Title XXXII: On the Conversion of Spouses

Latin source headnote: If a husband makes profession with his wife's license, and the wife herself is suspect and neither vows continence nor enters religion, the bishop will restore the husband to the wife. This it says according to the letter.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Uber.

Moreover, as to whether a married layman who, in the presence of priests and monks but without the knowledge of the bishop, entered a monastery with the license and permission of his wife and perhaps made profession, while his wife remained in secular habit and neither passed to religion nor vowed perpetual continence, can be recalled by his bishop to his wife's bed, or she is to be compelled to observe continence, we say that, unless the wife has passed to religion or promised to preserve chastity perpetually, the man can and ought to be recalled [to her] by the bishop from the monastery, because, since they have been made one flesh, one part ought not to remain in the world and the other to pass to religion and chastity. Nevertheless, the wife is to be admonished and more earnestly exhorted to pass to religion and promise to preserve chastity.

Latin source headnote: Before a marriage is consummated, either spouse can enter religion even against the will of the other; but the one remaining in the world can pass to second vows.

The same, to the Archbishop of Salerno.

But after [that] lawful consent in words of the present, it is lawful for either, even with the other resisting, to choose a monastery, just as also certain saints were called from nuptials, provided carnal commingling did not intervene between them; and it is lawful for the other remaining, if after being admonished that person is unwilling to preserve continence, to pass to second vows, because, since they had not been made one flesh together, one can sufficiently pass to God and the other remain in the world.

Latin source headnote: One who made profession against his wife's will and afterward is restored to her is not compelled, after the wife dies, to return to the monastery; nevertheless, he ought not contract marriage.

The same, to the Archbishop of Pisa.

A certain man entered a monastery against his wife's will and, when she sought him back, he was compelled to return to her. After she died, you ask whether he is compelled to return to the monastery or can take another as wife. We answer your consultation in this manner: the vow did not hold, whence he is not bound by reason of the vow to return to the monastery; but he will not be able to take a wife thereafter. For he promised not to exact the debt, which was in his power, and therefore as to this the vow held. But not to render it was not in his power but in the woman's. Hence the Apostle: “The husband does not have power over his own body, but the woman.”

Latin source headnote: A married man cannot enter religion unless his wife also enters, or unless she is not suspect and promises continence. This it says, and it is one of the principal chapters of the title.

The same, to the Bishop of Exeter.

Since you are endowed with knowledge of letters, you cannot nor ought to be ignorant that it is contrary to the constitution of the holy Fathers that a man, while his wife remains in the world, or a wife, while her husband does not assume the religious habit, ought to pass to religion, because, since husband and wife are one flesh, as the Apostle teaches, one cannot be converted to God and the other remain in the world. Hence it is that by apostolic authority we prohibit you from permitting a husband or wife in your bishopric to pass unless each has migrated to religion; but, if they wish to be converted to God, let each pass to the fruit of a better life. But if the wife is so old and sterile that she can be in the world without suspicion, you will be able to dissemble so that, while she remains in the world and promises chastity, her husband may pass to religion.

Latin source headnote: A married person is not to be ordained to sacred orders unless his wife promises continence.

The same, to the Archbishops of Esztergom and Cologne.

A married man desiring to be converted to a monastery is prohibited from being received unless his wife [likewise] is converted. For while one body of the two has been made by the union of marriage, it is unfitting for one part to be converted and the other to remain in the world; nor will the conversion of that man be received before God if the prostitution of the conjugal covenant follows from it. Since, therefore, the assembly of clerics far excels the assembly of monks, such that sometimes a good monk scarcely makes a good cleric, no married person is to be promoted to sacred orders unless he has been released by his wife professing continence, so that thereafter a spiritual marriage may be made from carnal union. [Indeed, etc.; cf. the chapter immediately following.]

Latin source headnote: A married man cannot be promoted as bishop unless his wife professes religion.

The same, to the same.

Indeed, if married men have consented to be ordained, the wife's will must first be sought also, so that, the chamber of their dwelling having been separated and religion promised, they may be ordained after they have been converted together. But if in any ecclesiastical grades it must be providently and knowingly attended to that nothing in the house of God be disordered and nothing out of proper order, much more must labor be expended that no error be made in the promotion of him who is placed over all grades. Hence it is that by apostolic authority we prohibit your fraternity from presuming to ordain a married man as bishop unless his wife, having first professed continence, places the sacred veil upon herself and assumes religious clothing. For we do not wish the promotion of the man to be able to become an occasion of perdition for the wife left in the world.

Latin source headnote: A spouse by present consent, not carnally known, who says that she wishes to enter religion, is compelled within a certain time to profess or adhere to her husband.

The same, to the Bishop of Brescia.

From the public instrument that was presented to us, and from the tenor of your letters, it became known to us that, when the venerable brother [our O.], the Bishop of Verona, by our mandate undertook the matrimonial cause disputed between the man A. and the woman M. to be terminated by a canonical conclusion, after hearing the reasons and allegations of each party, he approved the marriage between them by judicial sentence and commanded the same woman to return to her husband and exhibit conjugal affection to him. When she refused, by our mandate, as we have learned, she was bound by the bond of excommunication. But because the aforesaid woman, although she was espoused by the aforesaid man, nevertheless still, as she asserts, has not been known by him, by apostolic writings directing your fraternity, we command that, if the aforesaid man has not carnally known the woman herself and the same woman, as is proposed to us on your part, wishes to pass to religion, after receiving from her sufficient security that within the space of two months she ought either to pass to religion or return to her husband, you absolve her from the sentence by which she is bound, contradiction and appeal ceasing, in such a way that, if she passes to religion, each restores to the other what each is known to have received from the other, and the man himself, when she assumes the religious habit, has license to pass to other vows. Indeed, what the Lord says in the Gospel—that it is not lawful for a man to dismiss his wife except on account of fornication—is to be understood, according to the interpretation of sacred scripture, of those whose marriage is consummated by carnal union, without which marriage cannot be consummated; and therefore, if the aforesaid woman was not known by her husband, it is lawful [for her] to pass to religion.

Latin source headnote: The summary is as above in this title, chapter “Since you are.”

The same, to G., Prior, and the Brothers of Saint John.

But let no married man be received among you in any way without the license of his own wife. If she is [of] such unimpaired reputation and standing that her husband has no suspicion that she wishes to migrate to second vows or that she is likely to live with less continence, if she is such, as aforesaid, after her husband has been received into your fellowship, she, having publicly professed continence in the sight of the church, can remain in her own house with her children and household. But if she is such a person as is not free from suspicion, after celebrating the vow of continence, let her withdraw herself from association with secular persons and dwell perpetually in a religious place where she may serve God. Let none of you dare to tonsure any woman or presume to take her to dwell with him.

Latin source headnote: A married man who makes profession with his wife consenting, although he never entered the monastery, if after the spouse dies he contracts with another, the marriage is not valid and he is compelled to enter the monastery.

Urban III, to the Prior of Holy Cross.

It came to our hearing on the part of our beloved son, the abbot of Saint Peter of Romandine, that, when D. de Cel., placed in sickness, with his wife consenting, vowed a vow of chastity and received the monastic habit, afterward, freed from the trouble of his sickness, he both retained his aforesaid wife and, after she died, rashly joined another to himself. But because, although the aforesaid D. could not by law have proceeded to religion while his wife remained in the world, nevertheless, after she was removed from their midst, he could not violate the vow made without peril to his salvation, we command that, if what is asserted is true, you compel the aforesaid D. through excommunication to dismiss the woman and return to his monastery, thereafter to serve the Lord under a regular habit. Given at Verona.

Latin source headnote: One professed in religion with his wife knowing and dissembling cannot return to the world after she dies. This it says according to the truer and singular understanding in the matter.

Clement III.

G., priest of Saint Columba, consulted us as to whether a man, a merchant, renouncing trade and his wife for the sake of God, passing to religion and remaining in it for a year and more, his wife having been removed from the present life after he passed to the regular house, can resume the secular habit that he cast aside and take another as wife, or whether it is lawful for him to retain one taken. We answer a consultation of this kind in this manner: the aforesaid man can neither cast off the habit that he assumed nor join any woman to himself in marriage. But if he has contracted, we decree that marriage to be dissolved.

Latin source headnote: A spouse who vowed continence is bound to render the debt to the other spouse, although the latter consented to the vow for a time.

Celestine III.

Our dearest son in Christ, R., illustrious King of the Swabians, humbly announced to our apostolate by letter and messenger that, when he was an adolescent and his beloved wife a young woman, binding themselves by mutual faith with a vow of contracting lawful marriage, they strengthened their mutual consent, with the will of their parents acceding, by the gift of earnest money. But afterward, when N., his father of renowned memory, was killed by enemies, and he was pressed on all sides through the adversity of wars and, after an encounter with his enemies, had been defeated and put to flight, because he feared that the betrothed woman herself might be violently seized by his enemies, and that another like her whom he could join to himself in marriage could not be found in the kingdom, by the counsel of his own parents and those of the same betrothed woman it was done that she received the monastic habit in a convent of nuns without the purpose of retaining it perpetually, and remained there for some years, lest she suffer any injury from the enemies. After peace had been restored and triumph obtained over his enemies, he solemnly took her as wife with great exultation and had sons by her; one of them, by the common consent and election of the princes of Swabia, he instituted his successor in the kingdom. But as time went on, the aforesaid wife, struck by grave sickness, when she believed she was about to depart from this life, induced by fear of death, vowed continence; and when the king himself did not wish to sadden her, he consented for a time. But now he proposes that he cannot remain continent and wishes to return to his wife's bed, which he judges can lawfully be done. And to restrain the detractions and reproaches of his rivals, he petitioned us that mandate be given to him that by our authority he treat his wife with marital affection, notwithstanding the vow of continence incautiously emitted by her and approved for a time by the same king.

But because we could not elicit the truth fully concerning these matters, we have thought that knowledge of them and a canonical decision should be committed to your fraternity, commanding by apostolic writings that you inquire more diligently into the truth concerning these matters; and, if it is established to you that the aforesaid woman was first received among the nuns from fear of violence and seizure and declared that she had the purpose of marrying while she remained among them—especially since afterward she publicly married the king in the face of the church and, cohabiting up to these times, he had sons by her—you are to declare that she is not bound to the aforesaid monastery. For that deed cannot dissolve a marriage contracted, even if perhaps it could impede a marriage to be contracted. But concerning the other matter, we command your fraternity that, if you find that the wife of the King of the Swabians, weighed down by grave sickness, vowed continence and her husband furnished consent for a time, especially if the same husband did not equally vow perpetual continence, you cause her to cohabit with her husband and each to treat the other with marital affection.

Latin source headnote: If one spouse, while the other is ignorant, professes religion and on account of this is led out of the monastery, after the other dies that spouse is not compelled to return to the monastery.

The same.

It pleases us, and we commend your prudence because in doubtful causes you seek the counsel of the Apostolic See. For although you are endowed with knowledge of letters, you devoutly have recourse to your mother, the Roman church, so that, after receiving a fitting response concerning that of which you doubt, you may clearly recognize what form you ought to observe in similar matters. Through our beloved [moreover] son G., Dean of Catalonia, your solicitude consulted our apostolate whether a woman who, believing her husband dead, assumed the religious habit and, when he returned, was led out of the monastery, is to be compelled after the death of the man to regular observance. Concerning this we answer your discretion thus: although her vow did not hold in every respect, nevertheless it was obligatory to the extent that she could obligate herself. For by entering the monastery she promised that she would not exact the carnal debt, which was in her power; but to return to the world was not in her power, but in the power of her husband. And therefore, as much as pertained to her, the vow held, which did not cease to hold after the death of her husband, since it is known to have reached the case from which it could have an efficacious beginning. Therefore we say it is more prudent and more fitting for her salvation, imitating the footsteps of our predecessor Pope Alexander of happy memory, that, after abandoning the vanities of the world, she return to the monastery where with good intention she made profession and received the religious habit. But if she cannot be induced to this, we believe she should not be compelled against her will.

Latin source headnote: The summary is as above in this title, chapter IV, “Since you are.”

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Pisa.

To the Apostolic See—(And below: [cf. c. 16, On Regulars, III. 31.]) But since husband and wife have been made one flesh through conjugal union, and one part cannot be converted to the Lord while the other remains in the world, assuredly neither spouse is to be received into regular observance unless the remaining one promises perpetual continence. But that person also ought to change his or her manner of life, unless perhaps of such an age as to be able to remain in the world without suspicion of incontinence. [Given at the Lateran, on the ninth day before the Kalends of December. 1198.]

Latin source headnote: Betrothal by present consent is dissolved through religious profession, but not through a purpose of preserving chastity in the world.

The same, to the Archbishop of Lyon.

It was intimated to our ears on your part that, when a certain woman of your diocese had assumed the veil of widowhood before two abbots, with a solemn blessing accompanied by celebration of mass and a litany, as was proper, afterward a certain nobleman proposed that he had previously espoused the woman herself through intermediaries by words of the present, earnest money also having been interposed. Hearing that the woman herself had assumed the veil, he sent to her that carnal union should follow the espousal made. But you, after the matter was brought to your hearing, took care to prohibit them from commingling carnally before discussion of the business. Afterward, when the woman herself was constituted in your presence, you asked whether she had consented to him and why she sought to be separated from him. But she, confessing that she had consented to him, said that she had heard that he was struck by leprosy and on account of this had abominated his embrace. But when afterward fuller faith had been made to you through suitable witnesses that before reception of the veil mutual consent by words of the present had intervened between them, you thought the Apostolic See should be consulted as to whether reception of the veil impeded the marriage between them.

We answer your inquiry in this manner: although it can seem, not without consideration, that from the time a marriage between lawful persons is contracted by words of the present, while they live it can in no case be dissolved so that one may migrate to second vows while the other remains alive—even if one of the faithful between whom there is a ratified marriage became a heretic and was unwilling to remain with the other without insult to the Creator—unless perhaps it were done otherwise by divine revelation, which surpasses every law, as it is read to have been done by certain saints; nevertheless, we, unwilling in this article suddenly to depart from the footsteps of our predecessors, who, when consulted, answered that before a marriage has been consummated by carnal union it is lawful for either spouse, even without consulting the other, to pass to religion in such a way that the other can from then on lawfully be joined to another, counsel you to observe this same thing in the aforesaid article, although the cause by which the aforesaid woman was induced to receive the veil is false, since without any such cause she could have done this same thing with a view to religion. Moreover, although the aforesaid woman appears in receiving the veil to have assumed the religious habit, nevertheless, if she wishes to remain in her own house as though intending to preserve chastity in the world, the marriage already contracted is nonetheless to be consummated, unless she bound herself by vow to regular observance; in that case she can be compelled to leave the world and execute the religious purpose. [Given on the second day before the Ides of January. 1206.]

Latin source headnote: A husband who has become a monk cannot be recalled by an adulterous wife.

The same, to the Bishop of Rudina.

H. Vitalis, the bearer of the present letters, constituted in our presence, showed us by his own confession that, when he was constituted in the order of acolyte, he took a certain girl named R. as wife in the face of the church. When he had known her carnally, a discord having arisen between him and the girl's friends, after diligent discussion was held before you, she was joined to a certain other man named V., and you ordained the aforesaid H. up to the grade of the priesthood and granted him a church. But when his conscience reproached him, he assumed the habit of the Cistercian order; at length [N.] he revealed all the aforesaid things to his abbot, who diligently admonished him to provide in this matter for the salvation of his soul. Therefore we command your fraternity by apostolic writings that, if the matter stands thus, you do not omit to compel the aforesaid woman, through ecclesiastical censure, the obstacle of appeal having been removed, to withdraw from the said V., to whom she is joined through adultery, and not to assail the aforesaid monk so as to prevent him from being able to fulfill his regular vow.

Latin source headnote: A wife cannot reclaim a husband who entered religion with her permission if, after his entry, she did not observe continence, although she was induced by fraud to consent or to give permission.

The same, to the Bishop of Poitiers and the Abbot of Boribarden in the diocese of Poitiers.

L., our beloved son and the bearer of the present letters, coming to our presence, humbly intimated to us that, when once he had conceived a purpose of entering a monastery, in the presence of several priests, knights, and other men, he pressed his wife with entreaties to impart her assent to him upon this matter, having first entreated the same priests not to explain to the aforesaid woman that she too would have to abandon the world if she gave her husband permission to fly to a monastery. And when the woman in turn entreated him not to depart from her, he asserted that, unless he could obtain permission from her upon this matter, he would render himself useless not only to her but also to the whole world. At length she, overcome by the entreaties and tears both of him and of the many standing by, placed his head beneath the altar with her own hand; and he, having been tonsured there in her presence, entered the monastery and, when the time of probation had ended, solemnly made monastic profession. She, however, remaining in the world, admitted dishonorable lovers; wherefore the same L., fearing lest her incontinence be imputed to his continence, sought counsel from us as to whether he ought to persevere in the monastery. Therefore we command your discretion by apostolic writings that, if it is thus, you freely permit the aforesaid L. to persevere without disturbance from anyone in the monastery that he entered. For although he appears to have offended not a little in this, that he craftily asserted that, unless the same woman consented to him, he would render himself useless both to her and to the whole world, and in that he entreated the priests not to explain to the aforesaid woman that she would have to leave the world if perhaps she gave her husband permission, nevertheless, since the same woman voluntarily placed her husband's head beneath the altar and afterward, as is asserted, did not observe continence, she is not to be heard in any way concerning his recall; since her claim, if perhaps she were to reclaim him, can be defeated by the exception of fornication committed, especially since, before she had fornicated, she did not consider that he ought to be reclaimed. [Given at the Lateran, on the third day before the Nones of April, in the twelfth year. 1209.]

Latin source headnote: A wife can reclaim a husband who has made profession, notwithstanding permission to make profession extorted from her by fear.

The same.

I., a woman coming to our presence, lamentably proposed before us that, when V., her husband of the diocese of Ely, had lawfully joined her to himself in marriage, and, cohabiting with her for the space of nearly twenty years, had received offspring from her, at length the same husband, wishing to assume the monastic habit, humbly sought from her that she favor his pious purpose. She, because of the many blows and other burdens of molestations that the said husband inflicted upon her, and because he asserted that he would dismiss her, assented to his wishes. And when the same husband had assumed the habit of religion in the house of Vaudey of the Cistercian order, the woman herself remained there in a house of nuns, having assumed no religious habit there or emitted any vow of conversion; and the same nuns ministered the necessities of life to her in return for the labor of her hands. But in the course of time, when the same husband, returning to the world, had cast aside the habit of religion, the same woman insistently sought to be taken back by him. He, utterly refusing to receive her, in addition to the blows with which he often afflicted her, inflicted upon her very many reproaches and grave injuries. Therefore we command your discretion by apostolic writings that, if the matter stands thus, and the said woman is of such an age that doubt concerning a lapse of her flesh can deservedly be entertained, you compel the said husband, after prior admonition, through ecclesiastical censure, appeal having been removed, to receive her and to exhibit conjugal affection toward her. [No letters, etc. Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the fifth day before the Ides of April. 1205.]

Latin source headnote: The wife of a professed religious, who gave her husband permission to make profession, is not compelled to enter religion if she is continent and not suspect.

Innocent III, to the Bishop, Dean, and Treasurer of Lincoln.

A. woman signified to us that, when she had granted her husband F., a knight, before the dean of Saint Quiriacus of Provins, acting in this matter in the place of P. of good memory, Archbishop of Sens, permission to enter religion, nevertheless with a vow of continence enjoined upon her, and when assurance had been received from her that she would remain perpetually continent, the same dean, after profession had been made by the aforesaid husband in the monastery in which he had assumed the monastic habit, asserted that she ought to enter religion, although he had not at first expressed this to her and, if this had been expressed, she would not have given him permission; and he caused her to be admonished concerning this several times through our venerable brother the Archbishop of Sens, on account of which she, with the consent of the said archbishop, implored our counsel upon this matter. Therefore we command that, if it is thus, and she is of such an age concerning which suspicion cannot be entertained, you do not permit her, while observing the vow of continence, to be compelled against her will to enter a monastery.

Latin source headnote: An adulteress whom her husband is unwilling to reconcile is placed in some cloister to do penance.

Gregory IX.

We rejoice in the Lord. (And below:) But women who, having left the marital bed, have fallen through a lapse of the flesh—if their husbands, diligently admonished by you, are unwilling for God's sake to receive them after they have turned to the fruit of a better life—you shall take care to place in cloisters with religious women, so that they may do perpetual penance there.

Latin source headnote: If spouses have released each other by promising continence, and both or one of them makes religious profession, one cannot reclaim the other.

The same, to I., a nun of the monastery of Plauda.

Some time ago, when the subject matter of a question was raised against you by C., a layman, who said that you were his wife, we appointed R., cardinal deacon of Saint Mary in Cosmedin, as auditor. Before him the said C., proposing by way of complaint that you unduly refused to adhere matrimonially to him, whose wife you were by consent in the present tense and the carnal union that followed, sought that you be restored to him. To this it was answered that he, for the remedy of his soul, by a pure and spontaneous will, in the presence of two religious priests and with five trustworthy witnesses adduced, had wholly renounced every right that he had in you, resigning it into the hands of one of the aforesaid priests, who took care to receive a resignation of this kind in the person of the church; and that the same C. promised that he would preserve chastity and devoted himself to the service of the hospital of the poor at Ponte, promising by solemn vow all and each of the aforesaid things and granting you permission to pass to a monastery, while you in turn similarly promised and granted him permission and resigned every right—as all these things were said to have been proved by a public instrument drawn up by the hand of B., a notary of Arezzo.

But the aforementioned C. proposed that, after the aforesaid instrument had been lost by accident, it was fashioned by him in the first person, though it had formerly been in the third person, with many things inserted in the one otherwise than they had been in the other. And since he had been angry with you, as words and blows indicated, while the heat of his anger had not yet subsided, certain persons deceitfully enticed him, proposing to him that in the aforesaid hospital he could use foods according to his pleasure and retain private property, while the aforesaid B. promised him nonetheless that he would extinguish in him not only the burning but also the appetite of lust. On account of this, he asserted that whatever he is known to have done in this matter was done by him while angry, deceived and enticed alike, and under hope of the promise, and under this condition or manner: if he could observe continence.

But to these things it was answered to the contrary that it seems to make no difference whether a notary draws up an instrument in the third person or in the first, provided that the substance of the truth is not changed. Moreover, although at some time a hope had been given to the aforesaid C. by which he proposed that he had been induced to this, nevertheless, at the time when such things were done, he is known to have proceeded purely, simply, and voluntarily, solely for the love of God and the remedy of his soul, to the vow and the other aforesaid things. On account of this he ought to withdraw from the fellowship of secular persons and change his life, since he proposes that he is of such an age that he cannot remain in the world without suspicion of incontinence. We therefore, after taking counsel with our brothers, have held that you are to be absolved by sentence from the action of the said C., imposing perpetual silence upon him concerning this matter.

Latin source headnote: It is brief, but in other words it can be summarized thus: After a sentence of separation from the marital bed, rendered on account of the husband's spiritual fornication, the wife can freely enter religion.

The same.

A woman who remained in the faith can, against the will of her husband who returns from the infidelity on account of which she had been separated from him by the judgment of the church, freely fly to religion.