Case 2. An Action for Breach of Promise

Titius, the son of a wealthy family, seriously, but only by words and love letters, promised marriage to Catherine, an honorable girl. For two years Catherine admitted him to the familiarity customary between betrothed persons, when his love began to grow cold; after some months he contracted marriage with Bertha, who was much richer than Catherine. The abandoned Catherine has scarcely any hope or desire for another spouse, but asks her confessor whether she can safely in conscience bring an action against Titius for breach of promise, since otherwise she has no means by which she may be honorably supported. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required for betrothals to be valid?

2. Does any obligation arise from informal betrothals?

3. If some right arises from informal betrothals, is it lawful to pursue it in a civil court?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is required for valid betrothal?

The decree Ne temere lays down that: “ Only those are considered valid and produce canonical effects which have been contracted in writing signed by both the parties and by either the parish priest or the ordinary of the place, or at least by two witnesses.”

The second question was answered above, p. 244.

But here it must be borne in mind that although no obligation arises directly from informal betrothal in itself, yet obligations do arise indirectly from such betrothal when they are the cause of serious injury to another. There is always an obligation in justice to make reparation for wilful and culpable injustice done to another.

3. If any right arises from informal betrothal may an action be brought in the civil courts?

Per se questions about marriage and betrothal belong to the ecclesiastical courts. But in countries like England and the United States where no legal force is recognized in ecclesiastical sentences of the Catholic Church, certain cases may be brought into the civil courts which would otherwise have to be tried in the ecclesiastical courts.¹ In cases especially where the injury is not doubtful, and the only practical question is one of damages claimed for the injury, there seems no objection against applying to the civil courts.

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 282.

4. The case. Catherine has a right to damages for the cruel deception that was practised on her, and for the ruin of her prospects, although the betrothal was not valid in itself. English law gives her a right of action in such a case, and the Church certainly does not wish to deprive her of it. Her confessor, therefore, may tell her that she is perfectly justified in suing Titius for damages for breach of promise in the civil court.