Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question XIX: Whether the vows of a wife, made without her husband's permission, revive when the marriage is dissolved
It is certain, that all vows legitimately nullified do not return, and therefore before a legitimate nullification they have to be corruptible, as D. Bonavent. notes in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 3. and after him Valentia 2. 2. disput. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. 4. and Sanchez lib. IX. de matrimonio, disp. 39. num. 35. for nullification extinguishes the obligation; but an obligation once extinguished in no wise revives, leg. cum ex causa, Cod. de remiss. pignor. and consequently if the obligation were to revive, it is a sign that it was imperfectly nullified, and only suspended.
An Vota uxoris, absque licentia viri facta, soluto matrimonio reviviscant.
Certum est, vota omnia legitime irritata, non redire, itaque ante irritationem legitimam habere esse corruptibile, ut notat D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 3. et post eum Valentia 2. 2. disput. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. 4. et Sanchez lib. IX. de matrimonio, disp. 39. num. 35. nam irritatio extinguit obligationem; at obligatio semel extincta minime reviviscit leg. cum ex causa, Cod. de remiss. pignor. atque adeo si revivisceret obligatio, signum est, fuisse imperfecte irritata, et solum suspensa.
Note, however, that a vow is nullified either by reason of dominion over the matter of the vow, or by reason of dominion also over the willing person's will. When the nullification is made by reason of dominion over the matter alone, if the matter would be subject, totally and throughout the whole duration of the matter of the vow, to that superior, it is perfectly nullified, against some. But if the matter does not adequately, totally, lie under the superior, because either it was before in the power of God by force of the vow, then that matter is not subject to perfect nullification, and consequently it is only suspended for the time the dominion lasts. But when the nullification arises from dominion over the matter, and the will, then the nullification is perfect; but dominion is not to be taken over the bare will, but over the will, insofar as it falls upon the matter of the vow, as I said above.
Nota autem, votum irritari, vel ratione dominii in voti materiam, vel ratione dominii etiam in voluntatem voventem. Quando irritatio fit ratione solius dominii in materiam, si materia totaliter, et in tota sua duratione materiae voti subiaceret illi superiori, irritatur perfecte, contra aliquos. Si vero materia non adaequate totaliter, subiacet superiori, eo quod vel ante fuerit in potestate Dei ex vi voti, tunc non subiacet illa materia perfectae irritationi, atque adeo suspenditur solum pro tempore dominii durantis. Quando vero irritatio oritur ex dominio in materiam, et voluntatem, tunc perfecta est irritatio; dominium autem non debet sumi in voluntatem nudam, sed in voluntatem, prout cadit super materiam voti, ut dixi supra.
I assert first, that all vows, emitted by the wife while the marriage stands, and to be fulfilled then, if they are nullified by the husband, do not revive. So D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 3. Abbas cap. scriptura, num. 7. de voto, Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. dub. 4. Abul. quaest. 86. ad cap. 30. Numer. Angelus V. votum, 2. num. 12. Sylvester V. votum, 4. quaest. 2. dicto 3. et 4. Armilla V. votum, num. 12. Sotus lib. VII. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 1. Navar. summa, cap. 12. num. 66. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 48. Philiarc. de offic. sacerd. tract. 1. part. 2. lib. III. cap. 4. Vega Tom. I. cap. 129. casu 95.
Assero primo, vota omnia, constante matrimonio emissa ab uxore, et pro tunc implenda, si a viro irritentur, non reviviscere. Ita D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 3. Abbas cap. scriptura, num. 7. de voto, Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. dub. 4. Abul. quaest. 86. ad cap. 30. Numer. Angelus V. votum, 2. num. 12. Sylvester V. votum, 4. quaest. 2. dicto 3. et 4. Armilla V. votum, num. 12. Sotus lib. VII. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 1. Navar. summa, cap. 12. num. 66. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 48. Philiarc. de offic. sacerd. tract. 1. part. 2. lib. III. cap. 4. Vega Tom. I. cap. 129. casu 95.
This Sotus, Navar. Philiarc. and Lopez assert even of the vows of servants, who are subject, not as to the will, but as to the matter only: Against Rosellam V. votum 2. num. 7. et 13. Valentiam 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. 1. and others.
Hoc asserunt Sotus, Navar. Philiarc. et Lopez etiam de votis servorum, qui subduntur, non quo ad voluntatem, sed quo ad materiam tantum: Contra Rosellam V. votum 2. num. 7. et 13. Valentiam 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. 1. et alios.
It is proved by Sanchez num. 36. with the argument of D. Bonavent. reported quaest. 14. because the wife, not only as to the matter, but also as to the will in all things, except the law of the bed, is so subject to the husband, that all her vows can be nullified by him without hope, or obligation of reviving; but this is conceded by all to be a perfect nullification: Therefore.
Probatur a Sanchez num. 36. argumento D. Bonavent. relato quaest. 14. quia uxor non modo quo ad materiam, sed etiam quo ad voluntatem in omnibus, excepta lege thori, ita viro subdita est, ut omnia eius vota ab ipso valeant absque spe, aut obligatione reviviscendi, irritari; sed haec conceditur ab omnibus perfecta irritatio: Ergo.
I assert second, that vows emitted by the wife, or another subject, in the time of liberty, revive.
Assero secundo, vota edita ab uxore, vel alio subdito, tempore libertatis reviviscere.
It is proved, because neither the will, nor the matter, in the time of vowing was subject to the husband, or to another lord: Therefore he has power only over the execution during the time of his dominion. So Sanchez in the place cited. Ioan. Praep. nevertheless holds the opposite, with Diana, citing quaest. sequenti.
Probatur, quia neque voluntas, neque materia tempore vovendi subdebatur viro, vel alii domino: Ergo solam habet potestatem super executionem tempore sui dominii. Ita Sanchez loco cit. Oppositum tamen tenet Ioan. Praep. cum Diana citandis quaest. sequenti.
These suppose the woman was free at the time of the vow, for if she was under the power of others, what is to be done, I shall say in quaestione 21.
Haec supponunt, mulierem tempore voti fuisse liberam, nam si erat sub aliorum potestate, quid agendum, dicam quaestione 21.
I assert third: In the time of divorce the vows emitted by the guilty party, even of chastity, and of religion, can be nullified by the innocent one, nor are they held as made; as with vows made before marriage.
Assero tertio: Tempore diuortii vota emissa a reo, etiam castitatis, et religionis, possunt ab innocente irritari, neque censentur facta; sicuti vota ante matrimonium.
It is proved, because the innocent one has the Right, which the guilty spouse cannot derogate, because the divorce was made in favor of the innocent one, and dependently upon his will. But if the innocent spouse vow, it is to be judged as with vows emitted before marriage, because the innocent one is altogether his own mistress without any obligation, even should the bond of matrimony persist, as Sanchez notes num. 41. after S. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 35. quaest. 1. especially ad secundum.
Probatur, quia innocens habet Ius, cui non potest reus coniux derogare, quia diuortium factum est in favorem innocentis, ac dependenter ab eius voluntate. Si vero innocens coniux voveat, censendum est, sicut de votis emissis ante matrimonium, quia innocens est inepte sui iuris absque aliqua obligatione, esto vinculum perseveret matrimonii, ut notat Sanchez num. 41. post S. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 35. quaest. 1. praecipue ad secundum.