Chapter I — The condemned and lax propositions are recounted

I. The Wycliffites, Lutherans, and Calvinists have raved against sacred vows, especially the monastic ones, whose errors the Council of Trent condemned. Michael Molinos too was impious concerning vows, of whom Innocent XI proscribed these two following theses, the first of which is: Vows about anything to be done are impediments of perfection. The other is: Superiors are to be obeyed in exterior matters, and the breadth of the vow of obedience of Religious extends only to what is exterior. But in interior matters the thing stands otherwise, into which God alone and the director enter.

II. "Can a married person, impeded from asking the debt on account of a vow, or incest, or spiritual kinship, ask for it, whenever he is agitated by vehement stimuli of the flesh, lest he be exposed to the danger of falling into grave sins of lust? ... I follow the affirmative, if a married person is so agitated by vehement stimuli of the flesh that he exposes himself to the proximate danger of falling into the sin of fornication, or something more shameful, unless he asks for the debt ... Because since, from the observance of the vow, one is exposed to the proximate danger of falling into some sins of lust intrinsically evil, and then the non-observance of the vow (namely, asking the debt from one's own wife) is not intrinsically evil, it is manifest that neither the vow nor the observance of the vow is of a better thing, etc. This and far more the most learned Fr. Quintanadueñas [teaches] on this matter ... It seems to me most difficult now to deny all practical probability to Fr. Quintanadueñas's opinion ... So the most expert Casuist Gobat, to whom I rightly assent." Fr. Patritius Sporer, treatise 3 on the second precept of the Decalogue, chapter 2, section 2, § 3, number 65, page 234.

III. "Whether a vow of chastity, or of Religion, or of not marrying, hidden from the one to whom marriage was promised, on account of incontinence, is valid, and impedes marriage from being licitly entered upon? The denying opinion — namely that such a vow is neither valid, nor impedes marriage — can be urged by these arguments... Because a vow of chastity or of Religion made by one whom frequent troubles of the flesh and ruinous falls precede is not concerning sufficiently suitable and just matter; nay rather it is against the counsel of St. Paul.

"The authors of this opinion would perhaps teach the same thing in the case where, the three said vows having been made, or one of them, it would be wiser for someone, on account of frequent temptations of the flesh and supervening lapses into venereal matters, to contract marriage ... Because what, before the vow was made, causes the promised thing to be an unfit matter for a vow, if it supervenes after the vow has been made, removes the obligation of the vow ... Therefore these same lapses will invalidate the antecedent vows ... This opinion is more probable speculatively ... But I answer that the aforesaid opinion, speaking even practically, is probable to some degree, and can be safely embraced. The reason is that it is probable (whatever Diana doubts undeservedly) that what is here and now speculatively probable is also practically so ... Therefore here and now such an opinion will also be practically probable. Therefore it can be safely embraced by one for whom marriage is more wholesome than the vows of Religion or of chastity are on account of his incontinence, etc. Therefore he will be able to enter marriage without dispensation. So expressly held the aforesaid Juan Sánchez." Leander of the Most Holy Sacrament, treatise 9 on marriage, disputation 24, question 2, page 324, § 3, page 325.

IV. "Sometimes a vow of running bulls in honor of the Saints can be valid, even in Spain ... Whence in Spain we see the canonizations of Saints solemnized with bull-runnings, besides the solemnities of Processions, Masses, and the like." Juan Martínez de Prado, Tome II, chapter 31, § 4, summary number 30, and at the end of it, page 640.

V. "A vow made in thanksgiving for a shameful act already done is valid." Leander, treatise 2 on the vow, disputation 4, question 31, page 341, from Filliucci, treatise 26 on the vow, chapter 2, question 6, number 54.

VI. "What obliges a vow of abstaining from wine? It would suffice under grave fault that wine be drunk temperately, in that quantity which is used by those who drink for one meal." Castropalao, treatise 15, disputation 1, point 12, number 21, page 72.

VII. "It is probable that he who has vowed virginity is not bound to perpetual chastity, but only to preserving the integrity of the flesh, which that word 'virginity' properly signifies." Marín, treatise 9, disputation 3, section 2, number 39, from Burgh, century 1, case 9.

VIII. "If you wished to redeem the loss of time, you comprehended even moderate play, and likewise play for another's sake: because you would truly be playing with a loss of time. Yet you can play through another, although you lose time watching ... If you vowed to this end, that..."

that you would avoid quarrels, blasphemies, oaths ... it will be licit for you to play under another's name, or through another; nay, it will even be licit to play through another, even if these inconveniences are feared, because in very deed you are not playing." La-Croix, book 3, part 1, number 454, page 175, from Tamburini, Palao, and others.