Chapter II — A review of condemned opinions, and of the laxer views of certain recent authors

I. Among the propositions of Miguel de Molinos proscribed by Pope Innocent XI, two concern the subject of vows. The first is proposition 64 of the said propositions, and reads as follows: "Fates concerning anything are impediments to perfection." The other: "Obedience to superiors in externals, and the strictness of the vow of obedience, extends only to the exterior. In the interior, however, the matter stands otherwise, wherein God alone, and direct [inspirations], enter." Both propositions plainly contradict the holy word of God. It was shown in the preceding chapter, from Isaiah 19, that God is worshipped with sacrifices and vows: "They shall make vows to the Lord, and perform them" — from which the falsity of the first condemned proposition is clear. St. Paul likewise condemns the other (Hebrews 13): "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them; for they watch, as being to render an account for your souls." If prelates must render an account for souls, they must necessarily have knowledge and oversight of their governance. But more on this in its proper place. Now certain opinions of some recent authors, which seem to us excessively lax, must be reviewed.

II. "Can a married person, hindered by a vow, by an oath, or by spiritual kinship, from requesting the marital debt, request it whenever he is troubled by vehement stirrings of the flesh, lest he be exposed to the danger of falling into grave sins of lust?... I follow the affirmative opinion... if a married person is so troubled by vehement fleshly stirrings that he is exposed to the proximate danger of falling into the sin of fornication, or something worse, unless he requests the debt... For when someone, through the observance of a vow, exposes himself to the proximate danger of falling into some sins of lust intrinsically evil, requesting the debt from one's own spouse is not intrinsically evil; and then neither the vow, nor the observance of the vow, is manifestly a matter of the better good..." etc., and much more to this effect in the very learned Quintanadueñas... "It seems to me exceedingly difficult now to deny all practical probability to the opinion of Quintanadueñas. So the most experienced casuist Gobat, with whom I rightly agree." Fr. Patritius Sporer (tract. 3, on the 2nd precept of the Decalogue, ch. 2, sect. 2, §3, n. 65, p. 234). See below, ch. 5, n. 12.

III. "Is a vow of chastity, of the religious life, or of not marrying, made by one for whom marriage would be more salutary on account of incontinence, valid, and does it prevent marriage from being lawfully contracted? The negative opinion — namely, that such a vow is not valid, nor an impediment to marriage — can be argued for on these grounds... because a vow of chastity, or of the religious life, made by one whom the troubles of the flesh, and the frequent danger of ruin precede, is not concerning sufficiently suitable and just matter; indeed it is rather made contrary to St. Paul's counsel... The authors of this opinion would perhaps teach the same in the case where, having made the aforesaid three vows, or one of them, it would be more advisable, on account of frequent temptations of the flesh, and subsequent lapses into venereal matters, for someone to contract marriage... because what, prior to the vow being made, renders the promised matter unsuited 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 preceding vows... This opinion is probable speculatively... But I answer, probably, that the aforesaid opinion is also probable in practice... Here and now, such an opinion can also be embraced practically, in some sense, and safely by one who now finds it speculatively probable, speaking somewhat probably. The reason is that it is probable (whatever Diana may unjustifiably doubt) that what is here probable will also be practically probable. Therefore it can safely be held that marriage will also be, for him for whom it would be more salutary on account of his incontinence than remaining in religion or chastity, etc. Therefore he can, without dispensation, enter marriage." So expressly held the aforesaid John Sanchez. Leander a Santissimo Sacramento (tract. 9, on Marriage, disp. 23, q. 2 and 3, pp. 324 and 325). See below, ch. 5, n. 17.

IV. "Sometimes a vow to run bulls in honor of the Saints can be valid, even in Spain... Whence in Spain we see canonizations of Saints solemnized with bull-runnings, in addition to solemn processions, thousands of Masses, and the like." John Martinez de Prado (Vol. II, ch. 31, §4, summary n. 30, and at the end of that number, p. 640). See below, ch. 5, n. 11.

V. "A vow to perform an act of thanksgiving for a shameful deed already done is valid." Leander (tract. 2, on vows, disp. 4, q. 31, p. 341), from Filliucci (tract. 26, on vows, ch. 2, q. 6, n. 54).

VI. "What of a vow to abstain from wine? It obliges under grave fault only if one drinks that quantity of wine which would suffice, for those using wine temperately, for a single meal." Castropalao (tract. 15, disp. 1, punct. 12, n. 21, p. 72). See Diss. 2, ch. 6, n. 1.

VII. "It is probable that one who vows virginity is not bound to perpetual chastity, but only to preserve the integrity of the flesh, which that word 'virginity' properly signifies." Marín (tract. 9, disp. 3, sect. 2, n. 39), from Burghaber, cent. 1, case 59. See Diss. 2, ch. 6, n. 22.

VIII. "If you vowed to redeem lost time, you included even moderate play, and likewise playing on behalf of another — since you would truly be playing away time. You may not, however, play through another, though by watching you lose time... If you made the vow with the end of avoiding quarrels, blasphemies, oaths... it will be lawful for you to play under another's name, or through another; indeed, it will even be lawful to play through another, even though these inconveniences might be feared, since in reality you are not playing." La Croix (Bk. III, part 1, n. 454, p. 175), citing Tamburini, Palao, and others. See below, ch. 5, q. 16, n. 48 and following.