Gratian: All these authorities prohibit those who have made vows to contract matrimony, and order some of whose who do to separate.

In contrast, Augustine declares such separation a sin, speaking thus [in On the Good of Widowhood, vii]:

The marriages of those who have made vows

should not be dissolved.

The good of marriage remains a good, as it has always been a good among the People of God. Once it was a legal observance, now it is a remedy for weakness and gives human solace to many. Now it allows human beings to procreate children, not like animals by merely copulating with females, but in a decent conjugal order.

Nevertheless, when a Christian mind focuses on celestial things, it wins a victory beyond all praise. Yet, since, as the Lord says [Mt. 19:11-12], not all can accept this message, let those who can do so, and let those who cannot be content to marry. Let them weigh well what they have not chosen, and persevere in what they have embarked on. Let no opportunity be given to the Adversary, and let Christ be robbed of no offering.

§1. If purity is not preserved in the conjugal bond, one should fear damnation. But a more excellent reward is proposed for virgins and widows who practice continence. When this course is considered, elected, and promised by the required vow, not only marrying, but even wishing to marry, is damnable. The Apostle proves then when he says, not of those marrying for sensuality, but of those marrying in Christ [1 Tim. 5:11-12], ``they will wish to marry, and are to be condemned because they have broken their first promise.'' They are here condemned not for marrying, but for wishing to marry.

It is not marriage in general, or even these marriages in particular, that are condemned. He condemns the denial of their dedication, and condemns the broken faith of their vow. It is not choosing a lower good that is condemned, but falling from a higher good. They are condemned, not because they later embrace conjugal fidelity, but because they brake their earlier pledge of continence. As the Apostle briefly suggests, he does not want people to consider those condemned who marry after dedication to greater sanctity, not because they are not condemned, but because he does not want to suggest that marriage itself is condemned.

So, when he said, ``they will wish to marry,'' and adds immediately ``and are to be condemned,'' he then explains why, ``because they have broken their first promise.'' This shows that their desire to abandon their dedication is condemned, whether they later marry or not.

§2. Some say that these marriages are not marriages but adulteries. I do not consider this a correctly considered opinion. They have mistaken the appearance for the truth. They, who decide not to marry for the sake of Christian holiness, are said to choose marriage to Christ. So one can argue that if a woman married to one man marries another, she becomes an adulteress, just as the Lord declared in the Gospel [Mark 10:11]. Now Christ lives, because death no longer has power over him [Rom. 6:9], so the one who chooses him in marriage, if she marries a man, becomes an adulteress.

§3. Some consider this argument subtle but point out an absurdity that follows. It is praiseworthy for a woman, while her husband is alive, to vow continence to Christ with his consent [1 Cor. 7:5]. But, by the logic of the previous argument, none should do this, lest Christ himself commit adultery (something immoral even to think) because she is marrying him while her husband is alive. But, since marriage to Christ is of greater merit than human marriage, far be it that Christ is like a widow's second husband. For (while they were faithfully subject to their husband) they already had Christ as a husband, not carnally but spiritually. This is because the Church, whose members they are, is Christ's Bride.

In the fullness of Faith and Love, not only sacred virgins, but all the married faithful compose that one virgin. For it was to the entire Church, whose members all are, that the Apostle said [2 Cor. 11:2], ``For I betrothed you to one spouse, that I might present you a chaste virgin to Christ.'' He, whom his mother bore from her own flesh without corruption, has himself taken that virgin as his bride without any scent of corruption.

§4. But, because of this poorly considered opinion, some think that, because of their holy dedication, fallen women can form no union if they marry, and are then adulteresses, not wives. Since they want to separate them and return them to continence, they say that their husbands are also adulterers, if they take other women while their wives are still alive.

§5. Therefore I will not say whether it is adultery or marriage when men marry women who have fallen from their higher dedication [cf. C. 27 q. 1 c. 21]. But I do not hesitate to say that, when women fall from the holier chastity they have vowed to God and are ruined, this is worse than adultery. Just as (about this there is no doubt), when one member brakes faith with her husband, this offends Christ, would it not offend Christ even more if she broke faith with him who had merely requested her offering? So then, when someone refuses to perform what she vowed, not after a command but only after counsel, the sin of breaking this vow is greater because the requirement of making the vow was less.

Also, Gelasius [in his letter to the bishops of Lucania and the Abruzzi, c. 23]:

On widows who have broken their first pledge of faith.

We have spoken long enough above about widows who are veiled without a blessing. If by their own free will they then spurn the chastity of this immaculate marriage because of their own instability, they run the danger that the Lord will demand satisfaction from them. As the Apostle says [1 Tim. 5:12], ``They have broken their first promise.'' For, according to the Apostle [1 Cor. 7:9], those unable to be continent, were not forbidden to marry. So they should plan with forethought how they will keep the pledge of purity they have made to God. We do not lay traps for them, rather we are thinking of their eternal reward and pointing out the penalty of divine judgment. Thus our conscience is clear, and they are accountable to God for their actions.

What St. Paul the Apostle testifies [1 Tim. 5:12] about their habits and actions should be observed. We have explained this more fully, not to deter unstable women, but to admonish them.

The same.

Gratian: The preceding authorities command those who have made vows to separate form each other, but the authority of Augustine [C. 27 q. 1 c. 41], Theodore [D. 27 c. 3; C. 27 q. 1 c. 43], and the capitulum on the ordination of clerics [D. 27 c. 9] clearly show that their marriages are not dissolved.

§1. The passage from Innocent [C. 27 q. 1 c. 10], where sacred virgins who marry publicly are forbidden admission to penance as long as the men they married are alive, should not be interpreted as excluding them merely for some period if they do worthy penance. After the dedication of sacred religion, one cannot be reconciled to God through penance, unless one takes up again the habit of one's profession.

When she has then withdrawn from his unlawful embraces, the man to whom she joined herself is dead. This is the meaning of the capitulum [C. 27 q. 1 c. 10], ``Those who have married Christ spiritually, if they later marry publicly, may not be admitted to penance, unless those to whom they have joined themselves leave the world.'' This should be understood as, ``leave those they married.'' When people leave the world they die, because they have separated themselves from its desires. So they are said to be ``dead to the world,'' since they are no longer trapped by its allurements. Likewise, the world is dead to one who desires nothing of the world.

The same Innocent shows that this interpretation is correct in the following example [C. 27 q. 1 c. 10]: ``Whoever marries another while her husband is alive is an adulteress, and may not do penance until one of the two husbands has died.'' This woman is understood to have been abandoned, but if she marries another, she is an adulteress. She cannot be admitted to penance until her first husband returns to the dust from which he was made, or the second becomes dead to her by leaving their relationship, as was explained above. Therefore, because Christ, whom the vowed spiritually marry, died only once, and death no longer has power over him [Rom. 6:9], the only possibility is for the second man she married to become dead to her.

In both cases, it must be understood this way, lest it contradict the Lord who spoke through the prophet [cf. Ez. 33:12], saying, ``In what day soever the sinner shall turn to me . . .'' This is the way any text that appears to contradict the divine law must be treated. The capitulum concerning the religious [C. 27 q. 1 c. 27], who had taken a husband and was not allowed to enter penance until both professed continence or the man she had married left the world, also proves this.

Part 1.

Gratian: The second question is whether girls betrothed to one man can renounce this previous arrangement and transfer their vows to another. Two issues must be examined. First, whether a marriage exists between them; and second, whether they can withdraw from each other.

§1. That they are married is easily shown both by the definition of marriage and the authority of many. Nuptials, or marriage, is the union of a man and woman who keep an undivided way of life, and between whom there was consent [Instit. 1.19.1]. The later is the efficient cause of matri-mony, according to saying of Isidore [cf. C. 27 q. 2 c. 6], ``Consent makes marriage.''

[C. 1.]

[C. 2.]

For the union of a man and woman, their consent by itself is sufficient, according to law. If it is lacking, all other ceremonies, even with intercourse itself, are in vain.

[Gratian:] Since there was consent between them, and this by itself can make a marriage, it is plain that they were married. But what kind of consent makes a marriage? Consent to cohabitation, consent to carnal union, or both? If consent to cohabitation by itself makes marriage, then a bother can contract marriage with his sister.

§1. If she consented to carnal union later, contrary to her vow of virginity, she would then be guilty of violating the vow in her mind, even if she had not yet violated it by a deed. It is wicked to admit this possibility, as Augustine says:

[C. 3.]

The Blessed Mary intended in her heart to keep her vow of virginity, although she did not express that vow of virginity with her mouth. She subjected herself to the divine plan, intending to keep herself a virgin, unless God revealed otherwise to her. Therefore, subordinating her virginity to the divine plan, she consented to carnal union, not seeking it, but obeying divine inspiration. After she had born her son, she told her husband with her lips what she had intended in her heart, and then both preserved their virginity.

§1. Therefore, consent to cohabitation and the keeping of an undivided way of life makes them married. An undivided way of life means that she can hold nothing back from her husband about herself, and vice versa. Thus an undivided way of life demands that, without the consent of her lawful husband, she could not take time away from him for prayer or profess continence. Since this kind of consent existed between them, it is plain that they were married.

[John Chrysostom, that is, the author of the Incomplete Work on Matthew, Sermon xxxii:

[PALEA. C. 4.

[Whatever results from a certain cause ends with the same cause. Not intercourse, but will, makes marriage, so division of bodies does not end it, but only division of wills [cf. C. 27 q. 2 c. 1]. Thus he who dismisses his spouse but does not take another is

still married. Although separated in body, he is still joined in will. If he then takes another, he has fully dismissed the first. Thus one who merely dismisses a spouse does not commit adultery, but only the one who takes another.]

Gratian: Also, authority proves they were married, for Ambrose, in his book, On Virginity, [vi], says:

A conjugal contract, not the deflowering of virginity,

makes a marriage.

Also, Isidore, in Etymologies, IX, vii:

After the first pledge of betrothal they are called spouses.

[PALEA. C. 7.

[That an condition imposed has no effect is proved from the African Council.]

[PALEA. C. 8.

[The same.

Also, Augustine, in On the Good of Marriage, [I, xi]:

The same.

Also, Augustine, in the same [book and chapter]:

The parents of Christ possessed the threefold

good of marriage.

Marriages should not be dissolved for the sake of religion.

Some say that marriages should be dissolved for the sake of religion. One should recognize that, although human law permits this, divine law prohibits it. He who is Truth itself says [Mt. 19:6], ``What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'' He also says [Mt. cf. 19:9], ``It is not lawful to dismiss a wife, except on account of fornication.'' Who, then, would contradict this law-giver? We know that it is written [Gen. 2:24], ``The two shall be one flesh.'' If husband and wife are one flesh, and the husband dismisses his wife for the sake of religion, or the wife dismisses the husband, yet one spouse remains in the world, or perhaps wanders off into illicit activities, what kind of oblation is this? One and the same flesh will be partly continent and partly polluted.

But if both agree to lead a continent life, who will dare to blame them, since Almighty God, who permits the lesser good [1 Cor. 7:8-9], does not prohibit the greater? Holy people abstain from what is lawful for two reasons: to increase their merits before Almighty God, and to cleanse the faults of their past life.

§1. Hence, when good married persons want to increase their merits or cleanse the faults of their past life, it is lawful that they bind themselves to seek a better way of life. Many of the saints first led a life of continence with their spouses, and then adopted a rule of the Holy Church.

But when a wife does not practice continence along with her husband, or the wife does but the husband refuses, the marriage cannot be divided, for it is written [1 Cor. 7:4], ``The wife does not have power over her own body, but the husband; and similarly the husband does not have power over his body, but the wife.''

The same, to Leo, bishop of Catania, [in [Register], III, xxxiv]:

A wife assigned to a monastery without her husband's consent is not prohibited from returning to his company.

Many have told us that there was once a custom among you, that subdeacons might lawfully have intercourse with their wives. That no one should again presume to do this, a servant of God, a deacon of our See, acting with authority from our predecessor, prohibited this. That same prohibition allowed those joined to wives to choose one of two courses: they were either to stop practicing their ministry, or to abstain from their wives. As was said, Speciosus, then a subdeacon, suspended himself for this reason from administering his office, and fulfilled the office of notary until his death. He stopped performing the ministry essential to the exercise of the subdeaconate.

After his death, his widow, Honorata, was united with a husband, but we have learned that Your Fraternity has assigned her to a monastery. But, if, as reported, her husband suspended himself from administration, there is no objection to the said woman passing to second vows of marriage, especially if she had not joined the subdeacon in intending to abstain from the pleasures of the flesh. So, if what we have heard is true, it is by all means fitting that you release the said woman from the said monastery, so that she can return unhindered to her husband.

The same, to Adrian, a notary of Palermo, [in [Register], IX, xliv]:

He who received the religious habit without his wife's consent should be compelled to return to her.

Agatha, the bearer of the present letter, has complained that her husband has become an oblate in Abbot Urbicus' monastery against her will. Therefore, we command Your Prudence to inquire diligently and discover whether he became an oblate with her consent and whether she promised to became an oblate too. If so, make him stay in the monastery, and compel her, as she promised, to become an oblate as well.

If this was not the case, and the said woman has not committed any crime of fornication (for which one can lawfully dismiss a wife [Mt. 5:23]), we command as follows: you must return her husband to her, even if he is now tonsured, without any delay, lest the her husband's oblation, which left his wife in the world, become an occasion of perdition.

Although secular law [Nov. 123.58] allows a marriage to be dissolved so that one spouse may become an oblate, even against the other's will, divine law does not permit this. A husband may dismiss his wife for no reason except fornication. Thus, after husband and wife have become one body [Mt. 19:6] through conjugal intercourse, neither can become an oblate while the other remains in the world.

A husband cannot make a vow of religion without

his wife's consent.

Also, from a synod of Pope Eugene [II, in the Roman Synod, c. 36]:

Without the bishop's knowledge, a husband and wife may not lawfully divorce for the sake of religion.

Also, Augustine, in On Adulterous Marriages:

A husband may not lawfully practice continence without his wife's consent.

Also, Gregory to Abbot Urbicus, [in [Register], V, xlix]:

A husband cannot be received into a monastery unless his wife becomes an oblate.

Also, Pope Nicholas [to King Charles]:

It is not lawful to accept a wife's vow of continence unless her husband chooses the same life.

Queen Theberga wrote us that she wishes to leave her rank and marriage to be content with a private life alone. We wrote to her that she could not do so, unless her husband, Lothar, chose the same life.

§1. Although it is written [Mt. 19:6], ``What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,'' it is God, not man, who separates when, at the prompting of divine love, a marriage is dissolved with the consent of both spouses. Otherwise, we prohibit your mutual separation.

Gratian: Thus, one spouse cannot profess continence without the consent of the other. But, both examples and authorities show that betrothed persons may keep continence, even without consulting their betrothed. As St. Jerome narrates, the famous Christian hermit Macarius, on the evening he celebrated his wedding, after the wedding banquet, left the city, went overseas, and chose for himself the solitude of the desert.

§1. Also, Divine Grace likewise called St. Alexius, the son of the famous Epiphanius, from his wedding, and he deserted his betrothed, so that naked he could begin to serve Christ. These men's example plainly shows that the betrothed can profess continence, without getting their fiancees' consent.

A betrothed girl is not prohibited from choosing a monastery.

Also, Gregory, in his Register, [VI, xx, to Fortunatus]:

A betrothed girl can choose a monastery with impunity.

Gratian: Married persons cannot offer continence to God without mutual consent, because not the husband but the wife has power over his body [C. 27 q. 2 cc. 19-26; cf. 1 Cor. 7:4]. But one betrothed person can choose a monastery and make a vow of a better life without consent of the other [C. 27 q. 2 cc. 27-28]. Thus there is plainly no marriage between the betrothed.

§1. Also, according to Augustine [C. 27 q. 2 c. 16], a woman with whom there has been no sexual intercourse has not entered matrimony. Also, according to Leo [C. 27 q. 2 c. 17], she has not entered matrimony, who has not experienced the nuptial mystery. Thus it appears there is no marriage between the betrothed.

§2. Also, Pope Nicholas [cf. C. 32 q. 7 c. 25] ordered that the marriages of those castrated by enemies or mutilated in their members not be dissolved on account of this disability.

§3. However, in the case of those unable to render the debt to their wives because of frigidity, Pope Gregory [C. 23 q. 1 c. 2] determined that such could take an oath on sacred relics, supported by seven oath-helpers, to prove that they had never become one flesh through carnal intercourse. The wife could then contract a second marriage, but the frigid husband would remain without hope of marrying.

If a woman proves that she was never known by her husband, let them be separated.

Gratian: So, if incapacity for intercourse occurs in someone after sexual congress, this does not dissolve the marriage. But if it occurs before sexual congress, it frees the wife to take another husband. Hence, they were not married. Otherwise, it would be unlawful for them to withdraw from each other, except for fornication, and they would also have to remain unmarried or be reconciled to each other if separated for that reason.

§1. Also, if a betrothed woman were married, she would be a widow if her betrothed died. If she were a widow, her second husband could not enter Holy Orders, for a widow's husband, just like one twice-married, is forbidden to become a priest [Titus 1:5-6]. Yet this kind of union prohibits no one from entering Holy Orders. As Pope Pelagius says [D. 34 c. 20], ``There is nothing in canonical legislation (as far as this item is concerned) which presents an obstacle.'' It appears, then, that they were not married.

§2. Also, if they were married, separation from each other would be divorce, but Ambrose denies that this separation is a divorce, when he says of the Blessed Mary, whom Joseph had betrothed and taken as his own, ``Joseph never knew her. For if a just man had known her, he would never have allowed her to leave him [Mt. 1:19]. Nor would the Lord, who ordered a wife not to withdraw from her husband, except for fornication, have made himself the author of a divorce by entrusting her to his disciple [John 19:26-27].''

So, separating Mary from Joseph and entrusting her to John was not divorce, because Joseph had not known her. Hence, they were not married. If the Blessed Mary, whom Joseph had betrothed and taken as his own, is not a spouse, how much less is one a wife who is merely betrothed?

Also, from the Council of Orleans:

A man polluting his wife's sister can have neither.

Gratian: That is, it is unlawful for him to render the debt to his own wife, because he made this unlawful for himself by knowing her sister. Nor is it lawful, after his wife's death, for him, or the adulteress, to be joined in marriage with anyone.

On one who sleeps with his brother's betrothed.

Gratian: If she who has been known by her sister's husband is forever prohibited from being married, but he who has corrupted his brother's betrothed is permitted to contract marriage when his penance is finished, it appears that the betrothed was not his brother's wife.

Also, a wife dismissed by her husband on account of fornication must either be reconciled to him or remain unmarried as long as he lives, But as to a betrothed, the contrary is found in Capitularies, I, where it reads:

Also, from the Council of Toledo:

The same.

Gratian: So it appears that she, who was not denied permission to marry another while her betrothed was alive, was not a wife. How then can Ambrose and other fathers speak of one betrothed as married, when all these arguments prove she is not married?

Marriage is begun by betrothal.

Gratian: So marriage begins, but is not completed, with betrothal.

Also, Ambrose, in On the Patriarchs, [I]:

Intercourse between the spouses completes marriage.

Marriage, which is begun by agreement,

is completed by intercourse.

Also, Ambrose to Paternus, [in Letter lxvi]:

When a spouse is given and taken to use she is rightly called a married woman.

Gratian: Augustine shows why one is not given immediately after the nuptial agreement, in Confessions, IV, [iii], where he says:

Why spouses are not given immediately after the agreement.

Gratian: This distinction explains the authority from Augustine [C. 27 q. 2 c. 16], ``There is, I say, no doubt that a woman has not entered marriage, if there was no sexual intercourse.'' This refers to the completed marriage, which contains the sign of Christ and the Church [cf. Eph. 5:32]. The passage from Pope Leo [C. 27 q.2 c. 17] should also be understood this way.

§1. But opposing this is the passage from Augustine [cf. C. 27 q. 2 c. 3], ``Between Mary and Joseph there was a complete marriage.'' But here ``complete'' is understood not as to the use of marriage, but as to those things that accompany it, that is, fidelity, offspring, and sacrament. The authority of Augustine proves that Christ's parents had all three. So all the texts brought forward for not breaking up a marriage must be understood to apply to a completed marriage, which was begun by betrothal and consummated by the use of bodily intercourse. Those texts which show a marriage to be separable apply only to a marriage that was begun, but not completed by its use.

§2. Another distinction can also be made. The Scriptures speak of the betrothed as married by reason of future hope, rather than present effect. Hence Ambrose, where he says [C. 27 q. 2 c. 5], ``When a marriage is initiated,'' does not then add that it has the substance or effect, but only, ``the name of marriage is given to it.'' Such are spoken of as being married, but they do not have the substance or effect. Also, Augustine, when he speaks of the Lord's parents, says [C. 27 q. 2 c. 9], ``Both were spouses through intention, although not through the flesh.''

So it is understood that, just as Joseph is called the Lord's father, not because he sired him, but because of his duty and care in providing for him, he is also called the Mother of the Lord's husband, not because of his use of marriage, but because he provided for her needs and gave her his undivided affection. Hence Augustine says [C. 27 q. 2 c. 9; Mt. 1:20], `` `Do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife.' She is called a spouse because she was a future wife.''

Hence Bede says, on Leviticus [i.e. Deut. 22:25], `` `But if a man find a woman that is betrothed . . ,' speaks of a betrothed as a wife not because she is one, but because she is a future wife.''

Hence Jerome, on the Gospel of Matthew [1:18], ``When she had been betrothed'':

The Scriptures customarily speak of the betrothed as married.

``He begot Joseph, the husband of Mary.'' [Mt. 1:16] When you hear ``husband,'' do not think they were already married, because the Scriptures customarily speak of betrothed men as husbands and betrothed women as wives.

§1. And below: She was not found so [Mt. 1:18] by anyone except Joseph, who knew all things on account of the marital permission of his future wife.

§2. And below: ``. . . Joseph, son of David . . .'' [Mt. 1:20] Now, as said above, betrothed women are called wives, as the book Against Helvidius more fully explains.

The same.

Gratian: Hence it is understood that Scripture speaks of betrothed men as sons-in-law.

Mary is called a spouse because of the custom of Scripture, although she was only betrothed.

``Before they came together.'' [Mt. 1:18] It does not say before she had been brought to her betrothed's house. For antiquity had the custom of keeping betrothed women in the homes of their betrothed. Thus Lot's sons-in-law lived with their father-in-law [Gen. 19], although they were not united to their betrothed by the law of marriage. So Mary lived with her betrothed.

§1. And below: He did not wish to expel her from his house, but to dismiss her [cf. Mt. 1:19].

§2. And below: ``Do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife.'' [Mt. 1:20] So by that word he indicated a betrothed, just as Scripture customarily speaks of those still betrothed as sons-in-law. But what is it ``to take''? Assuredly to keep her in the house, for he had intended to send her away.

§3. And below: As Christ afterwards committed her to his disciple, the angel now joins her to her betrothed, not in the solemn union of marriage, but in the union of a common dwelling.

The same, on the same, [in Homily v, on Matthew 1]:

The Lord would not have committed his mother to his disciple if Joseph had known her.

And Origen, on the same, [in Homily i, on the Gospel]:

Mary is called Joseph's wife because he thought of her as his future wife.

``She was found to be with child.'' [Mt. 1:19] She was found by St. Joseph, who, although he did not touch her, knew everything about her whom he considered his future wife.

§1. And below: Although she is called your wife, although she is said in betrothal to be yours, yet she is not your wife, but rather forever the Mother of the Only Begotten God.

§2. And below: I then speak of her as ``wife'' to hide her virginity from the Devil, lest I destroy the purpose of the Law.4 In the following, I shall show that she is not your wife according to the custom of marriage, nor is he who will be born your son.

Also, Gregory, in his exposition of the Gospel5 which begins ``When it was late that same day,'' [in Homily xxvi]:

Joseph's marriage with Mary was not complete.

Gratian: From foregoing it appears that the betrothed are called married because of future hope, not because of present reality. But how can they be called married from the first pledge of their word if one betrothed is not married? One is called a spouse from the first pledge of his word, not because one becomes married through the betrothal, but because the fidelity, which each gives the other by their word, will later render them married. In the same way, sins are said to be remitted through Faith, not because they are remitted through faith before Baptism, but because Faith causes us to be cleansed of sin in Baptism.

§1. This interpretation should be given to the passage from John Chrysostom [C. 27 q. 2 c. 1], ``Not intercourse, but will, makes marriage,'' as well as the passage from Ambrose [C. 27 q. 2 c. 5], ``Not the deflowering of virginity, but the conjugal contract makes a marriage.'' Neither intercourse without intention to contract marriage, nor deflowering without a conjugal agreement, make marriage. Rather the preceding intention to contract marriage and conjugal contract bring it about that the woman, in the deflowering of virginity or intercourse, marries the man, or celebrates marriage.

§2. Also, Pope Siricius [C. 27 q. 2 c. 50] calls it a conjugal separation when betrothed withdraws from betrothed. But this withdrawal is a violation, not of a presently existing marriage, but of the future marriage one expects because of the betrothal. Likewise, one says that the devil fell from blessedness, not only because he then possessed it, but also because he was created to possess it. Likewise, one chosen for the priesthood or episcopacy because of his way of life or knowledge, who then deserves to have the choice cancelled, is said to lose his priestly or episcopal anointing, not because he already had it, but because he had been chosen to receive it. Therefore, this authority does not prove that someone betrothed is married.

§3. So, if it is granted that one betrothed is not married, one must still ask whether she may lawfully renounce this first relationship.

Now the Council of Ancyra, [c. 11], prohibits this, where one finds the following legislation:

Betrothed girls are to be returned to their first betrothed if they are abducted.

We have decreed that betrothed girls, whom others have abducted, should be returned to those whom they first betrothed, even if the abductors used force on them.

Also, John VIII, to the archbishop of Rostan:

A betrothed girl will be deprived of Communion, unless she consents to leave her abductor and return to her betrothed.

Gratian: But, to renounce one's prior relationship is one thing, to enter marriage another, and to be abducted, that is, to be unlawfully debauched, is yet another.

Hence Isidore, in Etymologies, V, xxiv, says:

What abduction is.

Gratian: But we were not speaking of one abducted by another, but one betrothed to another.

Abduction occurs when a girl is carried off, concerning whose marriage nothing had been previously arranged.

Gratian: The conclusion of the chapter [C. 27 q. 2 c. 46], ``even if the abductors used force on them,'' was added because some women collude with their abductors, while others are abducted by force. So, whatever the manner of their abduction, they are to be restored to the first betrothed.

But we were speaking not of one who was abducted, but of one betrothed a second time. Thus, she should not to be removed from the second and returned to the first.

§1. The following authorities prohibit her from marrying the second, and order her to fulfil her first vow.

Hence Pope Siricius says to Himerius, bishop of Terracona, [in Letter i, 4]:

A man cannot receive a girl betrothed to another.

Gratian: But the authority of Siricius prohibited one who has been taken, veiled, and blessed with her betrothed in her own home from passing to second vows. The couple's separation violates the blessing imparted to them by the priest when they were to be married. But this woman's betrothed had not yet taken her as his own, or received the blessing with her. Therefore this authority does not prohibit her union.

§1. Also, that from Pope Eusebius [C. 27 q. 2 c. 27], ``A betrothed girl's parents cannot lawfully give her to another man,'' should likewise be understood as concerning a betrothed who was veiled and blessed with her betrothed in the same way.

§2. Also, that from Gregory [cf. C. 33 q. 1 c. 2], ``Whoever is separated from her husband because of frigidity and married to another, must be taken from the second and returned to the first if her husband knows another woman,'' contradicts this. But this is solved in the same way, because she had received the blessing with him.

[Augustine, on a word of agreement and of consent:

[PALEA. C. 51.

[If anyone has given his promise of consent to a woman, he may not lawfully take another.

[We speak of two types of promise, that of contract and that of consent. If anyone gives a woman the promise of contract, he ought not take another. If he takes another, he ought to do penance for his broken word, but let him remain with the woman he took. Such a great Sacrament ought not to be rescinded. But, if he gave the promise of consent, he may not take another. If he did take another, he must send her away and adhere to the first.

[``The promise of contract occurs when someone promises another that he will take her or agree to take her, if she allows him to have an affair with her. But promise of consent occurs when, even without joining hands, he consents with heart and mouth to take her, and they mutually give and receive one another.'']