From the Responses of Stephen III, Otherwise II, which, While Dwelling in Francia, He Gave to the Britannic or Britennac Monastery to Various Consultations (Jac. Sirmondus Edited Them from a Laudensian Manuscript), A.D. 754

Response II. If anyone has coupled himself in marriage and it happens to one of them that he cannot render the debt, it is not lawful for them to be separated, nor on account of another infirmity; except if an infirmity of a demon or the spot of leprosy has supervened. But if they are free from these two infirmities, mutually joined, let the one exhibit service to the other.

In this manner also other Pontiffs responded (cf. the response of Lucius III, chapter 4, Title XV, Book IV), not permitting copula or marital embraces between such persons, nor properly commanding them to live together and to abstain from another marriage, but recommending an undivided life as of brother and sister if they themselves should wish.

Stephen does not dissent from these. He does indeed deny that it is lawful for others to separate them, certainly against their will; but he does not deny that the same persons can, if they wish, separate themselves from each other and marry others. For which reason, in the decretals, Book IV, Title XV, chapter 2, there exists a response of the Roman Pontiff on this matter conceived in this manner: Although the Roman Church has not been accustomed to divide those legitimately joined on account of natural frigidity, nor on account of other malefices, nevertheless, if the general custom of the Gallican Church has it that a marriage of this sort is dissolved, we will patiently tolerate it, if, according to that custom, you shall have granted to the same woman the faculty of marrying in the Lord whom she wishes. For just as a boy, who cannot render the debt, is not apt for marriage, so also those who are impotent are by no means reckoned apt for contracting marriages.

Here you have the doctrine of the Roman Church clearly expressed: that the impotent are not apt for contracting marriage, and therefore that among them there cannot exist a conjugal bond. For which reason the society which is permitted to them cannot be conjugal, otherwise than Pontius judged. Cf. the last Thesis, part II.

But the sense of this response of Stephen is perhaps restricted more, namely so that the discourse is not about impotence preceding or accompanying the contract, but about that which afterward really supervened, and therefore the discourse is manifestly about simple separation, which, except in the hypothesis of those infirmities, deservedly is not permitted.

Response III. If anyone in a foreign fatherland has led a female slave into consortship, afterward, having returned into his own, has accepted a freeborn woman, and again it happens that he returns to that fatherland in which he had been before, and that female slave whom he first had has been associated to another man, such a one can accept another, yet not while that freeborn woman whom he had in his own fatherland is living.

Namely, this second union, not the first, was true marriage, on account of the impediment of condition, according to the response of Leo to Rusticus of Narbonne, chapter V, above, which same Stephen cites at the beginning of his responses.

Response IV. Let no one have his spiritual co-mother, either from the sacred font or from confirmation, nor one secretly associated to himself in marriage in neither part. But if they have been joined, let them be separated.

Cf. the decree of the Roman Council under Gregory II and Response XXII of Zacharias to Pepin, above; besides these, Canon XXXI of the second Council of Chalon, A.D. 818, and the response of John VIII, A.D. 879, below.

The response is indeed Stephen's response to the question: if anyone has led as wife a co-mother from baptism or confirmation. But what those words mean, "nor one secretly in neither part," if the reading is true, let the reader inquire.

Response V. If a wife has been repudiated by her husband, whether it is lawful for the husband, while she is living, to lead another, is contained in the epistle of lord Pope Innocent directed to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse: "He who, with repudiation intervening," etc.

Cf. this decree above. Compare this response of the Pontiff with the canon of Vermerie edited a little before, so that you may know the true doctrine of the Church.

Response VI. Concerning those who, transgressing promised virginity, have entered marriage, in the epistle of blessed Pope Innocent directed to Victricius, bishop of Rouen, chapter 15, it is contained thus: "But those who have not yet been covered with the sacred veil," etc.

Cf. above.

Response VII. Concerning monks and nuns fleeing from the monastery, in the Council of Chalcedon, chapter 10, it is contained thus: "A virgin who," etc.

Cf. above.

Response VIII. Concerning a woman who, after the death of her husband, had been veiled for some time and afterward accepts a man, in the epistle of Pope Siricius directed to Himerius of Tarragona, chapter 5, it is contained thus: "But concerning those who, after penance performed," etc.

It is a decree by which Siricius establishes what is to be done with those who, after penance has been performed, return to illicit concubitus: namely, that they be deprived of communion alone, except at the moment of death. "Which form," says the same Siricius, "we judge must be observed also concerning women who after penance have bound themselves to such pollutions." Then Stephen proceeds: "Concerning which matter, according to the sentence of this venerable man, we decree that the same woman, who was coupled to such a nefarious marriage, after casting aside the monastic habit, and did not persevere in that which she promised to God, is to be sent without delay into the monastery, so that there in her penance she may finish her life."

Response IX. If a healthy man has led a leprous wife, so that afterward leprosy supervenes upon him, postponing negligence (that is, without delay) such persons are to be separated, lest the children conceived be polluted with the spot of leprosy. For it is right that the clean be joined to the clean.

Separation of bed is enjoined.

Response XVIII. Concerning a woman separated from her husband, if her husband in a foreign province was falsely thought dead, in the epistle of blessed Pope Leo directed to Nicetas, Bishop of Aquileia, it is contained thus: "Since therefore through the calamity of war," etc.

Cf. above.