Question XVII: Whether a husband can annul the vows of his wife, made without his permission, to be fulfilled when the marriage has been dissolved

UNIVERSALLY concerning all who have dominative power this is disputed by Sanchez lib. 9. de matrimonio, cap. 19. num. 24. Hence we too will define all things on this matter.

The FIRST opinion is, that neither the husband of the spouse, nor anyone else endowed with dominative power, can nullify those vows. So Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. dub. penultimo Angel. votum 2. Nauar. summa, cap. 12. num. 66. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. fol. 1021. Angles flor. 2. part. quaest. de voto, art. 7. diffic. 8. concl. 2. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 48. Manuel 1. tomo summae, cap. 79. num. 8. et 90. num. 10.

The SECOND opinion is, that he can nullify the vows of those only who are subject, not only with respect to the matter of the vow, but also with respect to the will, so that they have neither to will, nor to will not. So Syluest. verb. votum 4. quaest. 2 dicto 5. Sà verbo votum. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. 5.

The THIRD opinion asserts, that all superiors can nullify those vows. So Sotus lib. 7. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 1. Alcozier summa, cap. 16. concl. 9. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 50. Vega Tom. 1. cap. 119. casu 20. and concerning the vows of the wife Stunica holds de voto, quaest. 3. num. 76. Sanchez lib. 9. de matrim. disp. 39. num. 16. adducing these, and others.

Sanchez, however, and others EXCEPT the vow of a servant, adducing Lopez in the place cited, and Tostatum q. 91. ad cap. 30. Numer.

Ludovicus Lopez also EXCEPTS the vow of chastity, made by the wife for the time when she will be her own mistress, to be fulfilled, and says it cannot be nullified by the husband; but Sanchez, Sotus and Stunica above think the contrary.

CONCERNING the vow of religion, Sanchez answers num. 19. If this vow was emitted by the wife after the marriage was entered, before its consummation, then to be fulfilled, he says, it cannot be nullified, because it is a vow by which the wife is to be exempted from the power of the husband, and the marriage to be dissolved. And it stands in the manner of a vow made by a religious of passing to a stricter religion. But if it was emitted in the time of a dissolved marriage, whether the marriage be consummated or not consummated, the husband could nullify it. He adds num. 20. other vows made by the wife before the consummation of the marriage, while she has also the vow of exempting herself from the power of the husband, and of passing to religion, can be nullified, because the wife is not yet freed from the power of the husband. See also Fagundez in secundum praeceptum, Decal. lib. 2. cap. 38. num. 9.

What D. Bonaventure thought is not so clear; I judge, however, that he stands with the first opinion, because in 4. dist. 39. quaest. 3. where in the body, and ad 1. he requires two things, that a stable vow be emitted. The one is liberty of the will for emitting the vow, and this, he says, is had even in the time of subjection: The other is for executing it; and this is had in the time for which the vow was emitted.

I ASSERT with this opinion, that vows to be executed in the time of liberty cannot be nullified in the time of subjection.

IT IS PROVED by the argument of D. Bonavent. in the place cited, because a superior can nullify vows; for the reason that he is lord of the matter, and of the will, at most insofar as it falls upon the promised matter, which is therefore held to be in the power of the Lord; but there is no such dominion over a vow emitted for the time of liberty: Therefore. The minor is proved, because if the vow be considered in relation to the will, that is free independently of any creature, a sign of which is, that no legitimate dominion takes away liberty; but if it be considered in relation to the matter, since it is not in the power of the Lord, but is for the time in which he can freely execute it, for he has it in his own power; it cannot be usurped by the dominion of a superior.

Sanchez answers num. 21. that it suffices, if the person be subject, and the matter of the vow in the time in which the vow was emitted; although the obligation of execution be deferred to the time of liberty.

Yet this answer is not solid, because formal subjection comes from subjection at most of the will, insofar as the will vows: and consequently over that matter. Therefore by this reasoning the will is not subject, since it is not borne toward a subject matter, as Sanchez thinks; for that matter for that time can be non-existing, and contingent, as, if the wife vow for the time of widowhood to assume that state which will be urged upon her by her Bishop for her spiritual profit, I do not see what right the husband has over this.

I URGE; if she vow to enter religion, over which vow I do not see how the husband has dominion; for in the same way it is exempted from his power, as the religious, vowing passage to a stricter religion, is exempted from the power of his present superior. Diana parte 4. Tract. 4. resol. 19. says, that he once thought some hold probably, that a father can nullify the vow of religion emitted by a son, to be executed after the years of puberty, because the minor is in the full power of the father.

SANCHEZ confesses that he is hard pressed by this argument; he answers, however; if the vow was emitted while a ratified marriage stands, not consummated, and to be fulfilled then, it cannot be nullified, because in that case the wife is to be exempted from the power of the husband, and the marriage dissolved, as is evident, and the Theologians prove, especially D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 2. ex cap. Praeterea de conversione coniugatorum, but if it was emitted before, or after a consummated marriage, but to be fulfilled in the time of a dissolved marriage, the husband can nullify it. The reason of the disparity of this from the vow of a religious vowing passage to a stricter one is, that by this vow the Religious is exempted entirely by right from the power of that superior; not so the wife for that vow.

BUT this escape is closed off, because, as that religious vows stably, because by that vow he is exempted by right, that he may pass to a more perfect state, so the woman is already exempted, when she vows that which does not, as to its fulfillment, lie under the husband himself, who after the deed cannot have the care of her governance.