Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question XXV: Whether a father and a curator can annul the personal vows of children who have reached puberty
Now let us consider the children in the second limit of age, namely from puberty to 25 years.
IAM consideremus filios in secundo limite aetatis, nempe a pubertate ad 25. annos.
The FIRST opinion is, that all vows can be annulled, except a vow of religion. So Innocentius cap. scriptura, num. 3. and there Hostiens. num. 7. Ioan. Andr. num. 4. Cardinalis num. 6. quaest. 12. Anchar. num. 8.
PRIMA opinio est, omnia posse irritari, excepto voto religionis. Ita Innocentius cap. scriptura, num. 3. et ibi Hostiens. num. 7. Ioan. Andr. num. 4. Cardinalis num. 6. quaest. 12. Anchar. num. 8.
The SECOND opinion is, that only the vows of pubescent females, not of males, can be annulled. So Angles flor. 2. part. quaest. unica de voto, art. 7. diff. 12. dub. 5. and he asserts this even of a vow of religion.
SECUNDA opinio est, vota sola foeminarum puberum, non masculorum, posse irritari. Ita Angles flor. 2. part. quaest. unica de voto, art. 7. diff. 12. dub. 5. et hoc etiam de voto religionis asserit.
The THIRD opinion is, that no personal vows of the pubescent can be annulled by a Father. So D. Thom. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 1. art. 1. quaestiuncula ultima, ad 2. D. Antonin. 2. part. tit. 11. cap. 2. §. 6. Sotus lib. 7. de iustitia, quaest. 3. art. 2. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. in difficultate circa quartam conclusionem, Angles flor. 2. part. quaest. unica de voto, art. 7. post 12. diffic. dub. 6. Philiarc. Tom. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 18. Beia in responsis, p. p. casu 49. Toletus lib. 4. summa, cap. 18. Sayrus Clau. reg. lib. 6. cap. 5. Petrus Ledesm. 2. sum. Tract. 10. cap. 7. dub. ult. Graff. 4. part. decis. lib. 2. cap. 26. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. ult. Suarez Tom. 2. de relig. tract. de voto, lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 4. Llamas in methodo curat. 3. part. cap. 4. Corradus in responsis p. p. q. 308. Sanchez lib. 4. summae, c. 35. n. 15.
TERTIA opinio est, nulla vota personalia puberum posse a Patre irritari. Ita D. Thom. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 1. art. 1. quaestiuncula ultima, ad 2. D. Antonin. 2. part. tit. 11. cap. 2. §. 6. Sotus lib. 7. de iustitia, quaest. 3. art. 2. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. in difficultate circa quartam conclusionem, Angles flor. 2. part. quaest. unica de voto, art. 7. post 12. diffic. dub. 6. Philiarc. Tom. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 18. Beia in responsis, p. p. casu 49. Toletus lib. 4. summa, cap. 18. Sayrus Clau. reg. lib. 6. cap. 5. Petrus Ledesm. 2. sum. Tract. 10. cap. 7. dub. ult. Graff. 4. part. decis. lib. 2. cap. 26. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. ult. Suarez Tom. 2. de relig. tract. de voto, lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 4. Llamas in methodo curat. 3. part. cap. 4. Corradus in responsis p. p. q. 308. Sanchez lib. 4. summae, c. 35. n. 15.
The same is asserted by those cited below, who except only the personal vow prejudicing the father's right concerning the governance of the family; these are referred to by Sanchez loco cit. num. 16. Vows of long pilgrimage, of excessive abstinence, of excessive prayers are considered of this kind; more such vows, however, are annullable in the case of a family that needs wider assistance. Bassaeus subscribes with the others, V. Votum 5. num. 13.
IDEM asserunt infra citandi, qui excipiunt tantum votum personale praeiudicans iuri Patris circa gubernationem familiae, hi referuntur a Sanchez loco cit. num. 16. Talia censentur vota longae peregrinationis, nimiae abstinentiae, nimiarum precum; plura vero talia familiae sunt irritabilia, quae ampliori eget assistentia. Subscribit cum aliis Bassaeus V. Votum 5. num. 13.
I ASSERT with this opinion, that the personal vows of the pubescent cannot be annulled by a father in matters not prejudicing the governance of the family.
ASSERO cum hac sententia, puberum personalia vota non posse a patre irritari in rebus gubernationi familiae non praeiudicantibus.
It is PROVED by Sanchez, because although the laws speak only of the vow of religion, they use it as an example for the others. For if that which requires the greatest deliberation cannot be annulled, much less the others.
PROBATUR a Sanchez, quia licet iura de solo voto religionis loquantur; tamen eo utuntur, tanquam in aliorum exemplum. Si enim id quod maximam requirit deliberationem non potest irritari, multo minus alia.