|
Objection 1: It would seem that consent given in words expressive of
the future makes a marriage. For as present is to present, so is
future to future. But consent given in words expressive of the present
makes a marriage in the present. Therefore consent given in words
expressive of the future makes a marriage in the future.
Objection 2: Further, in other civil contracts, just as in
matrimony, a certain obligation results from the words expressing
consent. Now in other contracts it matters not whether the obligation
is effected by words of the present or of the future tense. Therefore
neither does it make any difference in matrimony.
Objection 3: Further, by the religious vow man contracts a
spiritual marriage with God. Now the religious vow is expressed in
words of the future tense, and is binding. Therefore carnal marriage
also can be effected by words of the future tense.
On the contrary, A man who consents in words of the future tense to
take a particular woman as his wife, and after, by words of the
present tense, consents to take another, according to law must take
the second for his wife (cap. Sicut ex Litteris, De spons. et
matr.). But this would not be the case if consent given in words of
the future tense made a marriage, since from the very fact that his
marriage with the one is valid, he cannot, as long as she lives,
marry another. Therefore consent given in words of the future tense
does not make a marriage.
Further, he who promises to do a certain thing does it not yet. Now
he who consents in words of the future tense, promises to marry a
certain woman. Therefore he does not marry her yet.
I answer that, The sacramental causes produce their effect by
signifying it; hence they effect what they signify. Since therefore
when a man expresses his consent by words of the future tense, he does
not signify that he is marrying, but promises that he will marry, it
follows that a consent expressed in this manner does not make a
marriage, but a promise [sponsionem] of marriage, and this promise
is known as a betrothal [sponsalia].
Reply to Objection 1: When consent is expressed in words of the
present tense, not only are the words actually present, but consent is
directed to the present, so that they coincide in point of time; but
when consent is given in words of the future tense, although the words
are actually present, the consent is directed to a future time, and
hence they do not coincide in point of time. For this reason the
comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: Even in other contracts, a man who uses
words referring to the future, does not transfer the power over his
property to another person---for instance if he were to say "I will
give thee"---but only when he uses words indicative of the present.
Reply to Objection 3: In the vow of religious profession it is not
the spiritual marriage itself that is expressed in words which refer to
the future, but an act of the spiritual marriage, namely obedience or
observance of the rule. If, however, a man vow spiritual marriage in
the future, it is not a spiritual marriage, for a man does not become
a monk by taking such a vow, but promises to become one.
|
|