Question XXI: Whether a husband can revoke the vow of chastity of his wife, made with his permission

The FIRST opinion is affirmative. So Abbas cap. Clarissimus, de convers. coniug. cap. 5. Sotus lib. 7. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 1. and in 4 Sent. dist. 32. quaest. 1. art. 3. where Palac. dist. 2. fol. 717. Stunica de voto, fin. 3. n. 62. Bartholomeus a Ledesma dub. 71. de matrim. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. fol. 1021. Vega 2. Tomo sum. cap. 119. casu 22. And that this can be done when danger of incontinence is present, says Ledesm. 2. part. 4. quaest. 66. art. 4. Sanchez lib. 9. de matrim. disp. 40. num 17. Diana parte 2. Tract. 4. resol. 110. referring to others. The same holds Fagundez in secundum praeceptum, Decal. lib. 2. cap. 37. Bassaeus 5. num. 6. They speak of marriage already consummated.

The SECOND opinion is negative. So D. Bonav. in 4. dist. 32. dub. 3. litt. D. Thomas ibidem ad litt. Albertus Magnus art. 6. Richardus art. 2. quaest. 2. ad 1. Paludanus quaest. 2. art. 2. Gratianus cap. manifestum, §. ex praemissis, 33. quaest. 5. and there Turrecrem. Ioan. de Friburg. summa, confess. lib. 1. tit. 8. quaest. 45. Adrianus 4. quaest. 14 de matrim. D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 1. cap. 22. §. 3. Rosella V. votum 3. num. 1. Pisan. verb. votum 3. §. 3. Sylvest. verb. votum 5. quaest. 2. Tabien. V. matrim. 1. §. 4. Nauar. sum. cap. 12. num. 61. Philiarcus part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 4. Manuel 2. Tomo summae, cap. 90. who understands it insofar as the vow prejudices the husband; hence he says it is not lawful to annul it so that the woman may petition.

I ASSERT, with this opinion, that a vow of chastity made by a wife with her husband's permission cannot again be annulled by him.

It is PROVED by D. Bonaventure. The root and the reason on which the faculty of annulling vows rests is dominative power, as even the adversaries concede; but a husband has no dominative power over his wife in matters pertaining to the right of the marriage bed, since they are equals, as is found in cap. Gaudemus, de divort. cap. si quis uxorem, 32. quaest. 1. and Sanchez admits it, lib. 4. sum. cap. 34. num. 19.

Sanchez REPLIES there: although they are equals in the right of demanding and rendering; yet as to that obligation which is accidental, the wife is subject to the husband, whose it is to govern her, lest she act imprudently.

BUT this escape route was closed off in quaest. 15.

It is PROVED secondly from D. Ambrose lib. de Paradiso, cap. 10. and it is reported in cap. Nec 33. quaest. 5. there: Vows of continence indeed can be offered by one with the permission of the other in such a way that, after the permission, they cannot be brought to nothing.

Sanchez REPLIES that D. Ambrose is to be understood when both vow chastity by mutual consent.

BUT surely this Gloss is against the text; for there D. Ambrose, and the Canon, compose an antithesis, affirming that the husband, because he is the head of the woman, can annul his wife's vows of abstinence and of religious conversation, even if her vows on these matters were made with the faculty given by himself; but the vows of continence by no means. For this reason he speaks of the vow of chastity as mutual. These are the words: Most evidently therefore it appears, that the man is the head of the woman in such a way that she may offer to God no vows of abstinence, or of religious conversation, without his permission: even if she has promised with the husband permitting, it is not lawful for her to fulfill the vow in deed, when the husband wishes to revoke the permission. But vows of continence can be offered by one with the permission of the other in such a way that, after the permission, they cannot be dragged into nothingness. Where perhaps Sanchez errs, because he said: the one the other's; but these relatives refer to the aforesaid nouns in that order, namely the husband the wife's vows, etc.

Sanchez OBJECTS, num. 17. first: Although the husband is not lord of that promised matter, but in it is equal to his wife; yet as head he is the Lord of that free act by which the wife, at the time of her subjection, bound herself by that vow. And although by the husband's consent she is consecrated to God — he admits that a husband who annuls without cause sins mortally — yet not so that the annulment is null, because by that permission given he did not lose dominion over that free act. So also Bassaeus.

It is ANSWERED that, as to that act, the husband is not the head of the woman, as Sanchez well teaches disp. 39. num. 10. praising this saying of Durandus as true; therefore there is no reason why he should labor to hold any domination as to this promise, about which he has not lost his right; because he never had it.

From these things it follows that, much less, can a husband revoke his wife's vow when they have vowed chastity by mutual consent. So D. Augustine epist. 199. ad Ecditiam, and it is reported cap. quod Deo, 33. quaest. 5.

Yet the OPPOSITE is held by Palac. 4. dist. 32. dub. 2. fol. 717. and certain others, as Aragonius testifies, loco citato.

The SAME is held by Ioan. Praepositus in 3. part. D. Thom. quaest. 6. de bonis matrimonii, disp. 20. num 113. whom Diana proposes Parte 4. Tract. 4. resol. 110. so that Confessors may, with this probable opinion, calm certain souls troubled by scruples.

It is PROVED, because contracts are dissolved by the same causes by which they are made, cap. 1. de regul. iuris, where this is asserted of all things.

Sanchez REPLIES, num. 23. that the vow stands in the way, so that that remission cannot licitly be made, even for a just cause.