Question XXIII: Whether a wife can annul certain vows of her husband, and which

Some indeed think that no vows of the husband, made by him without the permission of his wife, can be annulled by her. This seems to be Sotus's view lib. 7. de Iustitia, quaest. 3. art. 1. But it is the opinion of Ledesma quaest. 64. art. 4. dub. 2. concl. 2. and of other recent learned men.

Yet the TRUE opinion is that a woman can annul those vows of her husband which prejudice her, or which pertain to a moderate rendering of the debt, or which pertain to mutual cohabitation. So D. Bonaventure loco cit. whom the Gloss imitates, cap. manifestum, v. nisi author, 33. quaest. 5. there: Hugo Archidiac. Bellamera, Hostiensis, V. summa, tit. de voto, §. Quis vovere possit, num. 8. et cap. Scriptura de voto, ad finem. Where Innocentius, Ioan. Andreas, Antonius, Abbas, Anchar. and Cardinalis quaest. 14. But Abulensis quaest. 85. ad 30. Numer. et quaest. 149. ad cap. 6. matth. D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 1. cap. 22. §. 1. Maior 4. dist. 38. q. 4. dub. 2. suppl. Gabrielis 4. dist. 32. quaest. unica, art. 1. notab. 3. Rosella votum 2. num. 9. Angel. ibi, num. 8. Sylvester 5. quaestio 1. et v. lex 8. tit. 8. Gregorius Lopez lib. 3. v. el marido, eodem tit. Margarita confess. where on the annulment of a vow, folio 135. Manuel 2. Tomo cap. 90. Nauar. summa, cap. 12. num. 64. Stunica de voto, quaest. 3. num. 60. Toletus lib. 4. summa, cap. 18. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. fol. 1020. Graff. p. p. decis. lib. 2. cap. 29. num. 8. Philiarc. Tom. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 18. Ludouicus Lopes p. p. Instruct. cap. 47. §. ult. Canned. summa de sacram. tract. de matrimonio, cap. 8. num. 74. and Valentia supposes it 2. 2. disput. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. ult. and others whom he cites; and Sanchez follows, lib. 9. de matrim. disp. 42. and others whom he reports, lib. 4. summa, cap. 34. num. 20. among whom is Paludanus 4. dist. 38. quaest. 4. art. 2. conclus. 5. Lessius lib. 7. de iustitia, cap. 40. dub. 10. num. 83. Sayrus lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 9. et cap. 10. num. 20. Suarez Tom. 2. de religione, Tract. de voto, lib. 6. cap. 4. num. 8. Corrasdos in resp. 1. part. quaest. 304. Fagundez in 2. praeceptum, lib. 2. cap. 37. n. 20. referring to others, together with Bassaeus V. Votum §. num. 6.

But what these vows are, I shall say in the assertions. I ASSERT first, that a wife can annul a vow of chastity made by her husband without her permission.

It is PROVED by D. Bonaventure's first argument, on which the rest rely: A wife can annul those vows which prejudice the dominion she has over her husband's body; but she has power over her husband's body as to demanding the debt, which a vow of chastity prejudices: Therefore. The major is clear; the minor is from the Apostle, 1 Corinth. 7.

It is PROVED secondly by D. Bonaventure from D. Augustine lib. de bono coniugii, cap. 6. Tom. 6. et 7. and super Psalm. 46. and it is found, 33. quaest. 5. cap. si dicat, et epistola 45. ad Arment. tomo 2. and in other places, as is noted in the Master, dist. cit.

It is PROVED thirdly by D. Bonaventure, because it would follow that a wife could be compelled to continence, which is prohibited, 33. quaest. 5.

I ASSERT secondly, that a husband cannot without his wife's permission vow religion; and therefore this vow can be annulled by the wife.

It is proved by D. Bonaventure from what has been said, because thus the wife's right of demanding the debt and of cohabitation is taken away.

It is proved especially by the Saintly Doctor dist. 32. dub. 3. from the universal prohibition of the Church, even if, with permission obtained, only one party vows; for this is illicit. But if it is done without permission, it is annulled. So Alexander III defines, writing to Landulphus Corficae cap. 2. quaest. 1. citata 33. causa. The reason is, because he cannot compel his wife to continence; which is of Counsel, as S. Bonaventure notes, ad ultimum.

It is proved thirdly on the last foundation here, because as a slave who is subject, in matters that are debts — so that if he has bound himself out of Justice, and is bound, he cannot enter religion, prejudicing the debts owed to his Lord — so neither a woman, nor a husband.

I assert thirdly, that a wife cannot annul her husband's vow of chastity as to demanding the debt. It is clear from what was said quaest. 15. et 19. Because in this each has his own inviolable right. So D. Bonav. in corpore, whom Bellar. follows, in 4. disp. 38. dub. 2. fol. 717. Angles flor. 2. part. quaest. de voto, art. 7. post 9. diff. dub. 2. Stunica quaest. 3 de voto, Go. Gomez in Bulla Cruc. clausula 10. num. 67. and all who were reported quaest. 15. et 19. saying that neither can the husband annul this vow of the wife.

From these things some assign a certain disparity, because the woman, out of modesty, if the husband does not ask, is held back from copula, because she does not dare to ask. So Henriquez lib. 21. de matrimonio, cap. 15. num. 8. Manuel 2. Tomo summae, cap. 90. Philiar. tract. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 4. Vega 2. Tomo summae, cap. 129. casu 93. and he says it is most probable. Aragon. loco cit. fol. 1021. Navar seems to hold it, cap. 11. summae, num. 60. with this restriction: unless there be a vow of not asking in favor of oneself, but only when the custom is to be observed toward the other spouse; and others seem to hold the same, saying indistinctly that either spouse can annul that vow. These are Gutier. quaest. can. lib. 2. cap. 22. num. 49. Manuel 1. Tomo summae, cap. 243. num. 8. Ludovicus Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 40.

I assert fourthly, that a wife can annul her husband's vows concerning abstinences and the like, which gravely prejudice a moderate rendering of the debt: it follows from what has been said, and the Canonists hold it, cap. Scriptura, where Innocentius, Ioan. Andreas, Anton. Anchar. Abbas, Henriquez, and Cardinalis quaest. 14. Gloss. cap. manifestum, 33. quaest. 4. where Archidiac. and Turrecremata, Hostienf. summa, tit. de voto, §. Qui vovere possit, and many other Theologians, reported by Sanchez lib. 9. de matrimonio, disp. 3. numero septimo.

I assert fifthly: a man cannot make vows of long pilgrimages without his wife's consent. So D. Bonaventure.

¶ It is proved by the Saintly Doctor ad 1. quia cap. ex multa, §. in tanta de voto: it is granted to the man that he may, without his wife's consent, vow a pilgrimage in aid of the Holy Land, where the Gloss, V. viri, and Abbas n. 8. say this is a most special case in favor of the Holy Land, and has no place when the pilgrimage would be for the sake of devotion alone. So teach Antonius cap. Scriptura, num. 3. de voto, where Abbas num. 8. D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 1. cap. 22. Rosella votum 2. num. 8. Sylvester votum 5. quaest. 1. Abul. cap. 30. Numer. quaest. 83. Manuel summa 2. Tomo, cap. 90. num. 7. Angles flor. 2. part. quaest. unica de voto, art. 7. post 9. diff. dub. 3. concl. 1. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. fol. 1020. All of which S. Bonaventure observes, loco citato.

It is proved secondly by D. Bonaventure, because wife and husband ought to cohabit, nor, without permission granted out of great necessity, be separated for long, cap. 1. de coniug. lepros. there: Since husband and wife are one flesh, neither ought to be without the other for long.

If, however, there is great necessity, he may be absent — as on account of a grave war to be sustained by the Prince, or, as I said, for the cause of a pilgrimage in aid of the Holy Land; for he may, as a mutual matter, vow it even with his wife unwilling. They are had expressly in cap. ex multa, §. in tanta de voto. Nor is any prejudice at all done to the wife, because she can follow her husband; and if she cannot, it is just that she contain herself for a time in favor of so great a good of the Church, as Sanchez notes, disp. 4. num. 16. lib. 9 de matrimonio, after D. Bonaventure, loco citato.

But whether indeed the wife, with her husband unwilling, can validly make a similar vow. Some assert, if there be no danger of incontinence, especially on account of age, and if she is rich, so that she can bring aid. So think most of those reported by Sanchez, loco cit. num. 17.

But D. Bonaventure says nothing of this, as if the reason were not parallel; and deservedly, because the peril to continence is unequal, most unequal the burden on the Church, and the necessity of assistance. So D. Thomas, ibi, dist. 32. quaest. unica, art. 3. ad 1. and others whom Sanchez follows, loco citato.

You will ask: whether abstinences and other things gravely harmful to the rendering of the debt are void by the very law itself, or rather valid, until they are annulled.

The FIRST opinion is affirmative, that they are void by the very law. So Sotus lib. 7. de Iustitia, quaest. 5. art. 1. Manuel secundo Tom. summae, cap. 90. num. 7.

They prove it, because they vow about a thing over which they have no dominion. And so, just as if one were to vow not to render the debt, it is void, because he vows about what belongs to his spouse, so etc.

But the more probable opinion is that they must be annulled. So Sanchez disp. 3. num. 8. lib. 9. de matrim. citing Tabiena matrim. 1. quaest. 3. §. 4. Vincentius in speculo, Tom. 2. lib. 9. cap. 86. Rainerius, whom Turrecrem. follows, cap. sunt quaedam 17. quaest. 1. num. 6. Angles flor. 2. part. quaest. unica de voto, art. 7. post 9. diffic. dub. 3. concl. 1. Navar. summa, cap. 12. num. 61. Ludovicus Lopez 1. part. Instruct. c. 46. For (say some of these) it is not the same as a vow not to render the debt, which is directly against marriage, and therefore invalid by the very law, because a thing belonging to another is vowed, namely the body, insofar as it belongs to the spouse who has the power of demanding the debt.

Note that the Seraphic Doctor in 4. dist. 32. dub. 3. proposes this doubt, and solves it thus: if he vowed with the intention of defrauding his spouse, it is thus iniquitous, an usurpation of another's, and therefore invalid by the very law; but if he vowed out of love of continence, the vow has something of rashness and something of honesty, for as to demanding the debt it is of his own right, and so the vow is honest and valid: but as to the other part, which the vow of not rendering the debt to his wife includes, it is rash, and is to be revoked, unless the wife consent. But when he says the vow is to be revoked, he seems to say it is not void by the very law: and it must be noted that it is to be annulled insofar as the vower, impelled by zeal for liberty, and not adverting that what is promised is another's, vowed it. Or say: to be revoked, that is, the intention of not rendering is to be withdrawn, and therefore the vow, as to its material element, is to be withdrawn, since in the formal ratio of the vow it is void by the very law at once. Or say: it is to be revoked for this reason, that since the vow is mixed, part licit and part illicit, that part stands; but this part, because illicit, must be removed and separated from the other part of the vow, and it is extinguished.