Question XV: Whether a husband can annul all the vows of his wife, beyond the vow of chastity

(D. Thom. art 8.

The foundation of the difficulty is, whether the wife is subject to her husband only with respect to the promised matter, and consequently only vows concerning the matter, as prejudicing marriage in its very nature as marriage, are in the husband's power; or whether she is subject to her husband also with respect to the entire act of the will, whereby she vows; and consequently the husband can nullify whatever vow of his wife's, as emitted by a will that is not mistress of itself.

The first opinion is, that the wife is subject to her husband by reason of the promised matter alone, and accordingly the husband can nullify only vows prejudicial to himself and to domestic governance. So Abbas cap. litteras, n. 27. Innocentius cap. scriptura de voto, where Hostiensis, Ioan. Andr. num. 4. Anton. num. 3. Cardinal quaest. 14. Anchas. num. 13. Hugo cap. manifestum, 33. quaest. 5. Vincentius speculo doctrinali, tom. 2. lib. 9. cap. 86. Turrecremata dicto cap. manifestum, num. 2. et cap. sunt quaedam 17. quaest. 1. num. 9. Cacthus. ad cap. 10. Numner. D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 1. cap. 21. §. 1. Angel. V. votum 2. num. 8. Sylvester V. votum 5. quaest. 1. Tabiena V. matrimonium 1. quaest. 2. §. 4. Mayronus 4. dist. 38. particula 1. concl. 1. Monaldus summa, Tract. de voto, tit. de voto coniugatorum, Nauar. summa, cap. 11. num. 64. Margarita confess. fol. 155. Palac. 4. dist. 38. disp. 3. fol. 987. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 47. §. ultimo, Graff. 101 p. p. decis. lib. 2. cap. 29 n. 8. et part. 2. lib. 2. cap. 2. numero 43. Vivaldus Candelabro, sacram. 3. part. cap. 14. num. 100. Philiarc. de offic. sacerd. tom. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 18. Ioan. Hesssel. in expositione, Decal. cap. 14. de secundo praecepto Ecclesiae. Azor. lib. 11. Inst. cap. 17. quaestio 12. et cap. 16. quaestio ultimo, Lessius lib. 2. de iustitia, cap. 40. disp. 10. num. 83. Sayrus in clavi, reg. lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 8. et cap. 10. num. 19. Llamas methodo curationis 3. part. cap. 4. §. 23. Suarez Tom. 2. de religione, Tract. de voto, lib. 3. cap. 6. num. 26. et lib. 6. cap. 4. num. 2. et alii apud Basilium Poncium de matrimonio, lib. 10. cap. 17. and Dianam loco citando. Sylvius quaest. 88. art. 8. Rodriguez cap. 92. Fillucius tract. 16. num. 235. and Bassaeus V. Votum 5. n. 5.

The other opinion asserts the direct opposite: that the woman is subject to her husband even with respect to her very will; and consequently he can nullify all his wife's vows, once they have been emitted while the marriage stands, to be fulfilled thereafter, if they were made without his leave. So D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. ad 3. Gloss. cap. manifestum, V. nisi author; ibi Gratianus, §. ex promissis, Gloss. ordin. et Hugo ad 33. Numner. Durandus in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 1. art. 1. num. 7. and, excluding only the vow of moderate almsgiving, the same authors teach about the rest: Abbas cap. scripturae, num 8. de voto, Paludanus 4. dist. 38. quaest. 3. art. 1. concl. 6. num. 10. Abulens. quaest. 84. ad 30. Numer. Rosella verb. votum, num. 8. et 10. supplem. Gabr. 4. dist. 31. quaest. unica, art. 2. concl. 7. and that he can nullify all except a vow concerning necessary things, as on not lying Angles holds flor. 2. part. quaest. de voto, art. 7. diffic. 9. Finally this opinion is held by Maior 4. dist. 38. quaest. 4. dub. 2. Sotus lib. 7. de iustitia, quaest. 3. art. 1. Brunellus de sponsal. concl. 30. num. 14. Alcozer summa, cap. 16. fol 56. pag. 2. Stunica de voto, quaest. 3. num. 74. Manuel 2. Tomo summae, cap. 90. num. 9. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. fol. 1020. Sà V. votum, ubi de voti irritatione, §. 1. Petros Ledesma de matrim. quaest. 64. art. 4. dub. 2. concl. 1. Vega 2. Tomo summae, cap. 129. casu 93. et 94. and Lessius and Lopez assert it safe and probable, though made of necessary things, as of not lying. So Sotus, Stunica, Aragon, Manuel, Vega, and Ledesma cited, whom Sanchez reports and follows lib. 9. de matrim. disp. 39. et lib. 4. Decal. cap. 34. et Diana part. 2. Tract. 4. resol. 220. holding that the husband can nullify even vows of chastity, emitted while the marriage stands, where he cites others.

This is the chief opinion of S. Bonaventure, as Sanchez notes, for in 4. disp. 22. dub. 3. littera, he says the husband cannot nullify his wife's vow of continence, because in this they are equals; and he immediately adds: Nor is it the same with a vow of abstinence, because in all else the husband is above the wife, except in the law of the bed, in which they are equals. The same he holds disp. 38. quaest. 3. The same author Fagundez cites and follows in 2. praecepto, lib. 2. cap. 38. adducing many others.

I ASSERT therefore, with this opinion, that the husband can nullify all his wife's vows, emitted without his leave in the manner said above.

¶ IT IS PROVED by D. Bonavent. LL. CC. first from cap. 30. Numer. If she have a husband, and vow something, if the husband hearing it immediately contradicts, and nullifies her promises: the Lord will be merciful to him. If the wife in her husband's house bind herself by a vow, if the husband hears it and keeps silent, and does not contradict the compact, she shall render whatever she promised; but if he contradict it forthwith, she shall not be bound by the guilt of the promise, from which text S. Bonavent. deduces this of every vow bearing upon the governance of life. So read the LXX. Vatablus, and Pagninus, not indeed of every vow, including also the vow of chastity, as I shall show in the following question; but of a vow bearing upon abstinence, or religious conversation, as D. Ambrose expounds in the book de Paradiso, cap. 10. and it is reported in the final chapter cap. 33. quaest. 5. there most evidently. Hence it appears, that the husband is so the head of the woman, that she may not offer to God any vows of abstinence, or of religious conversation, without his leave; and the reasoning of D. Bonavent. which his followers use, and which Sanchez brings forth num. 4. is that, although with respect to the conjugal act husband and wife are equals; yet in all else: the husband is the head of the woman, Ephes. 5. And the woman is under the power of the husband, Genes. 3. but all the actions of the body are subject to the head, and governed by it. Whence it follows that it belongs to the husband to govern the woman, lest she vow imprudently. Wherefore God subjected her will to her husband, because the woman is prone to vow.

¶ INDEED the second text speaks of the vow of abstinence alone, not of every vow universally, as Sanchez holds num. 4. nor does D. Augustine, alleged by him, interpret it universally (as he himself says), but of the vow of abstinence alone, as D. Bonav. notes in the same dist. 32. For thus D. Augustine speaks in lib. 4. in Numer. quaest. 59. and it is reported cap. noluit 33. quaest. 5. there: The law therefore did not will that the woman vow anything, so that in some abstinence from things lawful the authority in those vows should be that of the woman, but of the man, and cap. manifestum, the same quaest. 5. which is D. Augustine's: it is manifest 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.

¶ WHERE you are to note, that the end is the interpreter of the law: since therefore (says S. Augustine) God did not will that in abstinences from things lawful the woman should be the one to authorize, he willed to ordain that the vows of women be nullifiable by their husbands; supply, in that genus, as is shown more evidently in the later passage.

¶ THEY OBJECT first; the will of the wife is subject to her husband only insofar as the law of matrimony extends; but it does not regard all things, but only those which are ordained to cohabitation in order to raising offspring, and to governing the house; why then is the will of the wife so subjected, when not even servants are subject to their masters, still less minors to their parents? For neither are sons subject to the Father in all things, as Abbas says cap. litterae, num. 27. de restit. spoliat.

¶ Sanchez answers num. 9. from the doctrine of D. Bonaventure in the places adduced, that the husband is above the woman in the whole governance of life, except the law of the bed, in which they are equals. Therefore the governance of life requires, that the woman, who is of a light disposition, especially for deliberating, not break beyond the limits of prudence; hence the husband, who is by nature more prudent, ought to assist.

¶ YOU OBJECT second. The prelate of a religion cannot nullify the vow of a subject concerning passing to a stricter religion; why therefore can the husband nullify the vows of his wife concerning perfection, or avoiding sin, since the religious is more subject to his prelate than the wife to her husband?

¶ Sanchez answers that the religious is here exempt by the laws, as also the pubescent son in the vow of religion; hence Innocentius says cap. scripturae, de voto, num. 3. and Antonius there, that the Father can nullify all personal vows of his son, except the vow of religion: but the wife is not exempt from the whole; because it conduces to the governance of life. And since the life of spouses ought to be in the greatest peace, and the greatest love, it was necessary that all those things be removed which could disturb this peace, such as the obligations of vows, to which women especially incline. Therefore in Genes. 3. it is said to Eve: you shall be under the power of the husband; and he shall rule over you, and the Apostle in Ephes. 5. let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the woman: as Christ is the head of the Church; but as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let women be to their husbands in all things. Where the last words are to be weighed, which bring the subjection of the wife to the husband in all things. Therefore as all the actions of the body in their governance are subject to the head, and governed by it; and as the Church is subject to Christ; so the wife to the husband in the whole governance of life, as S. Bonavent. most acutely gathers in 4. dist. 32. dub. 1. littera, and after him Sanchez lib. 4. Decal. cap. 34. num. 3. who proceeds thus: As the right governance of religion demands that the will of subjects be subject to the prelate in all added obligations, and this full subjection is not impeded by the fact that not all things can be commanded to subjects, but only those which are according to the rule; nor all things forbidden; so also the right and peaceful governance of the house demands the full subjection of the wife to the husband in all things, with respect to new obligations to be imposed upon herself, lest the peace and right governance be disturbed. Nor is this full subjection impeded by the fact that the husband cannot command, nor forbid all things. This is Sanchez, whereby his argument brought forward quaest. 11. at the end is sufficiently answered, whereby he was striving to prove that the religious is by his nature not subject with respect to the nullifying of vows, because he is not bound to obey in all things.

For Sanchez answers here, as we have seen.

¶ IT IS BEFITTING, however, that this subjection of the woman be on account of her many burdens; whence Numer. 30. in the same way ordains that the vows of the girl in the house be nullified by the Father, as those of the wife by the husband, since the wife needs greater assistance of prudence for the governance of the house. The wife is therefore subject in these vows, except if they be legitimately divided by divorce on account of the fornication of one of them; for while it lasts neither can nullify the vows of the other. Therefore in the alleged Numer. 30. it is said: The widow, and she that is repudiated, whatever they shall have vowed, they shall render. Where Abulens. notes, and Sanchez lib. 5. de matrimonio, disp. 39. num. 8. that the widow, now released, and the repudiated are in an equal condition.

¶ IT IS CONFIRMED, that an adulterous spouse cannot nullify the vows of the innocent spouse, because he has forfeited the right, so that the innocent can enter religion against his will, as is had in cap. Agathefa, 27. quaest. 2. yet not before, and after the adultery has followed, because the innocent one has not yet declared that he wishes to use his right. Similarly neither can the innocent one, because while the divorce lasts, he yields his right. See Sanchez.