(Anglo-Saxon: treowth, truth) An agreement to marry, made by mutual promises. As a matrimonial impediment it was practically done away with by the legislation of Pius X, who ruled that such a compact, to have any effect on a proposed marriage to another, must have been made in a written and dated document, signed by both parties and by the pastor or bishop of the place, or at least by two witnesses; and even this formal pledge does not oblige one party to marry the other. <\/p>\n
(Lat. sponsalia).<\/p>\n
The giving of one’s troth — that is, one’s true faith or promise. Betrothal, in the Catholic Church, is a deliberate and free, mutual, true promise, externally expressed, of future marriage between determinate and fit persons. It is a promise, compact, or agreement — not merely an intention; and, like all contracts, it must be entered into with deliberation proportionate to the obligation which it begets; it must be free from force, substantial error, and grave fear. The promise given must be mutual; a promise on the part of one only, with acceptance by the other, does not constitute a betrothal. The consent, of course, as in all contracts, must be true, or sincere, not feigned; it must be given with the intention of binding oneself, and this intention must be expressed verbally, by writing, or by action, in person or by proxy. Lastly, this contract, like matrimony, can exist only between two definite persons whose capacity is recognized by the Church; that is, between whom there is no matrimonial impediment, either as regards the licitness or validity of the contract. The betrothal is a promise of future marriage, and hence it differs from the marriage contract itself, which deals with that state as in the present. <\/p>\n
FORMALITIES<\/p>\n
Formal betrothal is not customary in the United States, or in English-speaking countries generally, as it is among certain nations, where the ceremony is sometimes solemn (before ecclesiastical witnesses) and sometimes private (made at home before the family or friends as witnesses). Among English-speaking peoples the betrothal, if it occurs, is generally without the presence of a third party. In Spain (S. C. C., 31 January, 1880; 11 April, 1891) and in Latin America (Acta et Decreta Conc. Pl. Amer. Lat., p. 259, in note 1) a betrothal compact is considered invalid by the Church unless written documents pass between the contracting parties. This practice obtains in other countries also, but its observance is not necessary to validate the agreement. <\/p>\n
EFFECTS<\/p>\n
A valid betrothal begets chiefly two effects. There arises first an obligation in justice, binding the contracting parties to keep their agreement; viz. to marry at the time specified; or, when the date of marriage is not agreed upon, whenever the second party to the compact reasonably demands the fulfillment of the marriage-promise. Marriage, consequently, with a third party is forbidden, though not invalid. There arises, secondly, owing to an ecclesiastical law, a diriment impediment, known as “public decency”, extending to relatives in the first degree of the parties betrothed. Hence, a marriage contracted between the male party to a betrothal and the mother, sister, or daughter of the other party; and, vice versa, between the woman and the father, brother, or son of the man, would be null and void. This impediment continues to exist in all its force, even after the betrothal has been legitimately dissolved. The first of these effects, an obligation of justice, may arise, it will be seen, from a betrothal compact which has not all the essentials of the definition given above; not so, however, of the second effect. It is sometimes stated that a betrothal does not bind in English-speaking countries. This is inexact, to say the least. There is no exception at any time, or in any country, to the binding force arising from a valid betrothal, even though it be not public (S. C. S. Off., 11 Aug., 1852), or to the impediment begotten thereby. Engagements very frequently, though not always, are rather proposals of matrimony than promises as explained above, and in them an essential element of the betrothal is wanting (Sabetti, Theol. Mor., n. 838, qu. 30; Kenrick, Theol. Mor., nos. 23, 37). <\/p>\n
DISSOLUTION<\/p>\n
A betrothal may be dissolved: (1) By the mutual and free consent of the contracting parties. (2) By a diriment impediment, which subsequently arises between said parties. In this case the innocent party is released form his or her obligation, but not the one through whose fault the impediment arose. The latter may be held to the contract, if the impediment be such that the Church can dispense from it. (3) By a valid marriage entered into with a third person. (4) By protracted delay on the part of either of the contracting parties in fulfilling the agreement to marry, in which case the innocent party is released from obligation. (5) By one of the contracting parties choosing a higher state of perfection, as for example by solemn profession in a religious order, by the reception of major orders, etc. (6) By any notable change in body or soul or worldly state of one of the parties — any grave circumstance which if it had happened or been known before the betrothal would have prevented it. To these may be added the impossibility of contracting matrimony, and a dispensation granted by the pope for just causes. <\/p>\n
PROCEDURES FOR BREACH OF PROMISE<\/p>\n
In case of refusal to complete the contract by marriage an action before the diocesan court is permissible. Bishops, however, are counseled not ordinarily to enforce marriage in such cases, as generally it would prove unhappy. In English-speaking countries these matters are, as a rule, taken into the civil courts, where the only remedy is a breach-of-promise suit, the penalty being a fine. In the United States, before the civil law, betrothal has only the moral force of a mutual promise. Betrothal in England was once a legal bar to matrimony with another; at present the only legal remedy for the violation of the betrothal is an action for breach of promise. <\/p>\n
HISTORY<\/p>\n
Jewish and Roman laws and customs must have influenced the early practice of the Church anent betrothal. The Jewish laws of marriage, and consequently of betrothal, were based in a great measure on the supposition that it was a purchase. In the law of Moses there are certain provisions respecting the state of the virgin who is betrothed, but nothing particularly referring to the act of betrothal. Selden’s “Uxor Hebraica” gives the schedule of later Hebrew contracts of betrothal. Where the contract was in writing, it was written out by the man before witnesses and delivered to the woman, who must know its import. Rome, on the other hand, at the beginning of the Christian Era, had ceased to consider marriage as a wife-purchase. Marriage, and still more betrothal, was a purely civil compact, verbally concluded. Under later Roman law, which constituted a basis for our ecclesiastical legislation, betrothal was looked upon simply as a contract of future marriage, stronger indeed than the engagement, since to enter into a second betrothal compact was held to be as infamous as bigamy itself. No legal forms were prescribed for the early Roman betrothal, but the compact was generally accompanied by the man’s sending to the woman the iron betrothal ring (annulus pronubus). As the Empire grew in importance, so did the betrothal contract, while at the same time its obligations were more frequently disregarded. Hence the practice of giving earnest-money, or pledges of fidelity (arrhoe), came into prominence; another step led to gifts being bestowed by the parties, one upon the other. The kiss, the joining of hands, and the attestation of witnesses were other elements introduced. Even in England formal engagements of this kind were common down to the time of the Reformation. As barbarian influence, however, began to affect the Empire, the betrothal took on more the semblance of wife-purchase.<\/p>\n
The Church, at the beginning of the third century at the latest, recognized betrothal as a perfectly valid and lawful contract. In the fourth century, in Africa at least, according to the testimony of St. Augustine (Sermo viii, 18; Sermo xxxvii, 7; Sermo cccxxxii, 4, etc.), espousals were contracted in writing, the instrument (tabulae), signed by the bishop, being publicly read. At the same time the dowry, if any, was given, or nuptial gifts were exchanged. Pope Benedict I (573-577), writing to the Patriarch of Gran, declares that it is connubial intercourse that makes two one, that mere betrothal would not prevent a man from entering into wedlock with the sister of his betrothed. The question of relationship, then, arising from the betrothal contract was mooted even at that early period. Gregory the Great (590-603) allowed a woman who was betrothed to dissolve her engagement in order to enter a convent (Bk. VI, Ep. xx).<\/p>\n
At the end of the ninth century betrothal had become a very frequent subject of Church legislation. From a reply of Pope Nicholas to the Bulgarians in 860 (Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, c. iii) it is apparent that the preliminaries leading up to a marriage in the Church were: (1) The betrothal or espousal; the expression of consent by the contracting parties, and the consent also of their parents, or guardians, to the projected marriage. (2) The subarrhatio, or delivery of the ring by the man to the woman by way of an earnest, or pledge. (3) The documentary transfer, by the man to the woman, of the dowry, in the presence of witnesses. The marriage was to follow immediately, or after an interval more or less protracted. These rites are still recognized in modern uses. The ceremony of betrothal is found in a measure in the present nuptial service. There is a declaration of consent, which, since the marriage follows immediately after, is de praesenti. The placing of the ring on the finger of the bride by the bridegroom constitutes the subarrhatio, while in many places transferring of the dowry is represented by a medal or coin — a relic of Salic law and of wife-purchase. (See Martene, De Antiq. Ecc. Ritibus, I, ix, a. 3, n. 4, speaking of a ritual of the Church of Reims.)<\/p>\n
———————————–<\/p>\n
Consult recognized authorities in canon law or moral theology for present discipline. Magani, L’Antica Liturgia Rom. (Milan, 1897), 360 sqq.; Duchesne, Christian Worship (tr. 1904), XIV; Ludlow in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v. ANDREW B. MEEHAN Transcribed by Susan Birkenseer <\/p>\n
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York<\/p>\n
BETROTHAL.Betrothal among the Jews in the time of Jesus, like so many other social institutions, was in process of transition. Jewish marriage customs were in origin the same as those of other Semitic peoples, but Jewish civilization was far removed from its primitive stages. Unfortunately there is little positive information concerning the ceremony of betrothal in NT times proper. The Talmudic seder on marriage includes two tractates, Kethuboth and Kiddushin, dealing largely with the preliminaries of marriage, the latter especially with betrothal, but it is considerably later than the NT period. Accordingly, one cannot be sure that the elaborate laws therein set forth obtained in the time of Jesus. Yet it is possible by the study of betrothal customs in Hebrew and in Talmudic times to form a highly probable hypothesis as to such customs in the time of Jesus.<\/p>\n
1. The OT betrothal ceremony perpetuated in a conventional fashion the recollection of the time when a woman was purchased from her family. This appears in the Heb. word (Deu 20:7, Hos 2:20). Yet it would be a mistake to regard the use of this word as anything more than a conventional survival. In the days of the codes and the prophets the time was long past when a mans wife was strictly his property. At the same time it is clear that when a woman was designated ( Exo 21:8-9) by the head of her family as the future wife of another man, there was paid over by the prospective bridegroom a certain sum of money (or service, as in the case of Jacob), and a contract which was inviolable was then entered into (Gen 34:12, Exo 22:17). Until the time of the marriage proper the bride-to-be remained in her own family. It was not permissible to betroth her to any other man except by action amounting to divorce, and any violation of the rights established by the betrothal was as serious as if the two persons had been actually married (Deu 22:23-24). In the OT period it is not possible to say with precision just how soon the betrothal was followed by the wedding. In later times, in the case of a virgin it was after the lapse of a year, and at least thirty days in the case of a widow; but it is impossible to establish more than a possibility of these periods in OT times. So, too, it is impossible to describe with any great precision the betrothal ceremony, but it certainly included the payment of some sum (har; in addition to above references, see 1Sa 18:25), and the making of a betrothal contract (either voce, Eze 16:8, or in writing) by the prospective bridegroom. We know nothing of any formal ceremony or of the use of a ring (unless [unlikely] it may be in Gen 24:58). The money payment belonged originally to the family of the woman, but gradually came to belong in part or wholly to the woman herself. The woman might bring wealth to her husband, as in the case of Rachel and Leah, but this was not obligatory in the Hebrew period, and cannot be said to belong to betrothal as such. The first advances might come from the family of either party. There is no clear evidence that the young woman had any right of appeal from the choice of her family. The bridegroom himself very probably did not conduct the negotiations, but the matter was in the hands of a third party, as his parents, or some trusted servant or friend.<\/p>\n
After the Exile the custom of the earlier period seems to have continued, although with certain modifications. The payment to the brides father on the part of the prospective groom had been increasingly regarded as the property, at least in part, of the bride. Such a payment during this period was often supplemented by a dowry in the true sense (To 8:21, Sir 25:22). No consent of the girl was demanded, nor do we know of the recognition of any legal age of consent, unless, as in somewhat later times, it was not expected that boys would marry before the age of eighteen or girls before twelve (Aboth v. 21). Although families undoubtedly reached some sort of early arrangement, there is no clear reference to the betrothal of children.<\/p>\n
2. In Talmudic times proper there was a distinct tendency to combine betrothal with the wedding. At present the wedding ceremony among orthodox Jews combines the two elements of the two older ceremonies. Possibly because of Western influences the Rabbis became more insistent upon the right of the girl (at least if she had reached her majority, whenever that may have been, Kiddushin, 41a) to give consent, Rab especially urging it. As the two ceremonies were united, in addition to the former betrothal there grew up a much less permanent form of engagement similar to that which obtains among Western peoples to-day. In Jerusalem, at least, there seem to have been certain opportunities (15 of Ab and Kippurim) for young people to become acquainted before the union was determined upon. All men were supposed to marry before the age of 20, and the age of women was a few years less. Other tendencies in Talmudic times were the fixing of the amount of the dowry at not less than 50 zuz, that of the mhar at 200 zuz, and the use of a peculiarly shaped ring. It is interesting to note that the conventionalizing of the mhar is evidenced in the words which are now used for the ceremony of betrothal: consecration, betrothal, compact, conditions.<\/p>\n
3. Thus the ceremony of betrothal in NT times probably involved the following acts: (1) A contract drawn up by the parents or by the friend of the bridegroom. (2) The meeting of the two families concerned, with other witnesses, at which time the groom gave the bride a ring and declared his intention to observe the terms of the contract already arranged. (3) The payment of the mhar. The act of betrothal gained in importance, and the two parties seem to have been seated under a canopy during the procedure, and the company to have joined in an increasingly jovial celebration. Strictly speaking, there was no religious ceremony connected with the act, but if a priest were present he doubtless pronounced some benediction which was subsequently elaborated into that used by later orthodox Judaism. The status of the man and woman was now, as in Hebrew times, practically the same as that of married persons, although it was now generally customary for the wedding ceremony proper to be celebrated at the expiration of a year in the case of a virgin, and in thirty days in the case of a widow. As in the older times, separation of betrothed persons demanded a divorce, and there seems to have been no reason why they should not live together as man and wife without a subsequent wedding ceremony. The children of such a union would be regarded as legitimate.<\/p>\n
So far as the relations of Mary and Joseph are concerned, it would appear from the narrative in both Matthew and Luke that in their case the custom of the Jews was followed. The description of the betrothal in the Gospel of Mary is clearly unhistorical and born of pious imagination; but we are justified in believing that Joseph drew up the customary contract, paid a mhar of approximately 200 zuz, and gave Mary a ring. After the formal betrothal (, Mat 1:18, Luk 1:27; Luk 2:5) they are reported to have lived together without a second, or wedding, ceremony. As has already appeared, there would be no question as to the legitimacy of children born of such a union.<\/p>\n
Literature.Complete details as to the Talmudic requirements regarding betrothal are given in Kiddushin; see also the article Betrothal, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Mielziner, Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce. For the ancient Hebrew betrothal, see Benzinger, Heb. Arch. p. 133 ff.; and Nowack, Heb. Arch. i. 155 ff. Brief accounts are also to be found in Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, and good articles in Hamburger, Herzog, Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , and in the Encyc. Biblica.<\/p>\n
Shailer Mathews.<\/p>\n
Of Jacob<\/p>\n
Gen 29:18-30<\/span> <\/p>\n \n Exempts from military duty<\/p>\n Deu 20:7<\/span> <\/p>\n \n A quasi marriage<\/p>\n Mat 1:18<\/span>; Luk 1:27<\/span> <\/p>\n \n Figurative<\/p>\n Isa 62:4<\/span>; Hos 2:19-20<\/span>; 2Co 11:2<\/span> Marriage<\/span> <\/p>\n betrothal (Anglo-Saxon: treowth, truth) An agreement to marry, made by mutual promises. As a matrimonial impediment it was practically done away with by the legislation of Pius X, who ruled that such a compact, to have any effect on a proposed marriage to another, must have been made in a written and dated document, signed … Continue reading “Betrothal”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-encyclopedic-dictionary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26457","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26457"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26457\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/dictionaries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"