Chapter VII — On vows extorted by error, or by fear

I. We shall have much to say concerning oaths that are deceitful, and extorted by fear, which can be consulted, lest we act twice over. We shall therefore only touch briefly on a few points here, all the more since, when treating of contracts and marriage, we shall bring similar controversies under examination.

II. Question I. Does an error concerning the substance of a vow render the vow invalid? Response: Authors commonly affirm this — since error removes the voluntary: for nothing is willed unless first known. Therefore, if you are ignorant of the nature, or substance, of the vow, then the thing promised by the vow is not voluntary, but involuntary. There is, then, no vow — since it is not voluntary. Hence, if you were to profess religious life, ignorant that profession is perpetual, your profession would be null — since perpetuity pertains to the substance of profession. Say the same of ignorance of those things which are reduced to the substance of the thing promised: say, you vowed to journey to Jerusalem, thinking your vow could be fulfilled by an overland journey, being ignorant of the sea voyage; you vowed to enter the Carthusian, or Dominican, order, thinking that eating meat there was permitted — these vows are null, as is taught by Suárez (Bk. II, ch. 11, n. 21), Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 12, n. 12), Lessius (Bk. II, ch. 41, dub. 1, n. 21), Prado (ch. 31, q. 4, §1, n. 2), Palao (disp. 1, punct. 6, n. 2), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 27, punct. 6, §4, n. 116), who add that the one vowing is not bound to other religious orders, since he determinately vowed these two.

Two things present a difficulty to me. The first is that abstinence from meat should enter into the very substance of profession, or pertain to it — for it seems that this abstinence is a certain grave circumstance, but it is not the one thing that distinguishes one Order from another; indeed, all monastic orders that have this law observe the same abstinence from meat. Of the four mendicant orders, two observe this same abstinence. Moreover, this abstinence, compared with the three solemn perpetual vows, does not seem so grave a circumstance as to enter into the very substance of the profession, and to be able to invalidate it. The other difficulty is likewise this: namely, that such a one vowing ought not to be bound to enter any other religious order. Since one who vows entrance into religious life seems to vow, first, the religious state, and then, secondarily, this particular religious order — when there is no express, determinate, contrary intention. All these considerations together render the aforesaid resolution quite doubtful to me. Wherefore it seems to me safer, and more probable, that the one vowing is bound either to enter the promised religious order, or to choose another in which meat is eaten — since, as I said, the circumstance of abstaining from meat does not seem to enter into the substance of a perpetual profession.

III. All theologians, moreover, admit that ignorance of circumstances which do not pertain to the substance of the matter does not invalidate vows, or oaths, but leaves their obligation intact as to substance — even if the person, had he foreseen these circumstances when he made the vow, would not have made it — since such ignorance, as they say, is concomitant with respect to the vow, not principal, or as giving cause to the vow. For you embrace absolutely the principal object of your vow, even though, had you foreseen that object clothed in such a circumstance, you would have abstained from it. For very many vows, promises, and contracts would not be made, if all the circumstances that supervene in the course of time were foreseen; yet, when they actually occur, they invalidate neither vows nor contracts. In this all agree: Cajetan (II-II, q. 88, art. 3, near the end), Sotus (Bk. VII, q. 2, art. 3, ad 3), Molina (Vol. II, disp. 272), Lessius (Bk. II, ch. 20, dub. 2, n. 10), Suárez (Bk. I, ch. 12, n. 6), Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 12, n. 6), Castropalao (tract. 15, disp. 1, punct. 6, n. 4), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 27, ch. 1, punct. 6, §1, n. 156). The difficulty is which of the circumstances redound into the substance of the promise, or vow. The cited authors maintain that, in the aforesaid vow of religious life, abstinence from meat is a circumstance invalidating the profession, since it pertains to the substance of the profession. It seems to me, however, that such a circumstance does not pertain to the substance of monastic profession, for the reasons assigned; and this opinion seems to me more probable.

IV. Likewise, if error concerns the end of the vow, if the ignorance is of the essential end of the vow, such ignorance will also impede the value of the vow — since the end of the vow is its object. Wherefore, if ignorance of the essential end of the vow occurs, it will produce the same effect regarding the end as it does regarding the substance of the vow. Several ends are distinguished in a vow. The first is the divine worship, which is common to all vows, and can be called universal, and extrinsic; without which no matter is fit for a vow. The second end is the special, and, in a certain way, intrinsic end, upon whose cessation, too, the vow ceases — as, for example, the proximate end of alms is the relief of another's need. For example: you vowed to give Peter alms, thinking him poor; you afterward discover him to be rich, and in no way needy, and in no way in need of alms; the vow ceases, since it altogether recoils into the nature of the object, which is a peculiar and total relief of poverty — and, that failing, the vow ceases entirely. The third is the extrinsic end which the one vowing freely set before himself: as if you vowed to give health to your sick son... , whom you believe infirm; and, that son being restored to health, or having died, the vow ceases, and so too is that end reduced to the nature of the object; and thus, once that ceases, the vow ceases. If, however, the error is about the occasion, or occasional cause, of the vow, then the vow is not impeded — although, if, before the vow was made, the cause had been known, it would have impeded the making of the vow.

V. You will object, from St. Thomas (Bk. IV, Sent., dist. 38, q. 1, art. 3, qc. 1, ad 3), where he says that "that which, if present, would impede the vow being made, also removes the obligation once the vow has been made." But the circumstances and difficulties that supervene were unknown to the one vowing. Therefore, once the vow is made, they remove the obligation. Response: St. Thomas, in the place cited, speaks in express words of a difficulty, or circumstance, that renders the execution of the vow impossible. Now what renders the execution of the vow impossible, whether it follows, or precedes, the making of the vow, renders the vow null. Here are the words of the Angelic Doctor which immediately follow the passage cited: "Whence, since there cannot be a vow concerning the impossible, as has been said, if something which was formerly possible becomes impossible after the vow is made, the obligation of the vow is removed as to that." And to the proposed difficulty the Angelic Doctor answers, in the first argument, that no one is obligated to a vow whose execution is impossible.

VI. Question II. From what is it to be gathered that circumstances are only an impelling, not a principal, cause of the vow — that is, that they do, or do not, redound to the substance of the object promised by the vow? Response: It is clear from what has been said that all authors agree in this: that error concerning the substance invalidates the vow; not so, error concerning adventitious matters, or concerning impelling causes. The whole difficulty turns on this: from what is it to be gathered whether the circumstances redound into the substance of the object, or not? Authors commonly answer that all those things are the end of the vow which the one vowing intends to obtain through the vow; but that those things are merely the occasion of vowing which only excite the one vowing to make the vow — as if you vow alms to be conferred on a respectable poor person: the relief of poverty is the end of the vow; but the respectability of the poor person is the occasion which excites, and impels, you to make the vow. For relief of poverty is not obtained through the vow in the same way that relief of poverty is really obtained; and therefore this is the end of the vow. Respectability, however, is the occasion of the poor person, which excites you, but is not the end of the vow. All this is clear, and quite easy to grasp. But sometimes circumstances occur so grave that they seem to some to redound into the substance of the vow, on which several others judge otherwise; and concerning these no certain rule can be established, but this business must be left to the judgment of prudent men.

VII. In doubt, however, whether some circumstance has the character of a final, or an occasional, cause, one must consider whether, these being absent, all the other circumstances retain merely the character of occasion. For if, in their absence, the end of the vow still stands, the rest have merely the character of occasion. If, however, in their absence, the end of the vow would collapse, then they would have the character of the end, as Sylvester teaches (s.v. Votum, 2, q. 8), Bonacina (disp. 4, q. 2, punct. 6, near the end, n. 52), Castropalao (tract. 15, disp. 1, punct. 6, n. 7). If, all things considered, probable and grave reasons press on both sides, Sánchez teaches (Bk. IV, ch. 12, n. 5) that it is lawful to adhere to either side, even the less probable, as Bonacina says more explicitly (loc. cit.). If, however, all things considered, the matter remains doubtful and undecided, both these authors determine that it must then be judged in favor of the vow — since when the words of the vow are established, whether spoken aloud or held in the mind, possession stands for the vow, not for the external forum's liberty; and also because the presumption favors the validity of the act. From this you see, then, that these authors do form a peculiar notion of doubt. For if, they say, probable reasons induce the opinion, it is lawful to adhere to either side; but if the reasons are such as to leave the intellect undecided, then judgment must be made in favor of the vow. We too decide that judgment must be made in favor of the vow, in doubt — but on this principle: that in doubtful matters the safer part is to be chosen; and, furthermore, when equal reasons press on both sides, we say the intellect remains in doubt, however probable both sides may be. When, however, the reasons are more probable in favor of the vow, and less probable in favor of liberty, we hold that judgment must be made, by the stronger right, in favor of the vow — as we shall prove at length in its proper place.

VIII. Question III. Is a vow extorted by fear valid? Response. The distinction of fear has already often been explained. For one fear is grave, falling upon a steadfast man; another is light. Grave fear can arise from within: say, from illness, from a storm, from death feared from a wild beast, from an imminent shipwreck. This fear is called intrinsic, because, although the danger that excites the fear is external, it in no way compels the making of the vow; the one vowing is moved by himself to make the vow. Another fear is called extrinsic, which arises from an external cause that compels; and this again is twofold, one justly, the other unjustly instilled in order to extort the vow. Wherefore the one vowing, struck by such fear, chooses the vow as the only means of turning aside the danger that threatens him. These things being laid down, authors by common consent assert that the vow is valid, both by the law of nature and by positive law, when it arises from a grave fear that is intrinsic: because then the one vowing is compelled by no one but himself, and of his own accord and freely chooses the vow as a fit means of escaping the danger. All vows, therefore, made to avoid shipwreck, illness, or death threatening either from a wild beast or from an enemy, are valid. Indeed, even vows elicited on account of a fear instilled from without, but not in order to extort the vow, are valid. For example: you have offended your neighbour; he threatens you with death in revenge; you make a vow to escape death. The vow is valid, because you made the vow with no one compelling you to it. Likewise valid is the vow you elicit in order to avoid the death, or the danger of harm, with which the brother of the girl whom you deflowered threatens you. For although such fear is unjustly instilled from without, it does not tend to extort a vow, but to take revenge; and you, to withdraw yourself from the danger, make the vow of your own accord and freely. The same must be said when the fear comes from without, but is justly brought to bear in order to extort the vow. Because, when the fear is just, the one vowing is unwilling unreasonably; and consequently the consent is justly extorted, and the one vowing is justly compelled to the vow: the whole of the coercion and necessity comes from the one vowing himself, who unjustly refuses to make the vow. Finally, neither does light fear make a vow void, as all commonly admit, because it impairs free consent but little and lightly. And this is certain among all authors.

IX. The whole difficulty, therefore, turns on this: whether a vow is valid that proceeds from grave fear brought to bear from without in order to extort the vow itself. It is agreed almost among all that by the law of nature even such a vow is valid, supposing that the man, though unjustly coerced, truly and sincerely wills the vow and actually makes it: for without the will and deliberation of the one vowing a vow is null, as we said in its place. But if he truly and deliberately wills it, although coerced by unjust fear, the vow is valid by the law of nature: because such external coercion, although it diminishes the voluntary, nevertheless does not take it away, but leaves it absolutely, so far as it suffices for merit and demerit; as is plain in the martyr, who, if under examination he denied the faith out of fear unjustly instilled by a tyrant, would sin mortally. External coercion, therefore, does not take away liberty, though it diminishes it. Much less does an injury inflicted by an unjust aggressor impair that same liberty. For this injury leaves to the one who promised only the right not to be bound to render what he pledged to the invader; but not the right to be freed from the obligation of keeping and fulfilling the faith given to God. The Angelic Doctor explains all this clearly, II-II, q. 89, art. 7, ad 3, speaking thus: In an oath which someone makes under coercion, there is a twofold obligation. One by which he is bound to the man to whom he promises something; and such an obligation is taken away by the coercion. . . . The other is the obligation by which he is bound to God, to fulfil what he has promised in His name; and such an obligation is not taken away in the forum of conscience: because he ought rather to suffer temporal loss than violate his oath. The theologians, both of the household and from without, commonly subscribe to the doctrine of St. Thomas: Sánchez, Lessius, Azor, Palaus, Trullench, and others.

X. The dissent of the theologians comes down to ecclesiastical law. Although, even with this in view, if the discourse is of the solemn vow made in the profession of religion, all affirm that such a vow is null: because the laws speak openly of this vow, and declare that it is made void: chapter Perlatum, Bk. I, tit. 40, on what is done by force or for fear; chapter Sicut qui monasterium, causa 20, q. 1; and chapter Praesens, causa 20, q. 3; and expressly the Synod of Trent, sess. 25, ch. 17, on reform: Let a girl who wishes to take the regular habit . . . not take it beforehand, nor afterwards . . . make profession before the Bishop has diligently examined . . . the will of the virgin, whether she has been coerced, whether seduced, whether she knows what she is doing.

XI. Concerning other vows there are two opinions. The first maintains that other vows are valid: because the laws do not speak of the other vows; and on the other side the making void of a vow is odious, since it derogates from the natural law, in respect of which the vow is valid. When, therefore, no plain text occurs in the law declaring the aforesaid vows null, we ought to defend them as valid. But no such text is in fact found. Therefore these vows are valid, even with ecclesiastical law in view. And this opinion is defended by Sylvester, s.v. Metus, 8, at the end, and s.v. Votum, 2, q. 12; Pontius, On Marriage, Bk. III, ch. 19, n. 9; Suárez, Bk. II, ch. 8, n. 5. The contrary opinion, namely that such vows are null and void, is defended by many authors, who contend that this was declared in the chapter Cum locum, on betrothals, where it is said: Since consent has no place where fear or coercion intervenes; and in the chapter Ad audientiam, and the chapter Perlatum. These texts, they say, though they do not speak expressly of these vows, are nevertheless extended to the vows recounted, by the common interpretation of the jurists and the custom of the Church. Soto, Bk. VII, q. 2, art. 1, in the solution to the 1st and 2nd; Trullench, Bk. II, ch. 2; Bartholomew of St. Faustus, Bk. I of the Thesaurus, q. 111; Prado, ch. 31, q. 5, n. 4; Sánchez, Bk. IV, ch. 3, n. 11; Lessius, Bk. II, ch. 40, dub. 3, n. 18.

XII. It is difficult to pass judgment for either of these opinions. The authors themselves who disagree judge both to be probable. The former, if reason alone is regarded, seems to rest on the firmer foundation. For all the laws alleged speak expressly either of the solemn vows of monastic profession, or of betrothals and matrimony. Why is it that they do not speak universally? Why is it that they restrict their declarations to the two aforesaid kinds of promises? Certainly it seems to be very clearly drawn from the written law that only solemn vows and matrimony are excepted, while the rest are left under the common law. Since, then, the universal law of nature declares these vows valid, on this side this opinion appears the more probable. Moreover, the very reason which the authors of the contrary opinion put forward tells against them. They rely on the examples of matrimony and of monastic profession: because, they say, the reason of all vows is the same. Granted: and in fact by the law of nature all are valid. But if the Church expressly excepts two only from the burden of the obligation, it is legitimately inferred that the rest are not excepted from the law of nature. This reason, which asserts that the condition of all vows is the same, was known to the makers of ecclesiastical law; and nonetheless they excepted only monastic vows and matrimony. Why, then, did they make no mention of the other vows as well? To what they add afterwards, that by the custom of the Church these vows have been declared null, we reply that if such a custom exists, we readily admit that the aforesaid vows are null. But no document of this custom is brought forward. Therefore in such cases, when they occur, it is safer, and to us more probable, that a dispensation should be obtained.