Section — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Section 2. Causes on Account of Which It Is Licit to Rescind Betrothals.
When a cause exists which grants one party the faculty of rescinding the betrothals, this party can dissolve the betrothals at pleasure; but if that party does not wish to withdraw from the betrothals, it is not licit for the other party, who had given the occasion of dissolving them, to withdraw, unless perhaps matrimony exists as notably more burdensome to that party. Three causes of this kind can be numbered: a. breaking of betrothal faith; b. a state of things different from what was known; c. notable change.
545. Violation of Betrothal Faith; for faith is not to be kept with one not keeping faith. But the actions through which betrothal faith is judged to be violated are chiefly the following:
a. To delay excessively the matrimony to be contracted. For either a term for contracting matrimony was fixed in the betrothals, or none was fixed. If the first, either the fixed term was set for ending the obligation, in which case, after the term has elapsed, the betrothals are dissolved by law itself on each side; or the term was fixed for urging the obligation, in which case, whether by culpable or inculpable delay of one party, the time has elapsed, the innocent party can withdraw from the betrothals. But if no term for contracting matrimony was fixed, that party which draws out the delays for too long is judged to give the other party power of withdrawing from the contract. But how much time the latter ought to wait so that it can withdraw by right from the betrothals must be determined by the judgment of prudent persons after considering the circumstances.
b. To betake oneself to another place without the consent of the other party. If one party migrates to another place while the other party does not know or is unwilling, and there is no hope that the migrant will return shortly, the party remaining can at once withdraw from the betrothals, whether the cause of migration was necessary or voluntary; for he who migrates elsewhere is judged by this very fact to renounce the betrothals, but the other party acquires freedom of contracting with another.
If the remaining party had notice of the migration and consented, he or she must wait for the return. But if the other party has gone to a nearby place or there is hope that he or she will return shortly, that party's return must be awaited, or the party must be warned to return within a certain time for celebrating the promised matrimony, and if he or she does not return, the remaining party is free.
c. To enter other betrothals. And betrothals contracted against the faith of prior betrothals are invalid, even if they had been confirmed by oath, as illicit; and the party which violated betrothal faith is held to the first betrothals, but the other innocent party is freed from the obligation.
d. To commit fornication with another person. Fornication committed before the betrothals and after the betrothals must be distinguished; besides, in fornication which the betrothed commit, two things must be attended to: first, one who fornicates with an extraneous person breaks betrothal faith; and then because of fornication is rendered of less value; this effect, however, affects the bride more than the bridegroom.
Because of fornication committed before the betrothals and known after the betrothals, both the bridegroom and also the bride have the right of withdrawing from the betrothals, although some deny this right to the bride.1
Because of fornication committed after the betrothals, the innocent party, both bridegroom and bride, can withdraw from the betrothals, because the other party has broken faith.
If fornication has been committed on each side, there is indeed a mutual compensation of delict; nevertheless the bridegroom can withdraw, because the bride, who has been made notably of less value, has gravely injured the right of the bridegroom. But according to the common opinion the bride cannot withdraw, unless the bridegroom has had offspring from another or has contracted a habit of fornicating;2 for the bridegroom is not judged to have been made notably worse from fornication, and therefore has not gravely injured the right of the bride. Yet there are those who rightly say that the bride's obligation of entering matrimony with a fornicating bridegroom is not certain, and that she therefore cannot be compelled to matrimony.3
If one of the betrothed commits immodest acts with a third person, the bridegroom can withdraw from the betrothals, indeed also the bride if disgraceful acts of this kind are admitted so frequently that it must rightly be feared that the bridegroom will violate conjugal faith.
1 Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. II, 848.
2 St. Alphonsus, n. 862.
3 Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. II, n. 849; Matharan, Genicot, and Wernz consent.
546. A State of Things Notably Different from that which had been known before. Namely, if after betrothals have already been contracted, one party comes to knowledge of a circumstance already existing at the time of the betrothals which, if that party had known before, he or she would not have made the betrothals, this party has a just cause of withdrawing from the betrothals; for betrothals do not oblige beyond the will of the contracting parties, and the contracting parties are not judged to have wished to oblige themselves to a future matrimony so grave and difficult. Now it is asked:
Whether the bride is held to manifest to the bridegroom the defects under which she labors, and conversely the bridegroom to the bride.
- In general it must be said:
a. Each betrothed has the right of knowing notable defects of the other party, so that full freedom may be preserved for the matrimonial contract. Therefore one who conceals defects of this kind sins gravely against justice, just as one acts against justice who sells useless merchandise to him who is ignorant of the defects of the merchandise.
b. Not every defect which, when known, grants the betrothed the right of withdrawing from the betrothals must be manifested under grave obligation; for sometimes defects of this kind are such that they do not render matrimony more difficult for the other party because they are unknown, but when known they grant the right of withdrawing. Now in this case the right of the other party is not gravely injured if the defects are wholly concealed.
- In species these things must be noted:
a. Defects which render matrimony invalid, however disgraceful, must be manifested, or matrimony must be abstained from.
A defect of this kind is of a twofold kind: either it is a defect whose absence the betrothed requires as a condition without which not, e.g., if you are a virgin, if you have not committed that crime; or it is a defect which contains a hidden diriment impediment.
b. Defects which will render matrimony either harmful or notably more difficult for the other party, although disgraceful, must be manifested under grave obligation, both before and after betrothals if they have supervened after these have already been entered.
Defects of this kind are: a disease, especially a contagious one, grave infamy of person or family, offspring left from another man, sterility, state of widowhood, another religion, grave moral defects, etc.
As regards fornication, it must be distinguished thus: if the bridegroom has had offspring from it, this must be manifested to the bride, unless the circumstances are such that the bridegroom will never come to knowledge of the thing. If the bride has become pregnant from it, she must reveal the matter to the bridegroom; if, however, before matrimony she can give birth and wholly conceal the birth from the man, the defect can be judged as if it were simple fornication.
The bridegroom is not held to reveal simple fornication, because that defect is not judged notable in the bridegroom; but the bride must reveal fornication, because this defect in the bride is judged notable, unless by artifice she can wholly conceal the matter, or unless from the known character of the bridegroom it can prudently be judged that he would not value this defect greatly.
c. There is no obligation, at least no grave one, of manifesting either before or after betrothals defects which do not render matrimony notably more difficult, although they render it less desirable and bring some sadness to the other party, just as there is no obligation in contracts of manifesting lighter defects of merchandise. For no one is held to defame himself or herself and deprive himself or herself of the hope of marrying where by silence no right of another is injured. But if it were to be feared that after matrimony the matter would become known and from this there would arise an unhappy matrimony, at least from charity they would be held to manifest the defect or abstain from the union.
Defects of this kind are: deformity, ignobility, poverty, harsh and irascible character, incapacity for conducting affairs, for administering the home, etc.
547. Notable Change which supervenes upon the betrothals; for betrothals are judged to have been entered under this tacit condition: if things remain in the same state, and that lest the matrimony be going to have an unhappy outcome.
Notable change is judged to be induced by any circumstance which, if it had existed or been known before the betrothals were entered, would have drawn one back from contracting the betrothals; but of this kind is any circumstance by which the promised matrimony is truly rendered much more burdensome, difficult, and troublesome. This change can happen either in goods of soul, or in goods of body, or in goods of fortune.
a. In goods of soul: grave harshness of morals, inclination to drunkenness, gambling, impiety; if someone commits an atrocious crime: that crime is judged atrocious which brings grave harm or infamy, such as heresy, homicide, grave theft.
b. In goods of body: incurable or contagious disease, loss of beauty especially in the bride, blindness, cutting off of a member. It is asked whether there is a just cause of abandoning the bride if she has been corrupted against her will. This indeed must be affirmed, because she has been made notably of less value; for that which is valued greatly in a bride is bodily integrity, and when this has been lost, even without fault of the bride, the condition of things has notably changed. The same must be said if she had been corrupted before the betrothals and afterward at length this defect was discovered.
c. In goods of fortune: supervening poverty in each betrothed grants each the faculty of withdrawing, because on each side a notable change happens and matrimony is rendered more burdensome to each; if either one loses a notable part of goods, the other party, whose goods remain unchanged, can withdraw; if the bride is discovered not to have a dowry; if a rich inheritance comes to the bridegroom. But if the goods of the bridegroom remain unchanged and only a rich inheritance comes to the bride, commonly the right of withdrawing from the betrothals is not granted to her; but the opinion which also attributes to the bride in this case the right of withdrawing does not seem improbable, because if she had foreseen the future change, she would not have contracted the betrothals; if either is burdened by excessive debt and there is no hope that he or she will be able to pay; if the bridegroom becomes inept for acquiring an office necessary for the sustenance of the family.
Note. Betrothals can be rescinded if, with all circumstances considered, it is rightly feared that the matrimony to be celebrated will have an unhappy outcome. But for this reason betrothals can in no way be dissolved because another and better occasion of entering matrimony offers itself. Indeed ordinarily the rescission of betrothals must at least be dissuaded, not to say prohibited, although another bride much richer and not inferior as to other qualities offers herself to the bridegroom.
548. Whether, When a Just Cause of Dissolving Betrothals Exists, These Can Be Dissolved by One's Own Authority. If a just cause of dissolving betrothals certainly exists, the sentence of a judge is not required for dissolving them, but by one's own authority they can be dissolved or rescinded by mutual consent; for it is prescribed neither by natural law nor by positive common law that betrothals not be dissolved unless the authority of a judge intervenes.
Per se: for from a threefold cause it can happen that the authority of a judge is required for dissolving betrothals: a. by natural law for averting scandal, if the betrothals are publicly known but the cause of dissolution is unknown; b. from a particular statute of many dioceses, by which it is not permitted that betrothals which were celebrated publicly or afterward became publicly known be dissolved without the cause being referred to the bishop; c. finally where there is doubt about the existence or sufficiency of the cause, dissolution of betrothals is not to be permitted without the authority of a judge, so that the danger of injustice or enmity between the betrothed may be guarded against.
549. To What Is One Held Who Withdraws from Betrothals Without Just Cause?
a. Not only one who withdraws from betrothals without a just cause, but also one who either concealed a just cause of withdrawing or brought it about by his or her fault, is held to repair the harm which is inflicted on the other party withdrawing.
b. Full reparation of harm includes both positive harm and negative harm. The former consists in gifts and expenses made by the other party with a view to the future matrimony; the latter arises both where the bride for this reason cannot find another man, or has conceived offspring from the bridegroom.
c. If the bride withdraws, ordinarily it suffices that the positive harm inflicted be repaired to the bridegroom, because a man more easily finds another bride; but if the bridegroom withdraws, full reparation of harm is usually had only if the bride is also suitably endowed.
Question Four.. On the Requisites Before the Celebration of Matrimony.
Before the celebration of matrimony, it must be established for the parish priest that nothing stands in the way of its validity and liceity. In order that he may be made more certain concerning this matter, from office he must a. institute the examination of the betrothed, b. publicly announce the matrimony.1
1 Cn. 1020, 3.