Dist. 38
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 38
DISTINCTIO XXXVIII.
Cap. I. De votis.
Nunc de voto inspiciamus. Votum est «testificatio quaedam promissionis spontaneae1», quae Deo et de his quae Dei sunt, proprie fieri debet. Sunt tamen et vota stultorum, quae frangenda sunt.
Cap. II. De votorum differentia.
Sciendum vero, quod votorum aliud est commune, aliud singulare: commune, ut illud quod in baptismo omnes faciunt, cum spondent renuntiare diabolo et pompis eius; singulare, ut cum aliquis sponte promittit servare virginitatem et continentiam, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Item singulare votum aliud est privatum, aliud solemne; privatum est in abscondito factum, solemne vero in conspectu Ecclesiae factum; item privatum votum si violetur, peccatum est mortale; solemne vero violare peccatum est et scandalum. Qui privatum faciunt votum continentiae matrimonium contrahere non debent, quia contrahendo mortaliter peccant; si tamen contraxerint, non separentur, quia probari non potest quod occulte actum est. Qui vero solemniter vovent, nullatenus coniugium inire queunt; quibus non solum nubere, sed et velle damnabile est. Unde Augustinus2: «In coniugali vinculo, si pudicitia servatur, damnatio non timetur; sed in viduali continentia et virginali excellentia virtus muneris amplioris expetitur; qua expetita et electa et voto oblata, iam non solum capessere nuptias, sed etiam, si non nubatur, nubere velle damnabile est». «Voventibus enim virginitatem vel viduitatem non solum nubere, sed etiam velle damnabile est». Quod Apostolus3 ostendit, Timotheo scribens: Adolescentiores viduas devita; cum enim luxuriatae fuerint, in Christo nubere volunt, id est, cum post votum continentiae in deliciis egerint vitam, non dico nubunt, sed nubere volunt in Christo, quasi tunc non sit peccatum; sed quod sit, ostendit subdens: Habentes damnationem; et quare, subdit: quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt, etsi non nubendo, tamen volendo; ut voluntatem, quae a proposito cecidit, appareat esse damnatam, sive sequantur nuptiae, sive non. Damnatur enim propositi fraus; damnantur tales, quia continentiae fidem primam irritam fecerunt, id est votum, vel in voto violato fidem, quam in baptismo professae sunt. Si autem pro voluntate nubendi damnantur, constat, si ream effectui mancipaverint, revocandum id esse in irritum, easque arcendas redire ad propositum. Unde Gregorius4: «Viduas a proposito recedentes viduitatis, super quibus nos consuluisti, credo te nosse a sancto Paulo, nisi convertantur, olim esse damnatas; quas et nos apostolica auctoritate damnandas et a communione fidelium atque a liminibus Ecclesiae arcendas fore censemus, usquequo obediant episcopis suis et ad bonum, quod coeperunt, invite, aut voluntarie revertantur».
«De virginibus autem non velatis, si deviaverint, a praedecessore nostro Innocentio tale decretum habemus: Hae quae necdum sacro velamine tectae, tamen in proposito virginali semper se simulaverunt permanere, licet velatae non fuerint, tamen, si nupserint, aliquo tempore his agenda poenitentia est, quia sponsio earum a Domino tenebatur. Si enim inter homines solet bonae fidei contractus nulla ratione dissolvi; quanto magis ista pollicitatio, quam cum Deo pepigit, solvi sine vindicta non poterit5»? Item: «Si virgines nondum velatae taliter publica poenitentia puniuntur et a coetu fidelium usque ad satisfactionem
excluduntur; quanto magis viduae, quae perfectioris aetatis et maturioris consilii existunt et habitum religionis assumserunt, et deinde apostataverunt atque ad priorem vomitum sunt reversae, a nobis et ab omnibus fidelibus a liminibus Ecclesiae et a coetu fidelium usque ad satisfactionem sunt eliminandae et carceribus tradendae»? — Ex his apparet, virgines vel viduas voto continentiae astrictas, sive fuerint velatae, sive non, nullatenus coniugium sortiri posse. Quod itidem de omnibus intelligendum est, qui continentiam voverunt. Quod enim ante erat licitum post votum fit illicitum.
Non est hic praetermittendum, quod Innocentius de viduis et puellis decrevit: «Quae Christo spiritualiter nubunt, si postea publice nupserint, non eas admittendas esse ad poenitentiam, nisi hi quibus se iunxerant, de mundo recesserint. Si enim de omnibus haec ratio custoditur, ut quaecumque, vivente viro, alteri nupserit, adultera habeatur, nec ei agendae poenitentiae licentia concedatur, nisi unus de eis fuerit defunctus; quanto magis de illa tenenda est, quae ante se immortali Sponso coniunxerat et post hoc ad humanas nuptias transmigravit1». — Attende, quod non solum coniugium talibus negare videtur, sed etiam locum poenitentiae. Sed non ita intelligendum est, ut aliquando excludantur a poenitentia, quae digne poenitentiam agere volunt; sed illae non sunt admittendae ad poenitentiam, quae ab incesti copula discedere noluerint; quia post religionis propositum non potest Deo per poenitentiam reconciliari quae ad habitum suae professionis redire neglexerit. Tunc ille cui se coniunxerat, ei defunctus erit, cum ab eius illicitis amplexibus haec penitus recesserit. Cum igitur dicitur, eas non esse admittendas ad poenitentiam, nisi hi quibus se iunxerant, recesserint de mundo; subaudiendum est eis. Tunc enim eis viri de mundo recedunt et defunguntur, cum ab eorum concupiscentia istae se alienant; quem sensum subdita similitudo declarat et confirmat.
Cum vir et mulier legitime coniuncti sunt, constat, alterum, altero vivente, ad aliam non posse transire copulam, alioquin adulterium committit; de quo Clemens Papa2 ait: «Quid in omnibus peccatis adulterio est gravius? Secundum namque in poenis tenet locum, quem primum illi habent qui aberrant a Deo». Gravissime igitur peccant adulteri, graviter fornicarii, sed cunctis his gravius incestuosi, quos omnes transcendunt contra naturam delinquentes. Unde Augustinus3: «Adulterii malum vincit fornicationem, vincitur autem ab incestu. Peius enim est cum matre quam cum aliena uxore dormire; sed horum omnium pessimum est quod contra naturam fit, ut si vir membro mulieris non ad hoc concesso utatur; hoc exsecrabiliter fit in meretrice, sed exsecrabilius fit in uxore».
Cap. III. De illis qui post longam captivitatem redeunt.
Hic quaeritur de illis feminis, quae putantes viros suos interemptos, vel in captivitate, vel ab iniqua dominatione nunquam liberandos, in aliorum coniugia transierunt; si illi qui putabantur periisse, remeaverint, utrum eis reddi debeant, et an secundi fornicati sint, et ipsae reae adulterii. De hoc Leo Papa4 sic ait: «Necesse est, ut legitimarum foedera nuptiarum redintegranda credamus, et remotis his quae hostilitas intulit, cuique id legitime reformetur, quod intulit; procurandumque est, ut recipiat quisque quod proprium est. Nec tamen culpabilis iudicetur et quasi alieni iuris pervasor habeatur qui personam eius mariti, qui iam non esse existimabatur, assumsit. Sic enim multa, quae ad eos, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt, pertinebant, in ius alienum transire potuerunt; et tamen plenae iustitiae est, ut, eisdem reversis, reformentur. Ideoque, si viri post longam captivitatem reversi ita in dilectione suarum coniugum perseverant, ut eas cupiant in suum redire consortium; dimittendum est et inculpabile iudicandum quod necessitas intulit, et restituendum quod fides poscit. Sin autem aliquae mulieres ita virorum posteriorum amore sunt captae, ut malint his cohaerere quam ad legitimum transire consortium, merito sunt notandae, ita ut ecclesiastica communione priventur quae de re excusabili contaminationem criminis elegerunt. Redeant ergo in suum coniugia statum, quia, sicut mulieres, quae ad viros suos reverti noluerint, impiae sunt habendae, ita illae quae redeunt, merito sunt laudandae». — Ex his ostenditur, illos qui taliter iunguntur, ut credant virum interemptum, per ignorantiam aliquam excusationem habere de peccato; et tantum primam copulam esse legitimam, non secundam; veniam tamen habere, si careat opprobrio malae voluntatis. — Sed si quis, relicta in patria sua uxore, in longinquam abiens regionem, aliam ducat uxorem, deinde poenitentia ductus eam dimittere velit, asserens, se aliam habuisse, quae vivit, nec Ecclesia permittat, quae quod ille asserit ignorat; quaeritur, an in hac secunda copula sit coniugium. Sane dici potest, non esse coniugium, et mulierem de crimine excusari per ignorantiam, virum autem adulterium admisisse. Sed ex quo, ad primam redire volens nec valens, cogitur Ecclesiae disciplina hanc tenere, incipit excusari per obedientiam et timorem de hoc, quod poscenti mulieri debitum reddit, a qua ipse nunquam poscere debet. Et sic de aliis huiusmodi sentiendum est5.
---
DISTINCTION XXXVIII.
Chap. I. On vows.
Now let us examine the vow. A vow is «a certain attestation of a spontaneous promise1», which ought properly to be made to God and concerning those things which are God's. Yet there are also vows of fools, which ought to be broken.
Chap. II. On the difference of vows.
But it must be known that of vows one is common, another singular: common, as that which all make in baptism, when they promise to renounce the devil and his pomps; singular, as when someone spontaneously promises to keep virginity and continence, or something of this kind. Likewise a singular vow is of one sort private, of another solemn; private is that made in secret, but solemn that made in the sight of the Church; likewise if a private vow is violated, it is a mortal sin; but to violate a solemn one is a sin and a scandal. Those who make a private vow of continence ought not to contract matrimony, because in contracting they sin mortally; if however they have contracted, let them not be separated, because what has been done secretly cannot be proved. But those who vow solemnly can in no way enter marriage; for whom not only to marry, but also to will it is damnable. Hence Augustine2: «In the conjugal bond, if chastity is preserved, damnation is not feared; but in widowed continence and virginal excellence the virtue of a greater gift is sought; and once this has been sought and chosen and offered by vow, now not only to take up marriage, but even, if one does not marry, to will to marry is damnable». «For to those vowing virginity or widowhood not only to marry, but even to will it is damnable». This the Apostle3 shows, writing to Timothy: Avoid the younger widows; for when they have grown wanton, they wish to marry in Christ, that is, when after a vow of continence they have led their life in delights, I do not say they marry, but they wish to marry in Christ, as though then it were not a sin; but that it is [a sin], he shows by adding: Having damnation; and why, he subjoins: because they have made void their first faith, even if not by marrying, yet by willing; so that the will, which has fallen away from its purpose, may appear to be damned, whether marriages follow, or not. For the fraud of the purpose is damned; such women are damned, because they have made void the first faith of continence, that is the vow, or, in a violated vow, the faith which they professed in baptism. But if they are damned for the will to marry, it is clear that, if they have surrendered the guilty [will] to its effect, it must be recalled into voidness, and that they must be driven back to return to their purpose. Hence Gregory4: «Widows withdrawing from the purpose of widowhood, concerning whom you have consulted us, I believe you know from Saint Paul, unless they be converted, to have been long ago damned; whom we also by apostolic authority judge to be condemned and to be barred from the communion of the faithful and from the thresholds of the Church, until they obey their bishops and return, unwillingly or willingly, to the good which they began».
«But concerning unveiled virgins, if they have gone astray, we have from our predecessor Innocent such a decree: These who, not yet covered by the sacred veil, have nevertheless always pretended to remain in the virginal purpose, although they were not veiled, nevertheless, if they have married, for some time penance must be done by them, because their pledge was held by the Lord. For if among men a contract of good faith is wont to be dissolved by no reason; how much more will this promise, which she struck with God, not be able to be loosed without punishment5»? Likewise: «If virgins not yet veiled are in such wise punished by public penance and
excluded from the assembly of the faithful until satisfaction; how much more are the widows, who are of more perfect age and more mature counsel and have taken up the habit of religion, and afterwards have apostatized and have returned to their former vomit, to be removed by us and by all the faithful from the thresholds of the Church and from the assembly of the faithful until satisfaction, and to be handed over to prisons»? — From these things it appears that virgins or widows bound by a vow of continence, whether they have been veiled, or not, can in no way obtain marriage. And this is likewise to be understood of all who have vowed continence. For what before was lawful, after the vow becomes unlawful.
It is not here to be passed over, what Innocent decreed concerning widows and maidens: «They who spiritually marry Christ, if afterwards they publicly marry, are not to be admitted to penance, unless those to whom they had joined themselves have departed from the world. For if of all this rule is kept, that whoever, while her husband lives, marries another be held an adulteress, nor be granted her license to do penance, unless one of them has died; how much more is it to be maintained of her, who had joined herself before to the immortal Spouse and after this migrated to human marriage1». — Note, that not only does he seem to deny marriage to such women, but also the place of penance. But it is not so to be understood, that those who wish worthily to do penance should ever be excluded from penance; but those are not to be admitted to penance, who have been unwilling to depart from the incestuous union; because after the purpose of religion she cannot be reconciled to God through penance who has neglected to return to the habit of her profession. Then he to whom she had joined herself will be dead to her, when she has utterly withdrawn from his unlawful embraces. When therefore it is said that they are not to be admitted to penance, unless those to whom they had joined themselves have departed from the world; to them is to be understood. For then the husbands depart from the world to them and die, when these withdraw themselves from their concupiscence; which sense the appended likeness declares and confirms.
When a man and a woman are lawfully joined, it is agreed that the one, while the other lives, cannot pass to another union, otherwise he commits adultery; concerning which Pope Clement2 says: «What in all sins is graver than adultery? For it holds the second place in punishments, which first place those hold who stray from God». Most gravely therefore do adulterers sin, gravely fornicators, but more gravely than all these the incestuous, all of whom those transgressing against nature surpass. Hence Augustine3: «The evil of adultery surpasses fornication, but is surpassed by incest. For it is worse to sleep with a mother than with another's wife; but the worst of all these is what is done against nature, as if a man should use a member of a woman not granted for this; this is done execrably with a harlot, but more execrably with a wife».
Chap. III. On those who return after a long captivity.
Here it is asked concerning those women who, thinking their husbands slain, or that they would never be freed, whether in captivity or from an unjust domination, have passed into the marriages of others; if those who were thought to have perished return, whether they ought to be restored to them, and whether the second [husbands] have fornicated, and the women themselves are guilty of adultery. Concerning this Pope Leo4 thus says: «It is necessary that we believe the covenants of lawful marriages must be restored, and, those things removed which hostility brought in, that to each be lawfully restored what it brought in; and it must be procured that each receive what is his own. Nor yet let him be judged culpable and held as an invader of another's right, who assumed the person of that husband who was thought no longer to be. For thus many things which pertained to those who were led into captivity could pass into another's right; and yet it belongs to full justice that, when these have returned, they be restored. And therefore, if the husbands, returned after a long captivity, so persevere in love of their wives, that they desire them to return into their fellowship; that which necessity brought in must be dismissed and judged inculpable, and what faith demands must be restored. But if some women are so captivated by love of the later husbands, that they prefer to cleave to these rather than to pass over to the lawful fellowship, they are deservedly to be censured, so that they be deprived of ecclesiastical communion, who out of an excusable matter have chosen the contamination of a crime. Let them therefore return into the state of their [own] marriages, because, just as women who have been unwilling to return to their husbands are to be held impious, so those who return are deservedly to be praised». — From these things it is shown that those who are so joined, as to believe the husband slain, have through ignorance some excuse from sin; and that only the first union is lawful, not the second; yet that they have pardon, if it lack the reproach of an evil will. — But if someone, having left his wife in his own country, going away into a far region, marries another wife, then, led by penance, wishes to dismiss her, asserting that he had had another who lives, and the Church does not permit it, being ignorant of what he asserts; it is asked whether in this second union there is a marriage. It can indeed be said that there is no marriage, and that the woman is excused from the crime through ignorance, but that the man committed adultery. But from the fact that, wishing to return to the first and not being able, he is compelled by the discipline of the Church to keep this one, he begins to be excused through obedience and fear in this, that he renders the debt to the woman demanding it, from whom he himself ought never to demand it. And thus concerning other things of this kind it must be judged5.
---
- 1Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 3. De seqq. cfr. idem ibid.Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments II, part XII, c. 3. For what follows compare the same, ibid.
- 2De Bono viduitatis, c. 9. n. 12; C. Nuptiarum bonum (41.), C. 27. q. 1. § 1; in quo textu ed. 1 et can. apponunt non ante servatur, refragante Augustini originali. Seq. locus verbotenus est in C. Voventibus (2.), C. 17. q. 1.On the Good of Widowhood, c. 9, n. 12; the canon Nuptiarum bonum (41.), C. 27, q. 1, § 1; in which text edition 1 and the canon add non before servatur, against Augustine's original. The following passage is word-for-word in the canon Voventibus (2.), C. 17, q. 1.
- 3Epist. I. Tim. 5, 11. 12. (Vulg. ponit comma post Christo).First Epistle to Timothy 5, 11–12. (The Vulgate places a comma after Christo).
- 4Can. Viduas a proposito (2), C. 27. q. I.The canon Viduas a proposito (2), C. 27, q. 1.
- 5Ibid. § 1; seq. locus ibid. § 2, ubi respicitur II. Petr. 2, 22.Ibid., § 1; the following passage ibid., § 2, where reference is made to 2 Peter 2, 22.
- 1Can. Quae Christo (10.), C. 27. q. 1.The canon Quae Christo (10.), C. 27, q. 1.
- 2Can. Quid in omnibus (16.), C. 32. q. 7. Propositio seq. est apud Gratian. super C. Quemadmodum non recte (10.), ibid.The canon Quid in omnibus (16.), C. 32, q. 7. The following proposition is found in Gratian upon the canon Quemadmodum non recte (10.), ibid.
- 3Verbotenus in C. Adulterii malum (11.), ibid.; sententia est Augustini ex libro de Bono coniugali, c. 8. n. 8; c. 11. n. 12.Word-for-word in the canon Adulterii malum (11.), ibid.; the opinion is Augustine's, from the book On the Good of Marriage, c. 8, n. 8; c. 11, n. 12.
- 4Epist. 159. (alias 129.) ad Nicetam, c. 1; C. Cum per bellicam (1.), C. 34. q. 1. et 2.Epistle 159 (alias 129) to Nicetas, c. 1; the canon Cum per bellicam (1.), C. 34, q. 1 and 2.
- 5Hic casus sumtus est ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 9. — De falsa solutione Magistri, postea communiter reprobata, cfr. Comment. infra dub. 12.This case is taken from Hugh, Summa Sententiarum, tr. 7, c. 9. — On the false solution of the Master, afterwards commonly rejected, compare the Commentary below, dub. 12. ---