Question XXVIII: Which vows of servants their masters can annul

Some judge it to be within the rights of Masters to invalidate all the vows of servants, except the vow of chastity. To this opinion D. Thom. seems to belong, in 4. d. 38. quaest. 1. art. 1. quaestiuncula ultima ad 3., and Abul. cap. 30. Numer., Tabiena V. votum 5., Petrus de Ledesma 2. tomo tract. 10. cap. 7. dub. ultimo, dicto 4., Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. fol. 1020.

The second opinion is, that those vows of servants can be invalidated by Masters which in some part hinder and stand against their right and power, as the vow of pilgrimage, of religion, and the like. So D. Bonaventin 4. d. 38. quaest. 3. in corpore, and d. 32. quaest. 1. fundamento ultimo, whom D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 8. ad 2. and quaest. 104. art. 5. in corpore follow. Innocentius cap. scripturae, num. 3. de voto. There Hostiens. num. 7. Ioan. Andr. num. 4. Abbas num. 6. Antoninus num. 4. Anchar. num. 7. Cardin. num. 5. quaest. 10. Annanias num. 5. Henricus num. 9. Archid. cap. si quis incognitus, 17. quaest. 2. num. 3. there Bellamera num. 3. Turrecremata cap. sunt quaedam 17. quaest. 1. num. 8. Richar. 4. d. 38. art. 4. quaest. 2. there. Dar. quaest. 1. num. 7. Palud. quaest. 3. art. 1. num 7. there suppl. Gabr. quaest. 1. art. 5. Abul. cap. 30. Numer. quaest. 87. Gregorius Lopez lib. 3. V. seruo, tit. 8. quaest. 1. Rosella in summa V. votum, 2. num. 15. Angel. V. votum, 2. num. 7. D. Anton. 2. part. tit. 11. cap. 2. Sylvest. V. votum 4. quaest. 2. dicto 5. Sotus lib. 7. de iustitia, quaest. 3. art. 1. ad 2. Nauarr. summ. cap. 12. num. 64. Alcozer summa, cap. 16. concl. 6. fol. 56. Margarita Confess. fol. 135. Ludovicus Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 48. Manuel 2. Tomo cap. 91. Sayrus lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 7. et cap. 10. num. 18. Azor. Tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 17. quaestio 9. et cap. 16. quaestio 8. Less. lib. 2. de iustitia cap. 40. dub. 10. num. 82. Philiar. tom. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 18. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 6. puncto 6. quaest. ultim. Gomez in Bulla Cruc. clausula 10. n. 74. Suarez Tract. de voto, lib. 3. cap. 7. num. 29. et lib. 6. cap. 3. Vega 2. Tomo summa, cap. 129. casu 100. Sanchez, adducing these, lib. 4. summa cap. 35. num. 2. Fagundez in secundum Praeceptum lib. 2. cap. 39. num. 3., adducing others together with Bassaeo V. votum 5. num. 4.

I ASSERT, with this opinion, that whatever vows of servants, made to the prejudice of the power and right to which they are subject, can be invalidated by Masters.

The REASON of D. Bonavent. loc. cit., on which the rest rely, is, because the servant is subject to the Master, not as to the internal offices of the will, but in bodily service alone. Therefore all those vows impede which impede bodily service; but since others besides the vow of chastity impede service, they will be invalidatable, cap. si quis servum, 17. quaest. 4. Not so the vows of prayer, of moderate fasting, etc.

HENCE also the Master can invalidate real vows, because what the servant has is the Master's, except if he should agree with the Master, Gloss. in leg. quod attinet 3. ff. de iis iuris. Bassaeus adds that he can invalidate all that the servant made with his license, because he still retains right over the servant. Yet a cause ought to be present, otherwise he would sin.

BUT the master who has no Dominion over his hired servant cannot invalidate his vows, but only suspend those that stand in the way of his services. D. Thom. 4. d. 38. quaest. 5. art. 1. Sylv. quaesit. 88. art. 8. Sayr. lib. 6. cap. 10. num. 18. Sanchez lib. 4. cap. 36. et 24. num. 24. Filliuc. tract. 26. num. 226. et seq., and with these Bassaeus num. 4.