Question VIII: Whether a vow is only about some good

I assert first that a vow is not concerning an evil thing: this is a certain assertion, as Tanner says, disp. 5. question 4. dub. 1. num. 12.

It is proved from D. Bonaventure, first from D. Isidore, who warns: in evil promises rescind the faith, in a shameful vow change the decree.

It is proved second, because a vow is a promise of a thing which someone pledges for the sake of God, for his own salvation. Thus it is proved also by Sanchez cap. 6.

It is proved third from D. Bonaventure, last foundation. He who fulfills a vow does that to which he is bound: But no one is bound to do evil: Therefore.

I assert second, that neither is a thing simply indifferent the matter of a vow, e.g. to lift up a straw. So the holy Doctors and others as collected by Bassaeus num. 6., provided that by intention, or of itself, it is not ordered to a good.

It is proved from D. Bonaventure, because a vow is an act of Religion concerning those things that serve God; but things merely indifferent do not pertain to the worship of God: Therefore. Thus it is proved by Sanchez cap. 7. after D. Thom. He notes, however, that some indifferent things, adorned by some end, can become the matter of a vow, as D. Bonaventure notes ad 3.: thus to eat is indifferent, likewise not to eat beyond necessity, and yet I can vow abstinence.

Concerning the first assertion there occurs that remarkable case of the Duke Jephthah, who, going to war, vowed that if he returned victorious, he would offer to God the first whatsoever should meet him from his house, Judges 11. Concerning this vow a doubt arises: whether Jephthah vowed to kill his daughter, and killed her, which vow of killing an innocent is surely evil of its object.

The first opinion, confirmed also by the calculations of the holy Fathers, is that Jephthah truly killed his daughter. So D. Bonaventure here ad 4., which he proves from D. Jerome on cap. 7. of Jeremiah and D. Augustine in the questions on the book of Judges, question 49, and lib. 7. of questions on the Old Testament. He supposes the same from other Fathers. Such was the sense of Chrysostom homil. 14. to the people of Antioch, and homily on Jephthah. Origen Tom. 9. on John. Tertullian lib. 3. against Marcion. Justin Martyr question 99. Nazianzen in the oration in praise of the Maccabees, which is oration 22. Isidore in the Allegories on Scripture, and on the life and death of the saints, Ambrose lib. 3. of offices, cap. 12. Bede lib. of questions, on Judges cap. 7. Rupert on the Trinity and his works, in the book of Indic. cap. 12. Tostatus on 11. Indic. question 56. and among the Hebrews Josephus lib. 5. Antiquities, and other ancient Rabbins, to whom add D. Thom. at the place cited ad. 2., whom Azorius reports lib. 11. cap. 14.

The opposite, however, is brought forward by certain more recent Rabbins, and Catholics, whom Lyranus defends, who say that Jephthah by no means immolated his daughter, but devoted her to virginity.

First, therefore, he proves it, because Jephthah was a man placed among the saints by the Apostle: Heb. 11. Then, when he uttered this vow, it is said: The spirit of the Lord came upon him, but the Holy Spirit does not inspire evil.

Moreover, it is not sufficiently gathered from Scripture that Jephthah killed his Daughter; for where it is said in the Vulgate: He vowed a vow, etc. if you deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, whosoever first shall come forth from the doors of my house, and shall meet me, returning in peace from the children of Ammon, him I shall offer as a holocaust to the Lord, the Hebrew reading has: And it shall be the Lord's, and I shall make it go up as an ascension, where no mention is made of a holocaust, as many think, whom Azorius follows, but the reading is: I shall make it go up as an ascension to the Lord. And it will be וְהָיָה לַיהוָה וְהַעֲלִיתִיהוּ עֹלָה. But if he had wished to express "into a holocaust", he would rather have said לְעֹלָה.

Wherefore he seems to have vowed only an oblation owed in a fitting manner.

Moreover, the daughter, hearing that she was to be offered to the Lord, asked a respite of two months, that she might mourn her virginity: but if she were to be immolated, she would have mourned her life; it is a sign, therefore, that she was offered that she might live chastely without a husband, which at that time was a thing to be deplored.

It is confirmed: For returning she did as she had vowed, who knew not man, as if to say he vowed her virginity, and consecrated her to the Lord, shutting her up at home from the company of men.

Moreover, a custom is said then to have prevailed, that the daughters of Israel gathered yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah; but the word lament, in Hebrew is לְתַנּוֹת, "to speak to" the daughter of Jephthah: Therefore she was still living, and they visited her mourning and shut in, that they might console her; but if she had already been immolated, how did they speak with her for four days? — a custom read nowhere?

Notwithstanding these things, the unanimous sense of the holy Fathers, according to the prescriptions of the sacred Council of Trent, is to be preferred by us. Wherefore D. Antoninus part. 2. tit. 11. cap. 1. §. says: but since the Doctors commonly hold that he killed her bodily, and they reprehend him for parricide, we ought not to know more than we ought to know, as the Apostle admonishes, Rom. 12., which happens when someone does not acquiesce in doctrines approved by the Church, and commonly held, finding new ones, which is prohibited, as related in the chapter, dist. 37. Such is St. Antoninus.

It is proved, for in the Vulgate, which is canonical, it is stated that he vowed to offer her in holocaust, which surely required the death and burning of the animal. Therefore St. Bonaventure says, bringing forward D. Jerome, that this Sacrifice did not please God, although the good intention pleased; and with D. Augustine, that Jephthah was both rash in vowing, and impious in paying. Moreover she was given leave for two months, that she might mourn not her consecrated virginity, for she could have mourned that always.

Second, this is not so deplorable, as she rather mourned death in the flower of her age. Therefore also the daughters of Israel mourned her.

MOREOVER it is said that, when the girl returned, he did what he had vowed; but if he had only wished to consecrate her to the Lord, he would have done nothing new.

TOSTATUS ADDS another argument, because of the Blessed Virgin alone it is said that without precedent she pleased the Lord by offering her Virginity: But he does not consider that the daughter of Jephthah is said to have been consecrated in her place;¹ whereas the Blessed Virgin alone of her own spontaneity, without the precedent of an example, vowed her Virginity. ¹ Editor's note: the print reads 'dici consecratam inpitam'; 'inpitam' is not a Latin word — possibly a corruption of 'impiam' or of 'in victimam' ('as a victim'); rendered neutrally here as 'in her place', following the translator's choice, since the print's reading cannot be securely emended.

To the arguments on the opposite side it is answered that the "ascension" of the sacrifice alone includes the burning, by which the holocaust was said to evaporate toward the Lord. So also in other places of Scripture, where a holocaust is said to be offered to the Lord, an ascension is read. The very name of holocaust is added for greater clarity.

THAT that word signifies also "to speak to" matters nothing; for it signifies also "to lament."

AS FOR the Apostle, and D. Jerome, St. Bonaventure replies that his faith, and end, and devotion are praised; but that his inhumanity is censured by other Saints, because he vowed inconsiderately, and paid cruelly; nevertheless he is excused by the Fathers, because he judged that sacrifice to be ratified, as was Abraham's, when it was commanded by the Lord to immolate his son.

BUT if someone knowingly vows something that is a natural sin, and vows it, he commits a twofold sin: one by its nature; the other of injury against religion, by vowing something gravely illicit. So Sanchez lib. 4. cap. 6. num. 9.

JUST as evil is taken from the object, or from the end, or from the circumstances, so also the nullity of a vow from an evil thing promised. See Sanchez lib. 4. cap. 6.

YOU OBJECT against the second assertion. Food and drink are indifferent; but concerning these abstinence or temperance can be vowed: Therefore.

D. Bonaventure answers ad 3. that there are some indifferents that are informable by a virtue, and these can be the matter of a vow; but others cannot be informed by a virtue, and concerning these there is no vow, nor does one who vows need dispensation concerning them, since the matter of the vow is lacking, which ought to be something for the service of God, which is also the view of D. Thomas.

A BRIEF answer indeed, but fertile with the best doctrines, which Sanchez pursues at length, lib. 4. of the summa, cap. 7., who at num. 5. requires four conditions for an indifferent thing to become the matter of a vow.

THE FIRST is, that some circumstance of an honest end concur, rendering the very thing the matter of some virtue: Thus to enter some house is indifferent; but if there were there some occasion of sinning, it would be the matter of a vow, by promising on that account not to enter. So Richardus in 4. dist. 38. art. 3. question 1. and others. I give another example of a thing subject to a vow: if there were a sick man there to be visited, and not by precept, one could vow to enter.

THE SECOND condition is, that the thing be apt to serve that good end, or, as St. Bonaventure says, be informable by that good end; for the end in moral matters in a certain way informs the act and makes it intrinsically good or evil, as I said in the first part of the second part, Treat. 1. dispute 4. question 8. For if it contributes nothing to that end, neither will the vow be valid, as if someone were to vow, for the honor of the Blessed Virgin, not to cut his nails on the Sabbath. So many, as collected by Sanchez at the place cited.

THE THIRD is, that the indifferent thing be actually directed to that end, and thus be actually informed by that end; otherwise it will remain still indifferent in the moral order.

THE FOURTH is, that the end honoring the indifferent thing still remain. From these many things are defined by D. Bonaventure.

FOR truly the matter can be an honest bride for the Vow, but the end indifferent.

And indeed if the end is the attaining of temporal things, it will be valid. For thus also in Scripture vows of this kind were made, and judged ratified, as D. Bonaventure notes in the Biblia pauperum, cap. 15.: thus Genes. 28., for his pilgrimage and happy return Jacob vowed his to God. Thus 1. Reg. 1. Anna vowed for obtaining a son. The people of Israel, cap. 21. vowed for obtaining victory. Antiochus, 2. Macab. 9. for obtaining the health of his body, nor is he reprehended. Therefore these vows are received by the common sense of the Church. So Hostiens. c. scripturae on the vow, num. 5. and 6. Ioan. Andreas num. 3. Anchar. num. 3. question 2. Henricus num. 11. Richardus, in 4. dist. 38. art. 1. questions 2. and 3. Maior there question 1. Abulens. cap. 30. of Numbers, question 92. Angelus v. vow 1. num. 4. and 9. Sylvest. v. vow 1. question 4. dictum 2. and question 5. Cajetan on art. 2. at the cited D. Thom. dub. 4. Sotus lib. 7. on Justice, question 1. art. 3. Palac. 4. dist. 38. disp. 1. fol. 814.

HENCE the view that Innocentius c. Scripturae, num. 1. de voto says — that vows made for attaining temporal things are simoniacal and do not oblige — is not received.

NOW indeed this general rule of St. Bonaventure holds: when a vow is offered in some way for the service of God, it is valid from this head of indifferent matter, and thus it befits one who vows to serve God even for attaining temporal goods, or for giving Him thanks devotedly for things received; but the vow will be invalid if a certain act is vowed which is materially of a virtue, and is specified by an end not ordered to any other than a temporal one, as when we vow alms, so that the opinion of avarice spread about us may be washed away, or fasting, so that expenses may be lessened.

HENCE innumerable cases are resolved, which Sanchez reports, lib. 4. of the summa, cap. 7. and others. What sin it is to vow indifferent things, St. Bonaventure at the place cited says only thus: This man lacks judgment; but that it is sin is evident, because he renders the vow profane: therefore it is indeed a sin, but venial, say Aragonius at the cited passage of D. Thomas. Petrus Ledefma, second tome of the summa, tract. 10. cap. 1. dub. 2. Manuel second tome cap. 94. num. 6. Tolet. lib. 4. of the summa, cap. 17. num. 14., whom Sanchez follows, lib. 4. cap. 7. num. 4. who at num. 27. asserts the same concerning a private vow; but concerning solemn vows, because they render those things null that were begun with them, he says it is mortal, as he had said cap. 6. n. 15.

JUST as vowing for an evil end takes its malice from the end; so if the end is mortally evil, to vow it also will be mortal; if the end is venial, it will be venial: But to vow religion solemnly even for a venial end, he says, is venial, because it renders those vows null by a grave injury to God.