|
Objection 1: It would seem that a betrothal cannot be dissolved if
one of the parties enter religion. For if I have promised a thing to
someone I cannot lawfully pledge it to someone else. Now he who
betroths himself promises his body to the woman. Therefore he cannot
make a further offering of himself to God in religion.
Objection 2: Again, seemingly it should not be dissolved when one
of the parties leaves for a distant country, because in doubtful
matters one should always choose the safer course. Now the safer
course would be to wait for him. Therefore she is bound to wait for
him.
Objection 3: Again, neither seemingly is it dissolved by sickness
contracted after betrothal, for no man should be punished for being
under a penalty. Now the man who contracts an infirmity would be
punished if he were to lose his right to the woman betrothed to him.
Therefore a betrothal should not be dissolved on account of a bodily
infirmity.
Objection 4: Again, neither seemingly should a betrothal be
dissolved on account of a supervening affinity, for instance if the
spouse were to commit fornication with a kinswoman of his betrothed;
for in that case the affianced bride would be penalized for the sin of
her affianced spouse, which is unreasonable.
Objection 5: Again, seemingly they cannot set one another free;
for it would be a proof of greatest fickleness if they contracted
together and then set one another free; and such conduct ought not to
be tolerated by the Church. Therefore, etc.
Objection 6: Again, neither seemingly ought a betrothal to be
dissolved on account of the fornication of one of the parties. For a
betrothal does not yet give the one power over the body of the other;
wherefore it would seem that they nowise sin against one another if
meanwhile they commit fornication. Consequently a betrothal should not
be dissolved on that account.
Objection 7: Again, neither seemingly on account of his contracting
with another woman by words expressive of the present. For a
subsequent sale does not void a previous sale. Therefore neither
should a second contract void a previous one.
Objection 8: Again, neither seemingly should it be dissolved on
account of deficient age; since what is not cannot be dissolved. Now
a betrothal is null before the requisite age. Therefore it cannot be
dissolved.
I answer that, In all the cases mentioned above the betrothal that
has been contracted is dissolved, but in different ways. For in two
of them---namely when a party enters religion, and when either of
the affianced spouses contracts with another party by words expressive
of the present---the betrothal is dissolved by law, whereas in the
other cases it has to be dissolved according to the judgment of the
Church.
Reply to Objection 1: The like promise is dissolved by spiritual
death, for that promise is purely spiritual, as we shall state further
on (Question 61, Article 2).
Reply to Objection 2: This doubt is solved by either party not
putting in an appearance at the time fixed for completing the marriage.
Wherefore if it was no fault of that party that the marriage was not
completed, he or she can lawfully marry without any sin. But if he or
she was responsible for the non-completion of the marriage, this
responsibility involves the obligation of doing penance for the broken
promise---or oath if the promise was confirmed by oath---and he or
she can contract with another if they wish it, subject to the judgment
of the Church.
Reply to Objection 3: If either of the betrothed parties incur an
infirmity which notably weakens the subject (as epilepsy or
paralysis), or causes a deformity (as loss of the nose or eyes, and
the like), or is contrary to the good of the offspring (as leprosy,
which is wont to be transmitted to the children), the betrothal can be
dissolved, lest the betrothed be displeasing to one another, and the
marriage thus contracted have an evil result. Nor is one punished for
being under a penalty, although one incurs a loss from one's penalty,
and this is not unreasonable.
Reply to Objection 4: If the affianced bridegroom has carnal
knowledge of a kinswoman of his spouse, or "vice versa," the
betrothal must be dissolved; and for proof it is sufficient that the
fact be the common talk, in order to avoid scandal; for causes whose
effects mature in the future are voided of their effects, not only by
what actually is, but also by what happens subsequently. Hence just
as affinity, had it existed at the time of the betrothal, would have
prevented that contract, so, if it supervene before marriage, which
is an effect of the betrothal, the previous contract is voided of its
effect. Nor does the other party suffer in consequence, indeed he or
she gains, being set free from one who has become hateful to God by
committing fornication.
Reply to Objection 5: Some do not admit this case. Yet they have
against them the Decretal (cap. Praeterea, De spons. et matr.)
which says expressly: "Just as those who enter into a contract of
fellowship by pledging their faith to one another and afterwards give it
back, so it may be patiently tolerated that those who are betrothed to
one another should set one another free." Yet to this they say that
the Church allows this lest worse happen rather than because it is
according to strict law. But this does not seem to agree with the
example quoted by the Decretal.
Accordingly we must reply that it is not always a proof of fickleness
to rescind an agreement, since "our counsels are uncertain" (Wis.
9:14).
Reply to Objection 6: Although when they become betrothed they have
not yet given one another power over one another's body, yet if this
were to happen it would make them suspicious of one another's
fidelity; and so one can ensure himself against the other by breaking
off the engagement.
Reply to Objection 7: This argument would hold if each contract
were of the same kind; whereas the second contract of marriage has
greater force than the first, and consequently dissolves it.
Reply to Objection 8: Although it was not a true betrothal, there
was a betrothal of a kind; and consequently, lest approval should seem
to be given when they come to the lawful age, they should seek a
dissolution of the betrothal by the judgment of the Church, for the
sake of a good example.
|
|