Question XVI: Whether a husband can annul a vow of chastity made by his wife without his permission while the marriage stands, and to be fulfilled then

It is CERTAIN, that a vow of the wife not to render the debt is null, because it is against the law of matrimony. The question therefore can only be, whether a vow not to seek the debt can be nullified by the husband.

The FIRST opinion is affirmative. So D. Thom. in 4. dist. 31. in expositione litterae, et ibi Palud. quaest. 2. art. 2. num. 17. Ioan. de Friburgo summa confessorum, lib. 1. tit. 8. quaest. 35. Sotus in 4. dist. 32. quaest. 1. art. 3. et lib. 7. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 1. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. fol. 1021. Nauar. summa, cap. 12. num. 16. Reginaldus lib. 18. num. 304. et 312. Stunica de voto, quaest. 3. num. 59. Guttier. quaest. can. lib. 2. cap. 22. num. 49. Philipp. de offic. sacerd. tomo 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 4. Manuel 1. Tomo summae, cap. 243. num. 8. et 2. Tomo, cap. 90. num. 3. Gomez super Bullam Cruciata, clausula 10. num. 67. Vega 1. Tomo summae, cap. 159. casu 12. et 93. Sayrus Claui reg. lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 13. Sanchez lib. 9. de matrim. disput. 39. num. 10. et lib. 4. summa, cap. 34. num. 19. Diana Parte 2. Tract. 4. resol. 220. reporting others, Fagundez lib. 2. Decal. cap. 37. et Bassaeus V. Votum 5. num. 6.

The SECOND opinion is that of D. Bonauent. in 4. dist. 32. dub. 3. litt. whom the Gloss follows cap. Manifestum 33. quaest. 5. where Hugo, and Archidiac. at the end Hugo Cardinal. Numer. 30. at the end Litt. K. Vincentius in speculo Doctrinali, tom. 2. lib. 9. cap. 86. Palud. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 4. art. 2. concl. 5. num. 23. where Mayro concl. 2. part. 1. Caietanus summa, v. votum, cap. de conditionibus ex parte vouentis, et opusculis Tom. 1. tract. 31. septemdecim responsionum, resp. 14. dub. 4. Sylvester V. Votum, 4. quaest. 2. dicto 4. Nauar. summa, cap. 12. num. 64. Ledersma 2. part. 4. quaest. 66. art. 4. Palac. 4. dist. 32. dub. 2. fol. 717. Angles. flor. 2. part. quaest. de voto, art. 7. diffic. 9. Petrus a Ledesma de matrim. disp. 94. art. 4. dub. 1. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 6. de voto, puncto 6. quaest. ult. de votis subditorum, Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 47. at the end, Ioannes Hesalis in expositione Decal. 2. praecepto, cap. 14. these being related, Sanchez loc. cit. de matrimonio, says, this denying opinion is sufficiently probable.

I ASSERT with this opinion, that the vow not to seek the debt, emitted by the wife, cannot be nullified by the husband.

IT IS PROVED from D. Bonauent. in 4. dist. 32. dub. 1. et 3. litt. The husband has no dominion over the wife with respect to the conjugal act, but with respect to it they are equals cap. gaudemus, de diuort. et cap. si quis uxorem, 32. quaest. 1.

Sanchez answers num. 12. although the spouses are equals with respect to the obligation of rendering, and the liberty of not seeking, and so that matter is not subject to the husband; yet with respect to that new obligation the wife is subject to her husband, as to her head, whose it is to direct her will, lest she act imprudently.

BUT power must first be over the matter, upon which the will falls; therefore Sanchez instituted the questions above: Whether superiors can over the debt-matter only v. g. the husband over matter bearing upon matrimony, or also over the will.

That Sanchez holds especially lib. 9. de matrimoniis, For the will in relation to some matter is subject, nor is the will left to be moderated by the husband, since by right it is in this wholly subject to the wife herself, indeed by the nature of the thing, and by the force of the conjugal bond, from which the spouse is certainly bound to render to the one seeking, but the other may freely seek: And so the argument of Sanchez is also answered.

HE OBJECTS second with that scripture from 30. Numer. and the exposition of D. Augustine.

It is ANSWERED from what was said quaest. praecedenti, that the scripture speaks once of abstinence, and once of governance, outside the bed; nor does D. Augustine favor the adversaries, as I have shown.

Sanchez URGES ex Abbate cap. Carissimus, num. 5. de conuers. coniug. that continence is comprehended under the name of abstinence per cap. si tu abstines. 27. quaest. 1. there: if you abstain without the will of your wife, you grant her license to fornicate, etc.

BUT these things are beside the point: For although sometimes the word abstinet, in matter subject to carnal copula, signifies also to abstain from it, as in the matter of homicide, and others, while the matter from which one abstains is being expounded; nevertheless it is a generic word, which by usage is usurped for, and appropriated to, abstinence from foods, and much more so if the matter of food, or fasting, be added, as is done in that chapter. Therefore the rule does not follow, that in other matters also it everywhere be extended to abstinence from carnal things, because it is a word signifying it improperly, that which is properly called Continence; and much less in the place Num. 30. where there is talk of abstinence from foods; for it says: If she vow, that by fasting, or abstinence from other things she may afflict her soul, namely according to the law of the Nazarites, to abstain from wine etc. Thus D. Augustine expounds it, reported quaest. praecedenti. It is manifest therefore that the law willed the woman to be under the husband, in such wise that none of her vows, which she shall have vowed for the cause of abstinence, be rendered by her, unless the husband has been the author by permitting. But he says which she shall have vowed for the cause of abstinence, in distinction from the vow of continence, as Sanchez himself notes num. 4.