Article II. On the Obligation and Effects of Betrothals

1529. Principles. - I. Betrothals oblige from justice, under grave obligation, to enter Matrimony, at the determined time, if any has been determined; but if no time has been fixed, as soon as one party reasonably demands. The reason is because, where there are true betrothals, there is a true contract in a grave matter, and thence follows a grave obligation. But this obligation presses both in the forum of conscience and in the external forum. Therefore the one withdrawing can be compelled by the judge to Matrimony, even by censures,³ although exhortations and admonitions ought first to precede,⁴ and coercion also must be abstained from if, the circumstances having been inspected, the judge prudently judges that from unwilling nuptials grave evils and scandals are to be feared, e.g. perpetual quarrels, the departure of the man from the wife, or even the murder of the spouse; for it is expedient that a lesser evil be permitted in order to guard against a graver one, and thus favor is also bestowed by the judge upon the Plaintiff.⁵

II. Betrothals induce an impedient impediment of Matrimony, or one prohibiting lest Matrimony be contracted licitly with another person, unless the prior betrothals have been legitimately dissolved. The reason is because, from what has been said, betrothals beget an obligation of justice.

III. Betrothals induce also an impediment which in law is called public honesty, by which, namely, one of the betrothed persons is rendered incapable of contracting Matrimony with the blood relatives of the other in the first degree.

IV. Betrothals, in places where the decree of Trent concerning the form of Matrimony does not have force, when carnal copula follows, become betrothals of the present or presumed Matrimony, concerning which below more fully.

Note. From betrothals among us there is no action in the civil forum, except for the reparation of damage coming to the innocent party from their dissolution.¹

1530. Questions. - Quaer. 1° If someone has contracted betrothals with two women, and has sinned with the second, which one ought he to marry?

Resp. 1° Certainly Matrimony is to be contracted with the first, if, when the second was contracting, she was conscious of the prior betrothals. The reason is because then the second was not deceived, but wished to be deceived.

Resp. 2° More probably Matrimony is also to be contracted with the first, although the second was not conscious of the promise made to the other. The reason is because the promise made to the second is always null, as being concerning an illicit thing; nor does an injury inflicted upon another take away the right of the first; and this is valid even if the second promise was confirmed by oath.²

Quaer. 2° Must the prior betrothed woman then yield her right, if the other is going to suffer grave damage from defloration?

Resp. Negatively, not improbably. Namely, the second betrothed woman ought to impute damage of this kind to her own weakness. Nevertheless it would be advisable to the first that she renounce her right spontaneously, unless perhaps she herself would incur notable damage from this.³

Quaer. 3° Are earnest-gifts licit in betrothals?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because they are neither prohibited by Canon Law, nor opposed to natural law.⁴

Quaer. 4° Must a penalty attached to betrothals be paid by one withdrawing, and can it, having been paid, be retained?

Resp. to the 1st. Affirmatively, more probably, if there is question of one withdrawing unjustly, since the attaching of a penalty against one unjustly withdrawing is prohibited by no law. Nevertheless the opinion of St. Alphonsus¹ denying is sufficiently probable, because even by the just attaching of a penalty the liberty of Matrimony suffers some lesion. - But negatively, if there is question of one withdrawing justly.

Resp. to the 2nd. Negatively, more probably, if there is question of a penalty paid by one justly withdrawing; because no title legitimizes retention of this kind.²

Quaer. 5° Must a betrothed woman return gifts accepted from the betrothed man, if Matrimony does not follow?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if the betrothals are dissolved from the fault of the betrothed man; because he, by culpably withdrawing from the promise, is deservedly judged to make the loss of these gifts. Thus common practice.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, speaking in itself, if the betrothals are dissolved without fault of the betrothed man, and, a fortiori, if from the fault of the betrothed woman; for the betrothed woman cannot retain them without injustice, since they were conferred only in view of Matrimony. The same would have to be said if one of the betrothed persons, who accepted gifts or earnest-gifts from the other, is overtaken by death before Matrimony is entered; for according to what has just been said, the parents of the deceased are held to restore all things to the surviving betrothed person.

I said: speaking in itself; because, if, in view of the condition of the betrothed man, the gifts are of little moment, and he does not reclaim them, he is judged to remit them.

Quaer. 6° Must he who promised Matrimony to a girl, on the condition that he sin with her, marry her?

Resp. See n. 810.