Question XIV: On the power of religious prelates to annul vows

D. Thom. art 8.

I suppose first that works promised by vote, to which they are subject, make a valid vote without the leave of the Prior. Therefore cap. monacho, 20. num. 4. it is not said that votes of this kind are invalid, but to be broken, that is, to be annulled; which reasoning holds also of others, for since that matter is in no way interdicted, and is good and apt for being emitted by vote, and as long as it is not interdicted is within the power of the one vowing; it follows that those votes are licit and obligatory, until they are interdicted by a superior. So the Canonists commonly judge in cap. scriptura, et twenty-six Theologists, whom Sanchez alleges and follows, lib. 4. cap. 25. num. 6. with D. Bonaventura in 4. dist. 38. art. 1. et in corpore, where he says that these can vow nothing that is stable against the will of the prior to which they are subject.

¶ But if the matter be interdicted; and the promise has not fallen upon the formal aspect of the prohibition, which would be illicit, as for example a pilgrimage toward Jerusalem, it will begin to be valid with the consent of the prior acceding. So very many of the above-indicated Doctors.

I suppose secondly, on the contrary, that a Prior, who has given leave to a subject to vow something, can revoke the leave while he has not yet vowed, because no right has been acquired. So D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 32. dubio 4. littera, and others whom Sanchez follows, lib. 4. cap. 17. num. 1.

The first question is: Whether he can revoke his leave after the vote has been emitted, yet not yet committed to execution; and annul it.

The first opinion is negative. So Richardus in 4. dist. 38. art. 4. quaest. 3.

Yet it is commonly conceded by nineteen Doctors, whom Sanchez alleges and follows loco cit. num. 9. The same concerning the votes of a wife others assert, in the same author.

I assert the affirmative with this opinion, which is the common one, as Bassaeus says, V. Votum 4. num. 8.

It is proved by Sanchez. The religious is bound to the prior by a similar or stricter bond than the wife to the husband. So also D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 32. in dubio litt. assimilates these bonds to each other: but the husband can revoke the votes which the wife emitted by his leave: Therefore. The minor is proved by D. Bonavent. ibi dubio 3. ex cap. 30. Numer. If the husband hearing her held his peace, and deferred sentence to another day: whatever she had vowed and promised, she shall render; but if he contradicted her after he knew of it, he shall bear her iniquity. Where, although Scripture does not say that the wife is immune from fault while, her husband contradicting, she does not keep the vote; yet it silently signifies this, while it says that the fault of the wife falls back upon the husband; and thus D. Augustinus understands this passage, lib. 4. quaest. 59. in Numer. as D. Bonavent. reports, and it is reported cap. Manifestum, 33. quaest. 5. et by D. Ambrosio lib. de paradiso, cap. 10. et it is reported cap. fini. 33. quaest. 5. et the Gloss ord. on the same passage of Numer. and there Hugo litt K. and many others related by Sanchez lib. 9. de matrimonio, disput. 40. num. 41. take it up again.

That this is, however, a perfect irritation, so that the votes never revive, is the reason of D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 32. dub. 3. because he who has the right of annulling votes does not renounce it by granting the faculty of vowing: Therefore he retains the power of annulling as Master. The antecedent is proved, because the reconsideration can conduce to the common good, or that of the subject; but the Prior on account of his prior will did not renounce his power ordered to the good of the religion, or of his subject: Therefore he can afterwards reconsider. Thus it is proved also by Sanchez cap. 27. num. 9. Therefore so judge Sanchez num. 19. Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. dub. penult. Sotus lib. 3. de iustitia, quaest. 3. art. 1. Manuel 3. Tomo summae, cap. 90. et others. Sanchez, however, lib. 4. cap. 27. num. 32. ex loco adducto Numer. 32. — where it is said that the iniquity of not executing the vote, emitted by the wife from the leave of the husband, concerning some abstinence, falls back upon the man — infers that he who without cause annuls a vote emitted by his own legitimate leave sins mortally: for that is called iniquity, which is not said of the venial, nor is it called the iniquity of transgression of the vote, which is mortal. He brings forward Caietanum 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. dub. 2. Nauar. summa, cap. 12. num. 73. Sayrum lib. 6. cap. 10. num. 12. Anglem 2. part. quaest. unica de voto, art. 7. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. post 6. concl. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 48. Manuelem 2. Tomo summae, cap. 89. Llamam in methodo, curat. 3. part. cap. 4. § 43. Corradum in resp. p. p. quaest. 303. Petrum de Ledesma 2. Tomo summae, tract. 10. cap. 7. dub. 2. The reason is, because by granting the leave, he confers that thing on God: Therefore by taking it away, he does injury, and is sacrilegious.

D. Bonaventura eo dubio 3. dist. 32. does not seem to press that reconsideration by the husband, (reported cap. 30. Numer.) which Suarez answers is called iniquity materially, which is the non-observance of the vote emitted by the woman: Bassaeus inclines to it, num. 9. et the reason is because he uses his right, and the vote taken away, the obligation ceases.

Yet this answer does not please Sanchez, because sufficiently improperly would non-observance, which is not transgression and fault, be called iniquity.

It is answered, however, that under the name of iniquities venial sins are also included, in which sense cap. 18. he had said to Aaron: Thou and thy sons shall bear the iniquity of the Sanctuary, where Origenes renders from the ancient text: the iniquities of the saints; nor does the Prior cooperate with the one vowing in the capacity of one vowing; otherwise, by relaxing, he would be bound to fulfill the vote, according to that Psalm. 75. Vow, and render, which Sanchez in no way concedes, cap. 27. num. 33. Therefore I say with Suarez, that it is venial; and the same Diana asserts, Parte 4. Tract. 4. resol. 110. Yet the reason of Bassaeus begs the principle.

Some difficulties, however, must be solved.

The first is: Whether the prior of religious can annul the vote of a subject of passing over to a stricter religion.

It is answered that it is denied ex cap. licet, de regular. where the Canonical law gives the faculty of this passing over, the faculty sought, though not obtained; for in the profession, by which the subject hands over his will to the prior, this is excluded. So Sanchez lib. 4. cap. 32. n. 2. asserting with himself eighteen Doctors. It is almost the common opinion, as Bassaeus says, V. Votum 5. num. 8.

The second is: Whether Priors can annul the other votes.

Sanchez answers loco cit. that they can, except the votes which pertain to religion; for this irritation implies an impliedness, and except those which are annexed to them, such as the Lenten abstinence in the religion of the Minims. It is the common sense of the Theologists in Suarez lib. 6. cap. 8. Fillluc. tract. 26. num. 245. Navar. cap. 12. num. 73. Reginaldus lib. 18. num. 304. and Bassaeum num. 9.

The third difficulty is; whether the Prior can annul the vote of a subject of avoiding some sin.

The first opinion is negative, because in those things which pertain to not offending God, the Prior has no power, to whom he is not bound to obey; even in the religion of the Minors of the strictest obedience, in those things which are against God, as we have cap. 10. regula. So many hold, in Sanchez.

Yet the opposite opinion is that he can. So D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. ad 3. and in 4. dist. 38. q. 1. art. 1. quaestiuncula ultima, ad 3. whom twenty-five Doctors follow, whom Sanchez reports and follows, cap. 33. num. 7.

The reason is because although the religious is not subject to the prior as regards that matter of the precept of not stealing, etc., yet he is subject as regards a new obligation; nor is anything against God while the Prior permits his subject to keep the precept of not stealing, though he takes away the new obligation. But that all priors, even lesser ones, indeed even among women Prioresses, can do this, Sanchez shows loco citato.

Of these things Fagundez treats at length in secundum praeceptum Decalogi, lib. 2. a capite 34.