Chapter XI — On the power of Prelates of Regulars, and of Confessors, in dispensing the vows of secular persons

I. We undertake to handle an exceedingly tangled matter. The man who first called into dispute the moral question of whether Regulars have the faculty of dispensing in the vows of secular persons is not... Treatises on privileges reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, in which power to dispense ordinarily in all these matters an Episcopus can, by his own [jurisdiction, over his own subjects].

This opinion — namely, that Regulars can dispense in the aforesaid vows — is defended, as though set almost beyond all controversy, by the authors commonly to be cited: Sánchez (on the Decalogue, Bk. IV, ch. 43, n. 5), Rodríguez (Vol. I, Regular Questions, q. 63, art. 3), Miranda (Vol. I, q. 8, art. 3), Aragón (II-II, q. 88, art. 11, concl. 8), Ludovico López (Part 1, ch. 1), Sayr (Bk. VI, ch. 11, dub. 17), Lessius (Bk. II, ch. 2, dub. 5, n. 1), Tamburini (Bk. III, ch. 16, n. 46), Pellizzari (Manual of the Regular Rule, tract. 8, ch. 3), Fagundez (Bk. II, on the Decalogue, ch. 41, n. 11), Machado (Vol. IV, tract. 3, doc. 1, n. 1), Bartolomeo a San Fausto (Bk. III, Thesaurus, art. 95, in Clavis), Castropalao (tract. 15, disp. 2, punct. 13, n. 3), Trullench (Bk. II, q. 173), Candido (unique disp., dub. 1), John de la Cruz (Bk. II, ch. 6, dub. 8, concl. 2), Villalobos (Vol. II, tract. 34, diff. 29, n. 1), Mendo (disp. 26, on the crusade bull, ch. 2, n. 30), Bassaeus (s.v. Votum, 7, n. 10), Quintanadueñas (Vol. II, tract. 5, singul. 19, n. 2), Martín a San José (on the Rule of St. Francis), Diana (tract. 6, Part VI, resol. 50), Leander (tract. 2, disp. 3, sect. 3, and tract. 17, disp. 3, sect. 2, q. 135), Antonio a Spiritu Santo (in the Directorium of the Regular Rule, tract. 2, n. 80), Patritius Sporer (tract. 3, on the 2nd precept of the Decalogue, ch. 2, n. 30), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 17, ch. 2, punct. 11, n. 94), Vidal (on vows, inquiry 31, n. 77), La Croix (Bk. III, part 2, q. 130), Henrique a San Ignacio (Vol. II, Bk. X, ch. 28), Constantino Roncaglia (tract. 8, on the 2nd precept, ch. 4, q. 9, resol. 2), and other authors commonly.

II. They allege many privileges in confirmation of their own opinion. The first is that of Innocent VIII, who, they say, granted the Mendicants the power to dispense in all vows in which Bishops can, excepting vows of pilgrimage beyond two days' journey. Now two days' journey is twenty leagues, according to Rebuffi, on privileges, Scholastic Privilege 161. This privilege, says Leander, is reported by Rodríguez, Tomás Sánchez, Basilio of León, Tamburini, and other Doctors commonly. One would have believed that the aforesaid authors would report the words of the Bull itself, and the place where it is preserved. But they do not produce a single word of the Bull; rather, they merely cite it in exactly the same manner as Leander himself does. Rodríguez alone reports the words of certain bulls, from a compendium of the privileges of the Mendicants.

III. The second privilege is that of Martin V, who granted the Benedictines the power to dispense in all vows, even those reserved to the Bishop. Eugene IV granted this same thing to the Congregation of St. Justina, in the bull "Etsi quoslibet," etc., and to the Cistercians of the regular observance in the kingdom of Castile, in the bull "Commissum," 22, in Rodríguez. Leo X granted the same to the Benedictines of Monte Oliveto, and to the Camaldolese, in the bull "Etsi a summa." Paul III granted it to the Fathers of the Society, in the bull "Cum inter cunctas," 7, in Rodríguez — privileges which Gregory XIII also extended to sworn vows. Likewise Sixtus IV in the bull "Ad universalis," 12, and Paul IV in the bull "Ex clementi," 5, in Rodríguez and Cherubini.

IV. These privileges are reported by Henrique a San Ignacio, following other authors. This author has shown himself too easy in his accounts, and, with no examination undertaken beforehand, presents the aforesaid privileges to his readers just as they came to him from others. But all these are either suspect, not to say plainly apocryphal, or altogether diminished — that is, they do not grant the faculty of dispensing, but only of commuting vows. It is worth undertaking an examination of these.

V. As I have indicated, more recent theologians present the reported privileges as though subject to no doubt at all. The first, and almost the only ones, who brought them forward as documents, are Lezana, Martínez de Prado, and Passerini. Prado (Vol. II, ch. 31, on vows, q. 14, §2, n. 79) himself, having reported these privileges here, thus concludes: shown, suspected, apocryphal. Therefore, in a matter of such importance, I would prefer that this power be undoubted; or that it be established with such probability, that it could be practiced without scruple. In the meantime, I would advise that we make use only of the faculty of commuting vows, and abstain from the use of the power of dispensing in vows, which does not exist, or is not established with certain conjectures, except with limitations.

VI. This most learned, cautious, and prudent theologian, however, Leander charges with excessive scrupulosity, who, in disp. 17, q. 135, after reporting the bulls, cites the authors, and copies their words, and adds this: "But he is certainly too scrupulous about the probability of the opposite: for he trembles to fear where there is no fear, as will be evidently established." To dismiss further fears, then, he too gives a fairly lengthy account. But Prado insists that the fear about them is not sufficiently allayed for him. To this Leander responds thus: "But what, because it is not established for you concerning the truth of these bulls of the Pontiffs which are cited, must one abstain from the faculty of dispensing? This would be true, if it were not established even for other most learned men, most versed in the matter of privileges. But it is established, as we have seen. Let Prado, then, believe this — as I most gladly believe, and hold most firmly — that the said Regulars can dispense in all vows," etc.

VII. Anyone would be persuaded that Leander, speaking so confidently, had brought forward testimonies so clear that Prado, and all the others, would be compelled to give them full credence. And yet he offers nothing beyond citations of authors, who, mutually accepting each other's assertions on trust, produce a very large number of witnesses who, in a matter of fact, have no authority at all — although scarcely a single one shows that he has seriously examined the bulls himself... Scarcely one of these most learned men shows that he has seriously weighed the bulls himself; but one has cited the same things from another. Wherefore one need not much wonder at the audacity of Leander, who rebukes Prado for laboring, with a rare and pointless scrupulosity, to obscure all the privileges which the Mendicants enjoy concerning the dispensing of the vows of secular persons. It was Leander's task to shed some light, and to bring illumination, so as to dispel the darkness which Prado sought to cast over the privileges of the Mendicants. For that cloud of Casuists does not suffice to illustrate the truth of the matter, unless legitimate documents are produced that establish what is in dispute. But, setting aside these tedious trifles, let us come at once to the point, which alone suffices to make the matter clear.

VIII. Eugene IV, in the year 1436, in a constitution given at Bologna, whose beginning is "Etsi quoslibet," and which is found in the Cassinese Bullary of the Congregation of St. Benedict, and in the old Bullary of the Order of Preachers, granted this faculty to the reformed Monks in individual cases, according to the custom prescribed by the Rule: "Moreover, to commute all vows, and, in all matters, even those reserved to Ordinaries, whether by synodal or provincial constitutions, to dispense in every case — except censures, penalties, vows, and cases concerning which the Apostolic See ought rightly to be consulted." This privilege is what all the cited authors allege, to show that Regulars have the power of dispensing. And yet it is plain that Eugene IV grants only the faculty of commuting vows, and afterward, in reserved cases, of dispensing — as anyone reading the actual words of the cited constitution can confirm before his own healthy eyes. This Rodríguez himself openly admits (q. 63, art. 3), as do Lezana and Passerini, who examine the aforesaid words.

IX. Miranda was perhaps the first, as Passerini notes (Vol. II, q. 187, art. 3, inspect. 4), to amplify the aforesaid constitution. He says: "We are in a favorable matter; therefore the text is to be extended to dispensation." How feeble this reasoning is, no one fails to see. For, as the common axiom holds, bulls are worth only what they say. In another constitution, which the same Eugene IV granted to the same Benedictine Monks, whose beginning is "Regularem vitam" (9, in the Bullary of Cherubini), not a word is found that expresses the faculty of dispensing in vows, but only of dispensing in reserved cases. These are the words of the constitution: "And to dispense over all cases, except those sins and cases concerning which recourse must be had to their own Ordinaries by these same Confessors," etc. In this constitution, another constitution, "Etsi quoslibet," is also praised, and the same is more fully explained. It is evident, moreover, that the entire faculty granted is restricted to dispensing in cases, or censures — not so in vows.

X. Another privilege, they say, Eugene IV granted to the Benedictines of Valladolid, of dispensing in vows. Lezana says (Vol. I, ch. 19, n. 22) that it is not established whether this privilege was granted by some bull, or by a verbal decree. Passerini asserts that it was granted by a simple signature of a petition presented to the Pontiff. In the petition, however, this is found: "That they may lawfully and freely, by apostolic authority, dispense with them, and their [subjects], upon vows, even those reserved to the Bishop, and commute them into other works of piety, as often as it shall seem expedient to the devotion of the aforesaid persons." From this privilege nothing can be gathered in favor of the Mendicants. First, by Rodríguez's own admission, it is limited, and restricted to the Monastery of Valladolid, such that outside it vows can neither be commuted, nor dispensed, nor relaxed. For here is the restricting clause: "To the Confessors deputed, and appointed by the Prior, or President, of the Monastery of St. Benedict of Valladolid." Then, this privilege can be enjoyed only so long as they live according to the norm of regular observance, as Lezana (s.v. Votum, n. 22) and Passerini (n. 604) note. Whether it would be expedient to add a similar limitation to any privilege whatsoever, let others who are wiser judge.

XI. A similar privilege was granted by Sixtus IV in 1478 to the Vicar General of the reformed Congregation of the Order of Preachers in the kingdom of Castile. The constitution's beginning is "Sedes Apostolicae," to the Vicar General of the Order of Preachers, called of the Reformed. It is found in the recent Bullary of the Order, Vol. III. No faculty, however, is granted in this privilege of dispensing vows, but only of commuting them. Vows of pilgrimage, of abstinence, made by these faithful, which the local Ordinary, if present, could commute, and which the faithful themselves cannot conveniently fulfill, can, in the absence of the local Ordinary, be commuted into other works of piety. Then, as Passerini observes, at the urging of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Castile and León, this privilege was granted only to the Vicar General of the reformed, or observant, Congregation, as they call it. This custom of granting ecclesiastical privileges only to Regulars observing the Rule strictly is prudent, reasonable, and just, and altogether consonant with the original purpose for which privileges are granted. For privileges were first granted for this reason: that Regulars, most exact observers of their own profession, might illuminate the Church by the sanctity of their lives, and by their zeal for the eternal salvation of their neighbors. If these merits altogether ceased; if, in place of regular observance, an excessive laxity of morals crept in in some cases; if, in place of zeal and solicitude for the care of souls' salvation, scandals arose to the offense of Christians — should not all privileges, by the same right by which they were granted, be revoked and suspended, so that at least the harassment might give understanding, and this penalty might render the path to reform less difficult? So we think, for our own slight part. For nothing do we say against the truth, but all things for it. But more on this at length in its proper place. Let us now return to our path.

XII. The privilege which they say was granted by Innocent VIII to the Order of Minors is of no authority at all — both because it is a mere verbal decree, as Rodríguez, Lezana, and Passerini admit (who notes that Miranda himself, q. 48, art. 3, does not make much of this privilege), and because it does not extend to vows, but only to all matters reserved to Bishops.

XIII. Paul III, in the privilege granted to the Society of Jesus, imparts only the faculty of commuting. The constitution's beginning is "Cum inter cunctas... whatever vows made through them for the time being" — to commute into other works of piety. Gregory XIII, in his constitution "Decet Romanum," extends this same faculty to the Society: "We extend the faculty of commuting vows, even sworn ones, granted by the Apostolic See, provided such a commutation is not made to another's prejudice."

XIV. The other privileges commonly alleged — those of Martin V and Julius II — prove nothing at all. For those who report the privilege of Martin V confirm nothing whatsoever, nor do they extend it to commutation. And they add that the faculty is elsewhere granted to Priests, without producing any document to show that it is authentic. It is unknown whether it is a constitution, or a verbal decree. Indeed, no words at all are produced from which it could be gathered what faculty is granted. That of Julius II is a verbal grant, and grants nothing new, as Passerini observes (n. 603), but extends the privilege of Eugene IV, granted to the Monastery of Valladolid, to the whole Congregation. Passerini concludes (n. 604): "The privilege of Eugene IV, whatever Bassaeus may say, is altogether very restricted, in favor of the Benedictines of Spain, and can pertain to at most four Confessors... and this privilege can pertain to those Fathers only so long as they live in regular observance. And because those to whom common privileges are communicated ought not to be of better condition than those to whom they were originally granted, as the Rota considered (decis. 177, n. 14, Part 9); therefore, insofar as other Regulars share in this privilege, they cannot use it except with those three limitations — namely, that they themselves be of the number of those three or four who have been deputed to this by the superiors of their houses, and that they dispense only with those who resort to, or are found in, their churches or houses, and insofar as these Confessors themselves observe regular observance." For under these limitations was this faculty of dispensing in vows delegated to those Monks... , as may be seen at length in the said privilege. Lezana too reports this (s.v. Votum, n. 22). But I suspect, besides this, that in the said privilege the faculty of dispensing, properly and strictly, is not granted at all, but only that of dispensing by way of commutation.

XV. I have chosen to report all this at length, so that the reader may gather from it how uncertain those privileges are which authors allege, so as to assert as certain that Regulars have the power of dispensing in all vows not reserved to the Pope. Out of so great a multitude of authors who are cited for this opinion, there is scarcely one who examines the privileges seriously and on his own initiative, and adduces reasons by which he actually establishes that the faculty of dispensing in all vows not reserved to the Apostolic See has really been granted by the Supreme Pontiffs.

XVI. The opinion which grants Regulars the privilege of dispensing in all vows not reserved to the Supreme Pontiff is false. And this opinion appears improbable and false enough, first from what we have said — since the power of jurisdiction in the relaxation of vows ought by no means to rest on doubtful and uncertain privileges, but on certain and authentic documents. But no certain and authentic documents have yet been produced in favor of this same opinion. It must, therefore, be judged false.

XVII. Nor does a multitude of authors add probability in a matter of fact. For a multitude of "hearsay" witnesses in no way increases the force of proof — since, out of so many authors, there is no one who seriously discusses the controversy, or examines it; but one trusts the authority of another, and, like bird following bird, some follow others; and at last all defend themselves by their sheer number, as though a multitude could serve as patron to an error.

XVIII. But the argument which seems to me decisive for establishing the improbability of the aforesaid opinion is drawn from the constitution of BENEDICT XIII, whose beginning is "Pretiosus in conspectu Domini." In this constitution, the Supreme Pontiff confirms all the privileges granted by the Apostolic See to the Order of Preachers, and extends, declares, and amplifies the same with new grants. Yet, in laying down the rules which Confessors must observe in the relaxation of oaths and vows, he grants the faculty not of dispensing, but only of commuting vows. For he says (§22), recalling also that a great many privileges concerning absolution, and the relaxation of oaths, and the commutation of vows, had been granted by the Apostolic See to the Confessors of the aforesaid Order, as regards secular persons, and especially those pertaining to the aforementioned societies: "To remove, on this point, whatever doubts have arisen from the diversity of the times and circumstances, from the dispositions provided, from time to time, by the aforesaid See, and from the differing opinions of authors going off in different directions, we will that what is sanctioned in the aforesaid constitution of Clement VIII, beginning 'Quaecumque,' be inviolably observed by all, and with respect to any persons whatsoever." Now, in the whole of the cited constitution of Clement VIII, not a word is found — unless my eyes have deceived me — concerning the dispensation of vows.

XIX. He continues, declaring the faculty which he grants Confessors over the relaxation of vows, in these words: "We will, moreover, that what concerns the Apostolic dispensation which we grant to Confessors be well understood as follows" — and immediately he declares the faculty which the constitution grants concerning the relaxation of vows: "as we understand it, concerning persons enrolled in the aforesaid societies, we indulge, grant, and declare, with such benignity, that by Confessors of the Order of Preachers their oaths may be relaxed, and the vows of the Brothers and Confraternity-members of the Rosary, as we have said above, may be commuted, and absolved, and may this be lawful and valid, etc. But as regards other secular persons not enrolled in these societies, we grant to these same Confessors of the Order that they may absolve from cases, and from censures reserved to others by the aforesaid See, and COMMUTE their vows, and absolve oaths..., and this may be lawful and valid."

XX. The Supreme Pontiff, then, confirms all the privileges granted by the Apostolic See to the Order of Preachers, and amplifies them with new grants; nonetheless, he is entirely silent about the word "dispensation." Indeed, to remove all difficulties and doubts found among authors on this matter, the Pontiff declares, in express words, that he grants the faculty of commuting the vows of secular persons — from which constitution it is gathered not only that it is now certain that Regulars cannot dispense in the vows of secular persons, but it is also established that the privileges themselves, once granted by other Supreme Pontiffs, never gave Regulars such a faculty of dispensing in the vows of laymen. For it is not credible that BENEDICT XIII wished to restrict the privileges of his own Order at the very time he was declaring his wish to extend and amplify the same with new grants; nor does it matter that the bull "Pretiosus" has now become antiquated, since this abolition does not diminish, but rather increases, the force of the argument.

XXI. This opinion of ours is confirmed by Martínez de Prado (Vol. II, ch. 31, q. 14, §8, n. 79), Lezana (Vol. I, ch. 19, n. 22), Passerini (Vol. II, on the religious state, q. 187, art. 3, inspect. 4, n. 558 and following). These three authors are, on this question, of greater authority to me than all the others who are praised for the contrary opinion — since they revoked their earlier position, on the grounds that they saw no documents which the adversaries could produce as being seriously to their point, contrary to what all the others who are commonly cited proffer. For the rest, if these three most learned authors reckoned the contrary opinion doubtful, and consequently improbable, on account of the doubtful grounds on which it rested, there is no room for doubt that they, agreeing with us, would have rejected it as false after the publication of Benedict XIII's constitution.

XXII. The interpretation which the adversaries offer — contending that the word "relaxare" [to relax] means the same as "to dispense" — is neither true, nor consonant with their own teaching. For that word is indeed generic, and is commonly taken for any remission of a vow whatsoever, just as the theologians of Salamanca themselves admit (loc. cit., at the beginning of the chapter). Indeed, Passerini (loc. cit., n. 604) contends that even the word "dispensare" itself, in this matter, must be restricted to commutation. Since, however, dispensation... is well established... that it is a certain genus, comprehending commutation as well, and is placed, as it were, between genus and species — that when the word is used in a limiting sense (as in the present case), the meaning is understood declaratively, according to that rule which Barbosa gives, that it is granted to dispense, not in whatever manner, but by commuting vows into other works of piety. Whatever the truth of this subtle interpretation, it seems certain that "relaxare" does not, according to the common sense of theologians, precisely convey dispensation. Nor is there need for me to prolong this matter further, since, after the constitution of Benedict XIII, it is certain to me that Dominicans, and consequently the other Mendicants, cannot be certainly shown to relax the vows of secular persons, except by commuting them into other works of piety. I do not assert that Benedict XIII took away from Regulars the faculty of dispensing in vows; but I do assert, from his constitution, that it can be certainly gathered only that they can commute. Nor do I contend that such a power was never granted to them by the Supreme Pontiffs.

XXIII. This opinion of ours, besides resting on pontifical constitutions, is also consonant with reason, and quite agreeable to the prudent economy of ecclesiastical government. For that regular Confessors should not be altogether equal to Bishops in the power of jurisdiction over the relaxation of vows seems fitting enough. That afterward the merits of these same Regulars, both ancient and recent, should be adorned, and compensated, by privileges, is likewise equitable and just. All these things are best reconciled together, if the middle path of commutation is held. Nor, in writing this, am I moved by any lesser regard for Regulars; but I avoid only errors, laxities, and arbitrary inventions, lest their true and undoubted privileges be exposed to danger. If the art of criticism is exercised so severely in matters of slight or no weight, no less than the scholastic theology of some theologians — how much diligence ought to be applied in untangling this, and similar questions of the greatest importance, so that matters may be set in a good light! But of this we shall speak again in the treatise on penance.

XXIV. From all this it follows, first, that what the theologians of Salamanca teach is false (loc. cit., n. 95) — namely, that Regulars can dispense Religious of another Order as well, by virtue of the privileges of Eugene IV, since it is false that the aforesaid Pontiffs granted such things, as is read in the constitution of Sixtus IV — the same they contend. Second, it is likewise false what they add (n. 96) — that the faculty of Regulars in dispensing vows is, in a certain way, ampler than that of Bishops — since Regulars can relax the vows of all the faithful, coming to them from wherever, whereas Bishops can relax only the vows of their own subjects: although, on the other hand, the power of Bishops is greater, since they, in case of urgent necessity, can dispense even in reserved vows, which Regulars cannot — although, in n. 97, these same theologians of Salamanca improbably indicate that Regulars, too, can dispense even in reserved vows, necessity occurring, in the same manner that Bishops can dispense. All this, from what we have said above, is established to be false.