Question XVIII: Whether a husband can annul the vows of his wife made before the marriage

FROM the doctrine of D. Bonaventure adduced above it is deduced, that vows to be fulfilled in the time of marriage are subject to the power of the husband, even if emitted before marriage; for then he has dominion over the matter, as to be fulfilled by a will then subject to him, and over the will, which must fulfill it. Which reasoning Sanchez uses disp. 39. num. 25. lib. 9. de matrimonio. This is properly not a nullification, as I shall say also in the following question; but a suspension. Hence this opinion is upheld by twenty-eight Doctors, reported by Sanchez in the place cited.

I ASSERT therefore, that the vows of the wife, made before marriage, but to be fulfilled after, can be nullified by the husband; except, however, the cases said below. It is proved first from D. Augustine lib. 4. quaest. 56. in Numer. and it is had cap. noluit 33. quaest. 5. there: So if, being still unmarried, she had promised her father to pay the vows, if before she has paid them she marries, and her husband, on learning of it, is not pleased, let her not pay them, and this altogether without sin. This is the foundation of D. Bonavent. which he indicates in that dub. 3. and on which that quaest. 3. dist. 38 relies.

EXCEPT, however, real vows, emitted before marriage, v. g. of alms, which she vowed before marriage; if, however, she was her own mistress.

SECONDLY except the vow of chastity, emitted by the wife before marriage; for that cannot be nullified by the husband, since that vow contains two things, namely not to exercise the venereal act, neither by seeking, nor by rendering, which as to the second needs no nullification. For by the stronger bond of matrimony he is bound to render. As to the first it cannot be nullified by the husband, because the matter of seeking is not subject to the husband, so that he could forbid, or command the seeking of the debt, but the woman is free, and her own mistress in this. Nor is the free act, whereby the woman imposed that obligation upon herself, under the dominion and power of the husband, since it is already consecrated to God, and when it was elicited, he had no power to forbid that it be elicited. Hence it also stands after the death of the spouse, as S. Bonavent. proves in 4. dist. 38. art. 2. quaest. 1. whom all the Doctors alleged for D. Bonavent. quaest. 14. follow, to whom add Sanchez disp. 39. cited, num. 17. Wherefore Ioan. de Friburgo falsely denies it, summa, lib. I. tit. 8. quaest. 35.

Except thirdly the vow of Religion emitted by the wife before marriage; for it cannot be nullified by the husband; Because if the marriage is not consummated, she is bound to fulfill that vow, as D. Bonav. proves in 4. dist. 32. quaest. 2. and it is had in cap. Praeterea de convers. coniugatorum.

But if it be consummated, it does not then need nullification, because then it cannot be fulfilled, as D. Bonavent. proves loco cit. Nor can it be nullified for the time in which she will be her own mistress, when they were already bound to fulfill it. Because that matter was not subject at the time it was promised, nor the free act; nor is the matter subject even at the time when the vow is to be fulfilled.

Sanchez notes num. 31. that if a woman before marriage contracted some obligation, the husband cannot nullify it on account of the right acquired by a man: The reason of the difference is, because the husband, or another superior, does not stand in the place of the man to whom the right was acquired, so that he could remit it, and nullify it, nor does he stand in the place of God, to whom the right is acquired by the vow.