Article III. On the Dissolution of Betrothals

I say. Betrothals, by the opinion of all, can be dissolved on account of just causes. But the principal causes are the following: 1°. mutual consent freely given; 2°. a supervening diriment impediment concerning which a dispensation cannot be given or in fact is never given, for otherwise, even if the innocent party is freed from the obligation of the betrothals, the party who induced the impediment is nevertheless bound to seek the dispensation; 3°. election of a more perfect state, for example, religious profession, reception of sacred Order, a vow of entering Religion, etc.; 4°. grave crime of the other, for example, theft, homicide, fornication, especially if this is done by the woman; 5°. excessive delay of Marriage, especially if the time for contracting was determined: to this cause is added the departure of the betrothed man to a distant land, the betrothed woman not having been consulted; 6°. notable change of state, namely a circumstance which, if it had been known or foreseen, in the judgment of prudent persons would have deterred from the betrothals. Cf. S. Alphonsus, nn. 846 and following; Kenrick, nn. 17 and following; Baller. note (a), p. 691, and note (a), p. 708; Konings, n. 1531.

You Will Resolve. 1°. According to the common opinion, the betrothed man can withdraw if the betrothed woman has been violated by force after the betrothals. The reason is that the betrothed woman, through such violation, although without her own fault, is rendered notably lower in worth, and therefore the condition of things is notably changed. The same must be said even if she was deflowered by force before the betrothals, and only afterward that defect was detected. - Note, however, that the betrothed woman is not bound to manifest a defect of this kind before the betrothals, nor, once they have been contracted, before Marriage, because it is not substantial; but it would be a substantial defect, and therefore necessarily to be disclosed, if from the defloration she had become pregnant. - Cf. S. Alphonsus, nn. 861 and 864.

2°. The dissent of parents is also certainly a sufficient cause of withdrawing from betrothals, if it is just, for example, because the other party does not suit the family by reason of condition, honor, etc. But if it is unjust, then of itself it does not suffice, because otherwise the right of children would be injured. - I said of itself; for since often, even when parents dissent unjustly, great inconveniences would arise if Marriage were made, even unjust dissent could per accidens be a sufficient cause of withdrawing. - Cf. S. Alphonsus, n. 877; Kenrick, nn. 6 and 11.

3°. Probably betrothals are dissolved through subsequent Marriage, so that, once this has been dissolved, or the co-party has died, the betrothed man is not bound to marry her with whom he had first contracted. The reason is that, since Marriage is of itself something stable and affecting the whole life, by this very fact it annuls the preceding obligation made incompossible. Moreover, in practice the party unjustly abandoned will rarely require the unfaithful betrothed man, nor would a happy outcome of Marriage of this kind be hoped for. - Cf. Baller. note (b), p. 705.

4°. The Supreme Pontiff, from a just cause, can dissolve betrothals through dispensation. For he can dissolve the bond of a ratified and non-consummated marriage; therefore also a bond less firm. And in fact he dispenses repeatedly. - Cf. A. S. Sedis, vol. 1, p. 341; vol. 3, p. 461; Wernz, vol. 4, n. 118.

5°. The betrothed man is bound by natural law to manifest to his co-party occult defects injurious to her: such as defects which would render marriage null, a contagious or venereal disease, pregnancy from intercourse with another person, sterility, widowhood, another religion. But he is not likewise bound to disclose lesser defects or those which are not damaging. Cf. S. Alphonsus, n. 864.

6°. But disease, according as it is in a different degree, will be more or less or perhaps in no way pernicious: thus syphilis has, as it were, different states; and if it would bring grave damages to the betrothed woman herself, the betrothed man would be obliged to manifest his condition to the other. The principles in this question are the following: The Church alone on earth can establish impediments, whether diriment or impeding, of Christian marriage, and when she established these, she consulted excellently both for herself, for her own, and for the human race. Leprosy and any other horrible and contagious infirmity, such as syphilis, epilepsy, which in this matter are equated with leprosy itself, are not impediments. In judging these, one must act according to the norm just brought forward. For either the disease is known to the betrothed parties before the betrothals, or it is not known; whence a known disease which will be injurious to the other is to be manifested to that one by the co-party under grave obligation. If it is known to both, they are not bound to enter the contract, although they can enter it if they wish. The Church does not prohibit it; and therefore, once it has been entered, it must be stood by. If one party did not know, that party can withdraw from the contract. Indeed, if a disease supervenes upon the betrothals, it is licit for each to rescind the pact; or if knowledge of the existence of the disease supervenes for each, the same must be said. And what we say here about disease is to be understood of the personal infirmity of one of the betrothed; for if a disease, say epilepsy, has infected another member of the family, for example, a blood-relative, and the marriageable betrothed woman has remained immune up to this time, it is licit for her to reveal the matter, but she is not bound; indeed it would not even be licit, unless the good name of the infirm blood-relative were preserved. Wernz, vol. 4, n. 254; Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 45, p. 611; Rev. du Clerge Francais, vol. 75, p. 227.

7°. It is evident that wedlock is not of itself to be entered by those who are wholly unfit to bear its burdens, who are so dull in mind or so debilitated in body that they can scarcely beget or conceive, or provide for the education of children. - Cf. DeSmet, p. 418. But here also caution must be used; for if they are not impotent, it is licit for them to contract on account of the imminent danger of incontinence. Likewise it is certain that such persons who long for future nuptials ought to use every aid of medicine to cure the disease; indeed, also to spend so much time on this cure that there is a founded hope that the damage will be much diminished or will disappear entirely; and thus a minimum danger will be created for the co-party.