Question XII: Whether those under the age of puberty are bound by vows

Now the subject of the Vow must be treated: who can validly vow; and this can be understood in two ways, according to D. Bonaventure in the body. First, that they may vow validly from the intrinsic reason of the subject, or from the capacity for deliberation. Second, whether they can vow stably, so that their vows cannot be invalidated by others. Of the former I shall treat in this question; but of those who cannot make stable Vows, because they hang in subjection upon others, I shall treat in what follows, where I shall show that their vows are invalidatable.

Some hold that minors before puberty cannot validly vow religion, and that this is special to this Vow. So the Gloss seems to hold cap. Mulier, v. obligavit, 32 quaest. 2; the Abbot cap. Scripturae, num. 7, de Voto; Angelus V. Votum, 2, num. 6 — where they say that a minor capable of deceit is bound by every vow except that of religion. And the same Abbot cap. Significatum, num. 3, de Regularibus, and Rosella V. Novitius, num. 8, say that the vow of religion before puberty does not bind, because the Church renders it void. But these speak of the solemn vow of religion.

The holders of this opinion seem clearer: Innocent cap. Scripturae, num. 3; there Hostiensis num. 7; Ioannes Andreas num. 4; Anton. num. 3; the Cardinal num. 6, quaest. 11 et 13 — where they say that the vow of religion of a minor capable of deceit, made without the license of parents or guardians, does not bind; otherwise concerning other personal vows, as of abstinence, pilgrimage, etc. For these speak of the solemn Vow; for this does not stand before puberty, even if the parents wish it.

Yet these only mean that the vow of religion does not stand insofar as it is not firm, but can be invalidated, as Sanchez admits.

Others judge that no vows of minors are valid. So Palac. in 4 dist. 18, disp. 1, sol. 870.

The third opinion is, that no vows of minors are valid unless near puberty. So Sylvester V. Religio, 2, quaest. 15; he sufficiently favors the vow of religion with D. Thomas in 1 2, quaest. 88, art. 9, and the last quaest., art. 5.

The fourth opinion is, that all vows of minors after the use of reason are valid, if they are so capable of deceit as to be able to sin mortally. So the Canonists alleged in cap. Scripturae; the Abbot, cap. 2, num. 2, de Voto; Rosella V. Votum, 2, num. 2; D. Thomas 1 2, quaest. ult., art. 5, ad 3, and quaest. 88, art. 9, ad 1; Caietanus on that art. 9, and Summa, v. Votum, cap. 3; Paludanus 4 dist. 38, quaest. 3, art. 1, num. 9, and quaest. 4, art. 2, num. 29; D. Anton. 2 part., tit. 11, cap. 2, §. 6, and 3 part., tit. 16, cap. 2, §. 4; Armilla V. Votum, num. 6; Sotus lib. 7, de Iustitia, quaest. 3, art. 2; Navar. Summa, cap. 12, numero 68; Aragonius 1 2, quaest. 88, art. 9; Manuel Tomo 2, cap. 91; Azorius lib. 12, Instit., cap. 16, quaestio 9; Valentia 2 2, disp. 6, quaest. 6, puncto 6; Sanchez, citing these, lib. 4, Summae, cap. 18; Tanner. disp. 5, quaest. 4, dub. 2.

This is the opinion of D. Bonaventure in the cited place; for although he institutes the question, who are able to vow, and seems to exclude minors in the response to the second; nevertheless there, and more clearly in the body, he only means that their vows are not stable without the consent of their parents, as to what pertains to the governance of life.

I ASSERT therefore, that all such vows of children are valid of themselves, yet dependent upon the will of the parents as to execution, when they were made without their license.

It is PROVED from Sanchez num. 5, argument 2, that of D. Bonaventure, on which the alleged Canonists also rely. Whoever can give himself to the devil by mortally sinning, can also consecrate himself to Christ by a vow; but those who have already attained the age of discretion are of this kind: therefore.

By this argument you have also, that not so much the age as the use of reason is to be considered, which can both be anticipated and come afterward.