Objection 1: It would seem that not even a solemn vow dissolves a marriage already contracted. For, according to the Decretals, in God’s sight a simple vow is no less binding than a solemn one. Now marriage stands or falls by virtue of the divine acceptance. Therefore, since a simple vow does not dissolve marriage, neither will a solemn vow dissolve it.

Obj. 2: Further, a solemn vow does not add the same force to a simple vow as an oath does. Now a simple vow, even though an oath be added thereto, does not dissolve a marriage already contracted. Neither, therefore, does a solemn vow.

Obj. 3: Further, a solemn vow has nothing that a simple vow cannot have. For a simple vow may give rise to scandal, since it may be public, like a solemn vow. Again, the Church could and should ordain that a simple vow dissolves a marriage already contracted, so that many sins may be avoided. Therefore, for the same reason that a simple vow does not dissolve a marriage already contracted, neither should a solemn vow dissolve it.

On the contrary, He who takes a solemn vow contracts a spiritual marriage with God, which is much more excellent than a material marriage. Now a material marriage already contracted annuls a marriage contracted afterwards. Therefore, a solemn vow does also.

Further, The same conclusion may be proved by many authorities quoted in the text (Sentences IV, D. 28).

I answer that, All agree that as a solemn vow is an impediment to the contracting of marriage, so it invalidates the contract. Some assign scandal as the reason. But this is futile, because even a simple vow sometimes leads to scandal since it is at times somewhat public. Moreover, the indissolubility of marriage belongs to the truth of life, (I, Q. 16, A. 4; I, Q. 21, A. 2; II-II, Q. 109, A. 3) which is not to be set aside on account of scandal.

Wherefore others say that it is on account of the ordinance of the Church. But this again is insufficient, since in that case the Church might decide the contrary, which is seemingly untrue.

Wherefore we must say with others that a solemn vow of its very nature dissolves the marriage contract, namely, inasmuch by it a man has lost the power over his own body, through surrendering it to God for the purpose of perpetual continence. Therefore, he is unable to surrender it to the power of a wife by contracting marriage. And since the marriage that follows such a vow is void, a vow of this kind is said to annul the marriage contracted.

Reply Obj. 1: With respect to God a simple vow is said to obligate one not less than a solemn vow in those matters which regard God, as separation from God is mortal sin; for he sins mortally who breaks a simple vow, just as he who breaks a solemn one, although it may be a more serious sin to break a solemn one, so that in this way the comparison is taken generically, not determined by the quantity of the guilt. But as regards marriage, whereby one man is under an obligation to another, there is no need for it to be of equal obligation even in general, since a solemn vow binds to certain things to which a simple vow does not bind.

Reply Obj. 2: An oath is more binding than a vow on the part of the cause of the obligation, but a solemn vow is more binding as to the manner in which it binds, insofar as it is an actual surrender of that which is promised; while an oath does not do this actually. Hence the conclusion does not follow.

Reply Obj. 3: A solemn vow implies the actual surrender of one’s body, whereas a simple vow does not, as stated above (A. 1). Hence the argument does not suffice to prove the conclusion.