed women, they say, are frequently called spouses, not because they are, but because they are to be so, of which thing they have made a mutual pledge. And according to this they hand down that the words of the aforesaid authorities are to be understood.
Chap. VI. That a betrothed woman can choose a monastery without the betrothed man's consent.
But that between a betrothed woman and a spouse there is a great difference, they establish from this: that a betrothed woman is permitted, before carnal union, without consulting or against the will of the betrothed man, to choose a monastery; and this done, the betrothed man too is permitted to marry another. But a married man or married woman can neither observe continence, except by common consent, nor seek a monastery, unless both alike profess continence. That a betrothed woman is permitted to choose a monastery is proved by the authorities of the Saints. For Eusebius the Pope4 says: « A betrothed girl it is not permitted to the parents to hand over to another man, yet it is permitted her to choose a monastery for herself ». Likewise Gregory: « The legal decrees have judged that a betrothed woman, if she wishes to convert, be mulcted by absolutely no penalty ». « Jerome also relates that Macarius, foremost among the hermits of Christ, the wedding feast having been celebrated, when in the evening he was about to enter the bridal chamber, going out from the city sought lands across the sea and chose for himself the solitude of the desert. Blessed Alexius too, likewise called by divine grace from his nuptials, deserted his betrothed and began to serve Christ naked. — From these authorities and examples it is clear that it is permitted to betrothed men, without the consent of their betrothed women, and conversely, to profess continence ».
Chap. VII. That a married person cannot profess continence without the spouse's consent.
But this is by no means permitted to the married. For a man cannot take up a purpose of a better life without the consent of his wife, and conversely. Whence Gregory5, writing
to Theoctista the patrician lady: « There are those who say that on account of religion marriages ought to be dissolved. But it must be known that, even if human law has conceded this, yet divine law has forbidden it. But if it be agreeable to both to lead a continent life, who would dare to accuse this? For thus we know many of the Saints both to have led a continent life with their spouses before, and afterwards to have passed to the governance of the holy Church. But if the continence which the man seeks, the woman does not follow, or which the wife seeks, the man refuses; marriage cannot be divided, because it is written: The woman does not have power over her own flesh, but the man; likewise also the man does not have power over his own body, but the woman ». The same: « Agathosa, the bearer of the present [letter], has complained that her husband against her will has been converted into a monastery. Wherefore we command your experience diligently to examine by careful inquiry, lest perhaps he was converted with her will, or she promised to change herself. And if this your diligence shall have found; let it provide both that he remain in the monastery and compel her, as she promised, to change. But if none of these is so, nor have you learned that the aforesaid woman has committed any crime of fornication, on account of which it is permitted to dismiss a wife; lest his conversion become for the abandoned wife left in the world an occasion of ruin, we will that you ought to restore her husband to her, even if he is already tonsured, all excuse ceasing; because save for the cause of fornication no reason grants that a man dismiss his wife. For after by the union of marriage of the man and the woman one body is made, it cannot in part be converted and in part remain in the world ». Likewise from the eighth synod6: « If any married man wishes to convert to a monastery, he is not to be received, unless first he has been released by his spouse who professes chastity. Such then follow Christ without fault, the world being left behind, if they have from equal will the consent of chastity ». Likewise: « If a man and wife have consented among themselves to separate for the sake of religious life alone, let it by no means be done without the knowledge of the bishop, that by him, providing singularly, they be established in [their] place. For with the wife unwilling, or either of them, even for such a matter marriage is not dissolved ».
Chap. VIII. On adulterous unions.
Likewise Augustine7: « If you abstain without the will of your wife, you grant her license of fornicating, and her sin will be imputed to your abstinence ». Likewise Nicholas the Pope8: « Thietberga the queen has written to us that she desires to be stripped of her royal dignity or [conjugal] union and to be content with a private life alone. To her we wrote that this cannot be done otherwise, unless her husband Lothar choose the same life ». — From these it is clear that the married, without common consent, cannot profess continence, or take up the habit of religion; and if they have done so, they must be recalled.
But betrothed persons can, without common consent, choose a monastery; whence it seems there is no marriage between a betrothed man and a betrothed woman. And therefore they assert that from the first pledge of betrothal they are called spouses, not by the reality of present things, but by the hope of future ones, since by the faith which from the betrothal they owe to one another, they are afterwards made spouses. The aforesaid authorities also, by which it is asserted that consent makes matrimony, they will to be understood thus: that the consent or conjugal pact does not make matrimony before intercourse, but in intercourse. For just as the deflowering of virginity does not make matrimony, unless the conjugal pact precede; so neither does the conjugal pact, before carnal union is present. From the conjugal pact, therefore, they become betrothed man and betrothed woman before intercourse, but in intercourse they are made spouses. For the conjugal pact brings it about that she who before was a betrothed woman becomes in intercourse a spouse.
To these things we respond thus. Sometimes a betrothal occurs where there is a mutual promise of the man and the woman concerning contracting matrimony, but there is not there consent of the present; and there is a betrothal having consent of the present, that is a conjugal pact, which alone makes marriage. In that betrothal, therefore, where there is a promise of contracting matrimony, they become betrothed only, not spouses; and to such betrothed persons it is permitted, without common consent, to profess continence and to choose a monastery. But in that betrothal where there is consent of the present, marriage is contracted, and from the first pledge of that betrothal they are called true spouses. According to this distinction of betrothal the doctors speak variously of the betrothed.
Chap. IX. That "betrothed man" and "betrothed woman" are taken in multiple senses.
For sometimes they call those betrothed women who have had such a betrothal where there was a conjugal pact of the present; and these are truly spouses. Whence Gregory9: « If anyone has betrothed or pledged a wife to himself, although afterwards, the day of her death anticipating, he could not lead her as wife; nevertheless it is permitted to none of her kindred to take her in marriage; and if it be found to have been done, let them be entirely separated ». Likewise Julius the Pope: « If anyone has betrothed or pledged a wife, and, either the day of her death anticipating, or certain causes rushing in, has not known her; let neither his brother nor any of her kindred take the same to himself as wife at any time ever ». Likewise Gregory: « Whoever has taken in marriage the betrothed girl of his neighbor, let him be anathema, himself and all consenting to him, because according to the law of God he is decreed to die. For
it is the custom of the divine law to call betrothed women spouses, as in the Gospel: Take Mary your spouse; and in Deuteronomy: If anyone has oppressed another's betrothed in a field or in any place, or has led her into his house; let him die, because he has violated the wife of his neighbor — not her who was already a wife, but her who was to be made a wife by her parents ». — From these it is gathered that certain betrothed women are spouses before the mingling of the sexes. — But perhaps that moves [a difficulty] which is said at the end of the chapter: Not her who was already a wife, but her who was to be made a wife. Which ought not to be so understood as if she were truly not a wife, from the time the conjugal pact intervened; but because she had not yet been handed over, nor had the wifely reality intervened, namely conjugal intercourse.
She also is called a betrothed woman10 who has been thus betrothed to a man that consent of the present has not intervened, but [only] a pledge of the future. According to which mode that decree is understood: « If anyone has oppressed the betrothed of his son, and afterwards his son has married her; let the father afterwards not have [her as] wife, nor the woman [have] the man; let the son, who was ignorant of his father's crime, marry another ». If she had been a spouse, which she certainly would be, if in the betrothal a conjugal pact had intervened, the betrothed man would not be permitted to marry another. But upon adulterers the penalty of not marrying is inflicted by rigor, that others may be terrified. Likewise from the same11: « A certain man betrothed a wife and endowed her and could not have intercourse with her, whom secretly his brother corrupted and rendered pregnant; it was decreed that, although she could not be married to the legitimate man, yet the brother may not have his brother's betrothed as wife; but let the adulterer and adulteress indeed bear the vengeance of fornication, yet let lawful marriages not be denied to them ». Of that betrothal this ought to be understood where there was no conjugal consent of the present, otherwise it would not be permitted to them to obtain other marriages. According to this also that ought to be understood: « It has been established by a sacred assembly that, if anyone has seized the betrothed of another, let him be mulcted with public penance and remain without hope of marriage. And if she has not been consenting to the same crime, let license of marrying another not be denied her12 ». « It appears that this woman had been betrothed without a conjugal pact of the present, and therefore had not been a spouse; to whom, the betrothed man living, license of marrying another is not denied ». For there are certain nuptial pacts of the future, from which they are called betrothed man and betrothed woman, nor thereupon are they spouses; and there is a certain conjugal pact of the present, which makes the betrothed man and betrothed woman even spouses. And each pact is sometimes called betrothal or espousals, yet properly are espousals called certain solemn nuptial pacts.
Concerning nuptial pacts, where there is only a pledge of the future, Augustine13 says: « It has been instituted that betrothed women already pledged be not immediately handed over, lest the husband hold cheap her given, whom as betrothed man he did not sigh for when delayed ».
Chap. X. Which betrothed woman is a widow when the betrothed man dies, and which is not.
And it must be known that that betrothed woman who has only been pledged in the future, the betrothed man being dead, does not remain a widow, because he had not been her husband. Whence if anyone marry her, he is not prohibited from ascending to holy orders, because he has not married a widow. For the husband of a widow, equally as a bigamist, is prohibited from being made a priest; but from such a union no one is barred from holy orders. According to this must be understood what Pelagius the Pope14 says of him who, her betrothed man being dead, marries the betrothed woman as wife: « There is nothing, he says, as far as pertains to this article, which would stand in his way from the canonical institutes, but that he may be able to be promoted to holy orders ». But if she had been such a betrothed woman between whom and her betrothed man consent of the present had intervened, he being dead, she would have remained a widow; and one united to her in marriage would not further approach to holy orders, since he has married a widow. It is not therefore to be doubted that consent of the present alone effects marriage, and that thereupon they are called true spouses. Therefore after such consent, if anyone unite himself to another, even if carnal mingling should there follow, he must be recalled to the prior union.
---
- 1Cfr. Gratian., introductio in C. 27. q. 2. Seq. locus C. Beata Maria (3.), ibid. § 1, ubi edd., excepta 1, et cod. C addunt vitae post consuetudinem, refragante etiam canone.Cf. Gratian, the introduction to C. 27, q. 2. The following passage is the canon Beata Maria (3), ibid. § 1, where the editions, except 1, and cod. C add vitae after consuetudinem, though the canon itself is against it.
- 2C. Coniuges (6.), ibid. sec. sensum, sed verbotenus apud Gratian., loc. cit. — Seq. locus Nicolai est C. Sufficiat (2.), ibid.; tertius Chrysost., in Matth. Opus imperfectum, hom. 32; C. Omnis res (4.), ibid.; quartus Ambros., de Institut. virgin. c. 6. n. 41; C. Cum initiatur (5.), ibid.The canon Coniuges (6), ibid., according to the sense, but word-for-word in Gratian, loc. cit. — The following passage of Nicholas is the canon Sufficiat (2), ibid.; the third is Chrysostom, on Matthew, the Opus imperfectum, hom. 32; the canon Omnis res (4), ibid.; the fourth is Ambrose, On the Instruction of Virgins, c. 6, n. 41; the canon Cum initiatur (5), ibid.
- 3Locis citt. — Seq. locus Isidor. est IX. Etymolog. c. 7. n. 9; cit. can. Coniuges; tertius August., l. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 11. n. 12; C. Coniux vocatur (9.), ibid. Verbum utrumque refertur ad nomen pater et coniux.At the passages cited. — The following passage of Isidore is Etymologies IX, c. 7, n. 9; the canon Coniuges is cited; the third is Augustine, bk. On Marriage and Concupiscence, c. 11, n. 12; the canon Coniux vocatur (9), ibid. The word utrumque refers to the nouns pater and coniux.
- 4Can. Desponsatam (27.), ibid. Seq. locus est Gregor., VII. Regest., indict. 15. epist. 23. (alias 20.) ad Fortunatum; C. Decreta legalia (28.), ibid. Tertius apud Gratian. super C. Scripsit nobis (26.), ibid. De re narrata nihil in Hieronymo.The canon Desponsatam (27), ibid. The following passage is Gregory, Register VII, indiction 15, letter 23 (alias 20) to Fortunatus; the canon Decreta legalia (28), ibid. The third is in Gratian, on the canon Scripsit nobis (26), ibid. Of the thing narrated there is nothing in Jerome.
- 5Loc. cit. XI. indict. 4. epist. 45. (alias 39.); C. Sunt qui dicunt (19.), ibid., ubi citatur I. Cor. 7, 4. Seq. locus est loc. cit. epist. 50. (alias 44.) ad Adrianum; C. Agathosa latrix (21.), ibid. — Pro quoddam fornicationis Gratian. et plurimae edd. quondam, refragante ed. Maurina operum Gregorii.At the passage cited, Register XI, indiction 4, letter 45 (alias 39); the canon Sunt qui dicunt (19), ibid., where 1 Cor. 7:4 is cited. The following passage is at the passage cited, letter 50 (alias 44) to Adrian; the canon Agathosa latrix (21), ibid. — For quoddam fornicationis Gratian and most editions have quondam, though the Maurist edition of Gregory's works is against it.
- 6Can. Si quis (22.), C. 27. q. 2. — Seq. locus C. Si vir (23.), ibid. — Pro conscientia plurimae edd. consensu, refragantibus codd. et canone, et pro nolente ed. 1 et cod. Erf. volente.The canon Si quis (22), C. 27, q. 2. — The following passage is the canon Si vir (23), ibid. — For conscientia most editions have consensu, though the codices and the canon are against it, and for nolente ed. 1 and the Erfurt codex have volente.
- 7Verba haec potius invenies inter opera Chrysost., Homil. 1. in Ps. 50. n. 8; C. Si tu abstines (24.), ibid.; sententia autem est apud August., l. de Adulterinis Coniugiis, c. 4. n. 4.These words you will rather find among the works of Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Ps. 50, n. 8; the canon Si tu abstines (24), ibid.; but the opinion is in Augustine, bk. On Adulterous Marriages, c. 4, n. 4.
- 8Can. Scripsit nobis (26.), ibid. — Infra ante continentiam cod. A et edd., excepta 1, addunt monasterium eligere. Quae sequuntur occurrunt etiam apud Gratian. super eundem canonem.The canon Scripsit nobis (26), ibid. — Below, before continentiam, cod. A and the editions, except 1, add monasterium eligere. What follows occurs also in Gratian on the same canon.
- 9Can. Si quis uxorem (14.), ibid. Seq. locus est C. Si quis desponsaverit (15.), ibid.; tertius C. Qui desponsatam (12.), ibid., ubi citantur Matth. 1, 20; Deuter. 22, 23. seqq.The canon Si quis uxorem (14), ibid. The following passage is the canon Si quis desponsaverit (15), ibid.; the third is the canon Qui desponsatam (12), ibid., where Matt. 1:20 and Deut. 22:23 ff. are cited.
- 10Solae edd., excepta 1, Haec etiam sponsa est. Seq. locus est C. Si quis sponsam (32.), ibid.The editions alone, except 1, read Haec etiam sponsa est. The following passage is the canon Si quis sponsam (32), ibid.
- 11Can. Quidam desponsavit (31.), ibid.The canon Quidam desponsavit (31), ibid.
- 12Can. Statutum est (34.), ibid. Seq. locus est apud Gratian. super eund. canonem.The canon Statutum est (34), ibid. The following passage is in Gratian on the same canon.
- 13August., VIII. Confess. c. 3. n. 7; C. Institutum est (39.), ibid. — Ibi codd. et edd., excepta 8, falso omittunt non ante suspiravit, refragante canone et originali Augustini. — De seqq. cfr. Gratian. super C. Quod autem interrogasti (29.), ibid.Augustine, Confessions VIII, c. 3, n. 7; the canon Institutum est (39), ibid. — There the codices and editions, except 8, wrongly omit non before suspiravit, though the canon and the original of Augustine are against it. — On what follows cf. Gratian on the canon Quod autem interrogasti (29), ibid.
- 14Can. Valentino (20.), d. 34; cfr. C. Debitum pastoralis (5.), X. de Bigamis non ordinandis, libr. 1. tit. 21.The canon Valentino (20), d. 34; cf. the decretal Debitum pastoralis (5), in the Liber Extra, on Bigamists not to be ordained, book 1, title 21.