Dist. 36, Art. 2, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/36/q/bon-sent-IV-d36-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether defect of age impedes the contracting of betrothal.*

Secondly it is asked, whether defect of age impedes the contracting of betrothal. And that it does, it seems:

1. Because betrothal of necessity binds to matrimony; but matrimony is not contracted except by one's own will: therefore betrothal is not contracted unless it be pleasing to the betrothed man and the betrothed woman. But they do not have the use of reason except at a determinate age: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the canon laws say, as is clear in the Decretals [Extra], *On the Betrothal of Minors*, throughout, that those who contract betrothal before the seventh year do nothing: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. In the Sacrament of baptism an infant is bound through another to renounce the world and to contract matrimony with God: therefore by parity of reasoning infants can be bound to matrimony through others.

2. Likewise, where one's own faith is lacking, the faith of the parents comes to the aid: therefore by parity of reasoning, where the discretion of infants is lacking, the discretion of the parents supplies it, and so on.

Likewise, it is asked: why is the term of seven years determined for contracting betrothal? And it seems that it is not fitting: because [as to the fact] that beforehand they cannot be contracted, this is either on account of a defect of *discretion*, or of *speech*. If of *discretion*; but even then discretion is lacking. If of *speech*; but even beforehand infants know how to speak: therefore etc.

### Conclusion
> *Betrothal by law cannot be contracted before the seventh year.*

**I respond:** It must be said that betrothal by law cannot be contracted before the seventh year; and if they are contracted in fact, nothing is done; nevertheless the very "nothing" is permitted *in reality*, which is *something in hope*, on account of the good of peace.

The reason for the term is this: because, just as some cannot contract matrimony except by their own consent and by their own sign expressing consent, so they cannot be bound to matrimony unless it be pleasing [to them] and they express their complacency by word or sign; and because as a rule from that time they begin to understand what they say, and to speak according to their own affection: therefore from then [betrothals] begin to have force.

1. From these things the objections are answered, because there is no likeness between the obligation of matrimony and the Sacrament of baptism, because the latter is necessary for salvation; therefore the sick person is deservedly aided through another.

The reason for the term is also clear, because, although there is not full discretion for discerning good from evil in them; nevertheless there is discretion for understanding what is said, and for responding [as to] what may please, or may not please.

2. To that, then, which is objected concerning the Sacrament of baptism, the response is clear, that there is no likeness, as has often been said, on account of this: that [baptism] is against the original [sin], which is not perpetrated through the will; and *furthermore*, in baptism an infant is bound only to those things to which he is held by natural law; whence there is no vow there except very broadly [speaking]. And *if you object* that an infant can be bound where his own good is at stake, it must be said that this is true in the case of *possessions*; but in *matrimony*, where there is servitude of the body, and there ought to be mutual love, God decreed that no one can or ought to be bound except by his own will. — For there is something wonderful there, because a man finds in a woman a certain complacency which he could never find in another, as those who have experience say.

---