Case XIV: Commutation of the Simple Vows of Celibacy

Alexius, a pious youth, has privately made a vow of perpetual celibacy. A number of deaths, which unexpectedly happened in his family, compel him to get married. For this he receives through the mediation of his bishop the necessary dispensation from Rome. This dispensation is given him through apostolic authority by his confessor in the confessional in this manner that his vow of celibacy is changed into the obligation of receiving the sacraments of Penance and Communion once a month, with the express stipulation that this dispensation is valid only for the duration of this marriage, and only in regard to his conjugal duties; that outside of this, and in case of a termination of this marriage by the death of his wife, his vow remains in force, and for the contracting of a new marriage another dispensation would be necessary. Some questions may arise in regard to the meaning and effect of this commutation, which we shall try to solve in the following:

1. Is Alexius bound to monthly reception of the sacraments, each time under pain of mortal sin, and, in the instance of Confession, even if he is not conscious of a voluntary sin since his last Confession?

2. Is it reserved to the Apostolic See to grant a dispensation from the duties which are substituted in place of the vow of celibacy?

3. How long will Alexius be obliged to receive the sacraments every month?

4. Is Alexius in his marital state, in his relation to his wife, freed from his vow of celibacy?

1. The question whether Alexius is obliged to receive the sacraments every month, each time sub gravi, we must answer to the effect that the reception of the sacraments as an object of a formal vow certainly is a materia gravis (see Marc n. 628), and that in our case Alexius is without any doubt bound in each separate case sub gravi, as a substitute for his vow. Nor is there doubt that the authorities in Rome have meant this obligation sub gravi, for as Lehmkuhl remarks (P. I. n. 480); The Roman courts, as a rule, do not grant dispensations from the vow of perpetual celibacy except adjuncta permagna commutatione.

The duty imposed in this case, to receive the sacraments every month in the application to each separate instance, is not lessened by considering all these Confessions and Communions as one whole, of which a single Confession and Communion would form only a parvitas materiae. The words once a month, put down evidently ad finiendam obligationem (see Sanchez I. VIII. disp. XXXIV. n. 37), make each monthly duty a distinctive whole, and render each separate Confession and Communion a materia gravis. Even in the case of welding separate parts into one whole, there could be, as a rule, only an absolute parvitas materiae, but not a materia in se gravis as part of a whole be considered binding sub veniali.

Even in case that Alexius should not be conscious of a voluntary sin since his last Confession, it is to be supposed from the wording of the rescript, as also for other reasons, that the authorities intended to bind him under any circumstances to monthly Confession; for the finis gravis, which was the object of prescribing monthly Confessions, can be reached perfectly by an inclusion of sins previously confessed.

2. The obligation of monthly receiving the sacraments, in commutation of the vow of celibacy, is, according to St. Alphonsus, not a matter reserved for the Holy Father.

3. The question, how long will Alexius be held to the monthly reception of the sacraments, we would explain thus: In a recently published similar case, the petitioner, a woman, had to bind herself for her whole lifetime to receive the sacraments every month. Lehmkuhl says (P. I. n. 480) of the vow of celibacy, even if made in secret, “The Roman tribunals are not accustomed to dispense except with a very great commutation attached.... and that for the whole period of life.” In our case, however, the confessor was directed to inform Alexius that this commutation would be granted only for the duration of this marriage, and nothing is said of extending its duties for a whole lifetime. Therefore Alexius may not be considered bound to the monthly reception of the sacraments beyond the duration of his marriage.

4. Regarding the effect of the dispensation upon his relation to his wife, the words of the apostolic rescript are plain: "That the dispensation is valid only with regard to his conjugal duties, but that outside of that the original vow remains in force." Therefrom arise de licitis et de illicitis in matrimonio for our case the following rules:

(a) Whatever is contrary to the end of marriage, or whatever opposes the generation of offspring, e. g. onanism, voluntary pollution, etc., is a grave sin against chastity and the married state, and also against the vow, because the dispensation obtained does not extend at all to that which is contrary to the conjugal duty.

(b) Whatever accords with the end of marriage is not a sin, because it pertains to the conjugal duty, for the rendering and seeking of which Alexius has duly been dispensed from the vow of chastity.

(c) Whatever lies outside the end of marriage, considered in itself and if one regards only the words of the rescript, is not included in the dispensation obtained, since it lies outside the conjugal duty; but since, according to St. Alphonsus, book III, no. 933, the married state makes intercourse honorable, even touches and looks, if there is no danger of pollution, cannot be gravely unlawful by reason of the purpose of the dispensation; the same must hold for Alexius, otherwise he would continually be placed in the proximate danger of sinning gravely against the vow. Therefore, whatever Alexius commits outside the end of marriage is ordinarily a venial fault both against chastity and against the vow, but an honorable purpose can excuse him from either fault.