Question XX: Whether a husband can annul the vows of his wife made with his permission, the vow of chastity excepted

The first opinion is that of those denying it universally. Sanchez reports them lib. IX. de matrim. disp. 40. and concerning the Prelates of religions Richardus asserts it 4. dist. 38. art. 4. quaest. 3. and with him excepted, Philiatcus asserts it of the other dominators de offic. sacerd. tract. 1. part. 2. lib. IV. cap. 4.

But concerning all vows universally, even of Chastity, Diana asserts it Parte 4. Tract. 4. r. fol. 110. adducing Ioannem Praepositum Modernum in 3. part. D. Thom. quaest. 6. de bonis matrimonii, dub. 20. num. 153. and this even if the wife's vows were to be fulfilled in the time of a dissolved marriage.

The opposite opinion, however, is that of D. Bonav. in 4. dist. 32. dub. 3. litt. Gloss. ord. Numer. 30. Hugo there, letter K. Richardus in 4. dist. 32. art. 2. quaest. 2. ad 1. Hostiens. summa, tit. de voto, Abbas cap. Clarissima, num. 4. de convers. coniug. et cap. scriptura, num. 8. de voto, Henricus num. 6. Vincent. spec. doctrin. Tom. 2. lib. IX. cap. 86. Turrecrem. cap. sunt quaedam 27. quaest. 1. num. 19. et cap. manifestum, num. 3. D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 1. cap. 22. Caietanus summa, v. votum, cap. ultimo, Angelus votum 2. num. 10. Armilla V. votum, num. 12. Adrianus 4. quaest. 14. de matrimonio, Navar. summa, cap. 12. num. 61. et 73. Nicolaus de Orbell. 4. dist. 38. quaest. 1. §. 7. Brunellus de sponsal. concl. 30. num. 14. Alexander in Enchir. 2. praecept. tract. de voto. Ioan. Hessels. in expositione, Decal. 2. praecepto, cap. 14. Graff. p. p. decis. lib. 2. cap. 19. et 2. part. lib. 2. cap. 12. num 27. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 48. Innocentius cap. scriptura, de voto, Gratianus dist. cap. manifestum, §. ex praemissis, Maior 4. dist. 38. quaest. 4. dub. 2. Rosella V. votum 3. Sylvester V. votum 4. quaest. 2. dicto 6. Caietanus 2. 2. q. 88. art. 8. dub. 1. Sotus lib. 7. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 1. Bartholomaeus a Ledesma dub. 10. de matrim. concl. 1. Palac. 4. dib. 38. dub. 3 fol. 571. Stunica de voto, quaest. 3. num 62. Nievo summa, tit. 135. Angles flor. 2. part. quaest. de voto, art. 7. post 9. difficul. dub. 1. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. fol. 1019. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. 3. Sà verbo votum, Manuel 2. Tomo summae, cap. 90. Vega 1. tomo summae, cap. 119. casu 22. et 91. whom Sanchez adduces and follows lib. 9. de matrim. disp. 40. num. 4. and Bassaeus V. Votum 5. num. 6.

I ASSERT with this opinion, that the husband can nullify the vows of his wife emitted with his license.

IT IS PROVED from D. Bonavent. first, from cap. 30. Numer. where it is said: If she vow, and afflict her soul by fasting, and abstinence from other things, it shall be at the will of the husband to do it, or not to do it. But if the husband hearing it keep silent, and defer the sentence to another day: whatever she had vowed, she shall render; But if he contradict it after he has learned of it, he himself shall bear her iniquity. Where the Scripture makes the woman immune from transgression of the vow impetrated from her husband, while it transfers the fault, whatever it be, to the husband, as S. Bonavent. infers, and after him Caietanus there, and Sanchez.

IT IS PROVED second from D. Bonavent. from D. Augustine lib. 4. in Numer. quaest. 59. and it is reported cap. manifestum, 33. quaest. 5. there: for since the law willed it to pertain to the sin of the same husband, if he first permitted, and afterwards forbade, he nevertheless did not say, that the woman who had vowed should do it. The same D. Ambrose has in lib. de Paradiso, cap. 10. and it is reported in the final chapter cap. fin. 33. quaest. 5. there: even if with the permission of her husband it has been promised again, it is not lawful for her to fulfill the vow in deed, when the husband shall have willed to recall the promise.

The fundamental REASON, on which the others rely, is; because the husband, even after the license given to the wife, still presides over her will, nor by giving that individual faculty has he renounced his right over the will of his wife; indeed especially because, since she is destined to his governance, some cause may occur, dictating prudently, that the faculty given should be recalled. The same he urges concerning the other dominators.

YOU OBJECT. That license transfers the dominion of that individual action into the subject.

It is ANSWERED with D. Bonavent. that the dominion is not transferred, but only for the time the faculty of using that will, and that thing, is conceded, the prudent governance being preserved there, for which the reason of recalling the faculty can occur.

Whether, however, he sins with a lethal fault by nullifying a vow, emitted with his license, with no preceding cause; Sanchez asserts num. 7. adducing many.

BUT I asserted and proved in quaest. 13. that only a venial fault intervenes in that case, refuting the arguments of Sanchez.