Chapter XVI — On the commutation of vows by force of the jubilee, or of the crusade bull

I. Although the crusade bull, as it is called, does not at all obtain in many kingdoms, nonetheless, since nearly the same difficulties occur to be untangled concerning it as concerning the jubilee, we, inquiring what Confessors can do in the commutation of vows by force of the jubilee, will also mention the crusade bull, though we shall speak of it only in passing. The clause which is contained in the jubilee bull concerning the commutation of vows is this: "And whatsoever vows made by them (captivity and religious life alone excepted) may be commuted into other works of piety." The faculty, however, which is granted in the crusade bull is of this kind: "And all their vows (excepting those of an overseas expedition, of chastity, and of religious life) may be commuted by the same Confessor." As is clear from the diversity of the two clauses, the faculty granted in the jubilee is ampler than in the crusade bull. For in this latter, besides the vows of chastity and religious life, the vow of pilgrimage overseas is also excepted, and the faculty of commuting is restricted to some aid for this crusade expedition to be undertaken; which restriction is absent from the jubilee, by virtue of which commutation can be made into any works of piety whatsoever. In the jubilee, however, the faculty is granted of commuting the vows of the threefold pilgrimage, to Jerusalem, Rome, and Compostela. In the crusade bull, too, the faculty is restricted to commuting vows into some aid to be given for the holy war; which restriction is absent from the jubilee.

II. The vows of chastity and of religious life, which are excepted both in the bull and in the jubilee, are understood to be perfect and absolute vows, as has been said above. Wherefore vows of not marrying, of not fornicating, of conjugal chastity, of chastity for a limited time, are not understood to be reserved; nor are vows uttered under deceit, fear, or error. All such vows can be commuted by force of the bull, or of the jubilee, whether they were made before the promulgation of the jubilee, or after, or even in the hope of obtaining the commutation through the jubilee, as authors commonly teach.

III. Question I. Should the commutation be made within, or outside, confession? Response: Whoever has the faculty of commuting vows, whether by force of the crusade bull, or of the jubilee, or of privileges, can grant the benefit of commutation both within and outside confession. And the reason is clear: since the privileges which grant the faculty of commuting do not bind it to sacramental confession. Why, then, should such a faculty be limited by us to that confession alone? There is, then, no need for the Confessor to hear the confession of the one vowing, in order to be able licitly, and validly, to commute vows. This is the common opinion.

IV. Question II. Can commutation into a lesser matter be made by force of the jubilee, or of the bull? Response: Not a few affirm this, on the grounds that a privilege ought to effect something. It would effect nothing, however, unless the obligation could be changed into a lesser one — since anyone can commute his own vow, by his own authority, into an equal one. From what has been said above, it is established that this opinion is false. A privilege effects that a commutation into a morally equal good be made — which no one can accomplish by his own authority. For the rest, a privilege does not impart the faculty of making an unjust commutation, which by its own nature demands equality. It would, however, be unjust, if made into a lesser good.

V. Question III. Can the vows of religion and of chastity be commuted by force of the jubilee, or of the bull, necessity pressing? Response. This difficulty too has been disputed above. Those who maintain that Regulars can, by force of their privileges, dispense in the vow of chastity, necessity pressing, as the Bishop can, defend also that they can do it by force of the jubilee, or of the bull. This opinion we have disapproved, and now too we reject it, denying that, even with necessity pressing, the reserved vows of chastity or of religion can be commuted by force of the jubilee.

VI. Question IV. Can a vow, or oath, of disbursing alms to a determinate poor person, or Church, be commuted by virtue of the jubilee, or of the crusade bull, after that poor person's, or that Church's, acceptance? Response: Leander (tract. 1, disp. 18, q. 21), Trullench (Bk. I, ch. 3, dub. 8), Tamburini (Bk. II, on the Decalogue, ch. 16, §5) teach that it is probable that this can be done — since all vows are uttered to God as their principal end; but they are directed toward the poor person, or the Church, as toward a less principal, or secondary, end. Therefore, just as a vow directed toward God alone can be commuted, by one's own will, into something better, so too a vow which redounds to the greater benefit of the poor person, or of the Church, can be commuted. This opinion, however, we reject as improbable — since the poor person, or the Church, after acceptance of the promise confirmed by vow or oath, acquires a right to the thing promised. Now no privilege granting the faculty of commuting vows at the same time grants the power of injuring justice, or a third party's right. Before the vow is accepted, it can be commuted, since the poor person does not yet have a right to the goods promised. But, acceptance having followed, the promise given can in no way be broken without that party's consent. And this is the common, and true, opinion.

VII. Question V. Can one who has once gained a jubilee obtain a subsequent commutation of vows? Response: In the crusade bull it is expressly defined that they can be obtained only while the grace granted in it is in force; not so, once it has expired. In the jubilee the matter is not defined. Therefore, one who has gained it, if he did not make use of it, being perhaps forgetful of it, can, once it has elapsed, still obtain the commutation of his vows — just as he can obtain absolution from reserved cases, even after the jubilee has passed, which he gained at the due time, as Sánchez teaches (Bk. IV, ch. 45, n. 36), Leander (tract. 5, disp. 14, q. 98), Henríquez (Bk. III...), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 17, ch. 3, n. 14). But as for one who, even deliberately, and knowing it, omitted to seek the commutation of his vows, can he, the jubilee having passed, obtain the same commutation? This seems difficult to me — for one who, with deliberate mind, disdains to receive favors granted for a definite time by the Prince, is scarcely worthy to receive them at his own pleasure afterward. But this scarcely occurs in fact.

VIII. Question VI. If someone, at the beginning of the week the jubilee is published, took care to have his vows commuted, with the intention of gaining the jubilee, but afterward, either through negligence, or forgetfulness, omitted the works necessary for gaining the jubilee, and thus did not at all obtain it — does such a commutation stand? Response: If someone, in good faith, obtained an absolute commutation of vows, cut off from every condition, I would reckon it valid. For indeed I can discover nothing that stands against its validity — since it can be done outside confession by one who has the authority. In the one vowing, too, a disposition of mind ready to gain the jubilee was present. Now the obligation to gain the jubilee, once extinguished... , is presumed to have ceased. Once extinguished, then, it never revives. If, however, the commutation was conditional, and the effect necessary for gaining the pious works was not obtained, it would be clear that the commutation was null — since it could not have effect, unless the condition was fulfilled. So Suárez (Bk. VI, ch. 15, n. 9), Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 45, n. 35), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 17, ch. 3, punct. 15, n. 138), and others. Sánchez, Diana, Trullench, and Bonacina add, as the aforesaid theologians of Salamanca report, that one does not sin mortally who, in good faith, obtained the commutation of vows with the intention of gaining the jubilee, even if he afterward, with deliberate mind, neglects the works necessary for obtaining it — which by no means is proven to my satisfaction. Since it can in no way be presumed that the Pontiff wills to impart the benefits by force of the jubilee to those who voluntarily disdain to receive that jubilee. Wherefore the foundation of the Fathers of Salamanca, writing that it does not stand with the Pontiff's intention to oblige to this, collapses. Indeed, we add that it is clear enough to anyone judging prudently, according to the laws, that it is the Pontiff's intention to deny his benefits to all who disdain them.

IX. Question VII. Does a Confessor sin, who, being petitioned, refuses to commute vows during the time of the jubilee? Response: If he had a just cause for denying the commutation, he commits no fault at all. If, without cause, he refuses one petitioning him for the commutation of vows, he sins, more or less according to the variety of circumstances.

X. Many other points that might be disputed on this matter we refer to the treatise on the jubilee, to be discussed and resolved there.