Question III: Whether one who solemnly vows chastity dissolves a marriage, whether consummated or ratified, and by what law and from what time this began to be done

Heretics, who always dwell in extremes, are accustomed to harass the Church on both sides, as she holds the mean of virtue: for there were some, as Bellarmine reports, lib. 2, de Monach., cap. 38, who absurdly dreamt that not only a consummated but also a ratified marriage could be dissolved by the vow of religious chastity. But undeservedly is Justinian involved with those professing the former error, leg. ult., Cod. de Episcop. et Clericis, since that law can be understood either of sponsi de futuro, or of a marriage merely ratified; nor does anything sound there which by any legitimate consequence can be drawn to a consummated marriage.

Moreover, since almost this whole question pertains to the treatise on Marriage, I shall remit its former part to eo quaest. 16, where I shall prove that a consummated marriage is insoluble in every way: I shall treat the other part also in quaestione 15, in the same place, where I shall show that by natural and divine law the profession of Religious Chastity dissolves, or rather dissolves a ratified marriage.

There remains therefore one thing to be examined here, namely from what time it has been customary in the Church that the solemn and Religious vow of Chastity be of such virtue as to dissolve a ratified marriage. Now this can be established only by some example of antiquity, or by the Decree of some Pontiff. You have several examples in Suarez, cap. 24, but serving the matter little: For that D. John was sponsor at the marriage in Galilee, and rejected them, already ratified, in order to follow Christ, is not credible, since it rests on very slight conjectures; and from it would follow that Christ went there rather to condemn the marriage than to honor it with his presence: which repugns the whole catalogue of Fathers disputing against the heretics. Grant that D. Bonan. be adduced by S. Hieronym., 4. dist. 27, art. 3, quaest. 2; for he speaks not assertively but disputatively.

Nor likewise do the examples of Iphigenia, failing from the embraces of Hirtacius, press, since no marriage followed, but a preceding vow, which had impeded the ensuing marriage. Say the same of D. Caecilia, bound by a simple vow of Chastity; for by a Divine inspiration she foresaw that the marriage to be entered into with Valerian would serve only for his conversion, but would not break out into any carnal act: of Macarius, indeed, and Alexius it can be said that, through zeal for a more perfect life, embracing Celibacy or the hermitage, not religion, they left their spouses: For nowhere is it read of them that they professed the Religious life.

Nevertheless, not absurdly is it gathered from this that the examples of these induced posterity to send a messenger to a ratified marriage, and to pursue themselves with vows of higher perfection; although simpliciter, for the sake of greater perfection, no one can at his pleasure bid farewell to ratified nuptials; otherwise this would be licit even on account of the pursuit of simple celibacy; whereas it is not licit on account of the Episcopate, which in the apex of perfection surpasses the others.

Therefore only from the rescript of Eusebius the Pontiff do we have that this custom is most ancient, so that the special time at which it began occurs to no memory: For the said Pontiff says in Gratian, cap. desponsata, 27, quaest. 2: A betrothed girl may not be given by her parents to another man, yet she may choose a Monastery for herself. Now this Pope sat before the year 1300, yet that this custom is older is evident from his very words: For he does not speak as one newly statutes, but as one declaring what was already before statutes; otherwise he would not say: Licet, but rather, liceat, as Suarez subtly remarks, cap. 24.

Some difficulty can arise, from the fact that she is called desponsata, which particle can be understood of betrothal for the future, not of marriage for the present: This, however, does not press, if it be noted that the Pontiff there prescribes a single remedy for withdrawing from a marriage, that the girl enter a Monastery; but if she had been betrothed by words de futuro, it would not be so arduous a business as to require the judgment of the supreme Tribunal, since for dissolving betrothals relief is furnished by many other ways for a just cause.

Add that, by the perpetual consent of the Doctors, and by long custom, which interprets the law best, that text is explained of a ratified marriage, as Suarez notes, num. 2; whence it must be concluded, according to the rule of D. Augustine noted in the preceding question, that from Apostolic tradition this custom of dissolving a ratified marriage, annexed to the vows of Religion, has been derived down to our own times.