Article — Konings, Theologia Moralis
Article I. On the Nature of Betrothals
1525. - Definition. Betrothals are a deliberate, mutual promise, expressed by a sensible sign, of future Matrimony between capable persons.
It is said: 1° deliberate, namely with the deliberation required for a vow (see n. 379).
It is said: 2° mutual. Hence, if one only of the contracting parties promises, the other simply accepting but not promising in return, there will be no betrothals. - Nevertheless acceptance is equivalent to a return-promise if a woman, who is honorable, is led into so great a dishonor to herself that after acceptance of the promise she suffers defloration, at least if it is not clear that she acted thus merely for the sake of fulfilling lust.1
It is said: 3° expressed by a sensible sign. Hence there is no need of words; but tacit consent, not expressed by a suitable sign, does not suffice, unless, as Canon Law2 disposes for the external forum, parents (i.e. father or mother) contract for children present and not contradicting, although they could easily contradict. - I said: a) for the EXTERNAL forum; for for the internal forum betrothals cannot be valid unless the children positively (i.e. not only by conducting themselves negatively) and internally consent. - I said: b) father OR mother; for the value of the betrothals, or the consent of the children, is presumed in Law, not from paternal power, by which children cannot be compelled to these things (see n. 425), but from parental affection, which is equally in the mother and in the father, and whose dispositions, as having been made in their favor, children are judged to admit. - I said: c) for children PRESENT; for although to St. Alphonsus the more probable opinion is that which affirms that parents can also contract for absent children (to be made more certain by themselves, or by letter or messenger), nevertheless he also holds the negative as probable. - I said: d) not contradicting, ALTHOUGH THEY COULD EASILY CONTRADICT; for betrothals would not be valid if there were a reason why they do not contradict, e.g. fear.3
It is said: 4° of future Matrimony. Hence betrothals would not be valid if the parties pledged only that they would never enter Matrimony with some other person, unless from the circumstances it is clear that such persons truly wished to contract betrothals, as if the words are of the present, namely: I want no one but you.1
It is said: 5° between capable persons, i.e. persons prohibited by no impediment, whether diriment or impedient. Hence they are not valid if they are made between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, unless their execution has been remitted to the time at which this latter will have received the Catholic Faith.
Notes to nn. 1525-1528 - note sequence 1. (1) Acta T. I. p. 77 sq.; p. 342 sub fine n. 2. T. II. p. 145 sq. (2) L. IV. T. II. c. unic. § finali. in 6°. (3) L. VI. 838, 839. H. A. Tr. XVIII. 5. Notes to nn. 1525-1528 - note sequence 2. (1) L. VI. 842. (2) Kenr. Tr. XXI. 27. Notes to nn. 1525-1528 - note sequence 3. (1) L. VI. 840. Acta. T. I. pp. 336, 525. T. II. p. 142. (2) L. VI. 834. H. A. Tr. XVIII. 3. (3) Cf. Vind. p. 925 and 789. Ed. 2a. T. II. p. 583 and p. 449. (4) L. VI. 859. Vind. pp. 945, 946. 1). Ed. 2a. T. II. pp. 605, 606. 1). (5) L. VI. 882, 883. (6) Knopp. Eherecht. § 34. S. 324 and Ferraris. V. Sponsalia, n. 12, 16 sq. H. A. Tr. XVIII. 1. Notes to nn. 1525-1528 - note sequence 4. (1) L. VI. 885. (2) Acta, T. I. p. 342. note 2 sub fine.
1526. - Division. They are: 1° Ecclesiastical or solemn, and private, according as they are celebrated either in the face of the Church, i.e. before the Pastor and witnesses; or are perfected privately by the consent alone of the contracting parties, or before parents in the midst of the family. 2° Absolute and conditioned, according as they are made without any condition, or with some condition added.
1527. Principles. - I. For the validity of betrothals all the conditions contained in the definition are required, so that, if one of them is lacking, the betrothal contract must be held as null. The reason is clear from what was said concerning the nature of a contract, n. 828, 845.
II. Betrothals are valid in the same way, whether they are solemn or ecclesiastical, or private or clandestine, because the consent of two suffices for a true contract; nor has the Church ever invalidated private betrothals. Indeed now in most places solemn betrothals have gone into desuetude, nor are they ever contracted among us.2
III. Betrothals entered under a condition concerning the present are valid here and now, if the condition is verified; but if they are contracted under a condition concerning the future, they will be valid as soon as the condition is fulfilled, without a new consent of the contracting parties, provided neither has revoked the consent previously given. Meanwhile the contracting parties are held to await the fulfillment of the condition, if it is honorable and possible, and does not oppose the nature of this contract or of future Matrimony.
IV. When the words or signs are doubtful, in the forum of conscience one must stand by the intention of the contracting parties, if it is clear; but in the external forum, by the common understanding and sense of the words. But if doubt remains, one must incline in favor of liberty.1
1528. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Are betrothals contracted from grave fear valid?
Resp. Negatively, more probably, provided the fear is from without, unjustly, and inflicted in order to contracting. The reason is because Matrimony contracted from such fear is null, as is clear from Canon Law, and will be explained below. Therefore by that very fact betrothals entered from such fear also ought to be null. Cf. n. 854.
Quaer. 2° Are betrothals entered from light fear valid?
Resp. See n. 853. III.3
Quaer. 3° Among those having a diriment impediment, without new consent, are betrothals valid under the express condition: if the Pope shall have dispensed?
Resp. Affirmatively, once the condition has been fulfilled and the dispensation committed to execution. The reason is because the consent perseveres until the fulfillment of the condition.4
Quaer. 4° Are fictitious betrothals valid?
Resp. The question is to be resolved in almost the same way as the question concerning a fictitious oath (see n. 367. 1°. 2°). Therefore they are valid if someone had the intention of celebrating betrothals and binding himself, but not of satisfying the obligation. But otherwise, if internally he did not wish either to contract betrothals or to bind himself. Nevertheless through a fiction of this kind he sins gravely, and is bound to repair damages, indeed also to celebrate Matrimony if damages cannot otherwise be repaired.5 See nevertheless what was said n. 810.
Quaer. 5° Are betrothals valid: 1) of those not of puberty; 2) of those not seven years old?
Resp. to the 1st. Affirmatively in itself, because even in the betrothals of those not of puberty all essentials (n. 1525) can be present.
Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively, more probably, by natural law, if the one promising has the perfect use of reason and in some way comprehends the burdens of the conjugal state.6
Quaer. 6° Are they valid between absentees through an intermediary, letters, or procurator?
Resp. Affirmatively, provided, if there is question of a procurator, he 1) has a special mandate; 2) the mandate is concerning contracting with a determinate person; 3) the procurator contracts by himself; 4) the mandate has not been revoked by the mandator before the betrothals were contracted, whether mentally or tacitly, e.g. by celebrating betrothals with another; 5) the procurator does not exceed the limits of the mandate.1
Quaer. 7° Must promises which are customarily made concerning entering Matrimony always be held as true betrothals?
Resp. It seems they must be denied; for often those promises bear the appearance rather of intention than of true promise. Therefore in practice attention must be paid to the particular intention of the promisors.2