Chapter IV — On the power which Prelates of Regulars have to invalidate the vows of their subjects

I. The common notion of invalidation having been dispensed with, I approach the declaration of particular invalidations. I will dispatch everything in a few words. From what has been said, it is established that regular Prelates can invalidate the vows of their subjects. Theologians dispute, however, whether all the vows of subjects, both internal and external, are subject to the power of Prelates; and who those Prelates are who possess the faculty of invalidating vows. I therefore propose the following little questions for resolution.

II. Question I. Can internal vows of Regulars, which disturb neither the government, nor the observance of religious life, be invalidated by their Prelates? Response: Several authors deny this. Cajetan (II-II, q. 88, art. 3, and q. 104, art. 5), Prado (ch. 31, q. 13, n. 31), Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 23, n. 6), Lessius (Bk. II, ch. 40, dub. 13, n. 39), Castropalao (disp. 2, punct. 5, n. 1), Armilla (s.v. Votum), Sylvester (s.v. Votum, 3, q. 3, at the end), and others. They seek to prove this opinion by the authority of St. Thomas — for he has this (II-II, q. 104, art. 5, in the body): "In those things which pertain to the interior movement of the will, man is not bound to obey man, but God alone." He impresses this same doctrine more forcefully in his reply to the second objection: "Man is subject to God simply, as regards all things, both interior and exterior; and therefore he is bound to obey him in all things. Subjects, however, are not subject to their superiors as regards all things, but only as regards certain determinate matters." From this teaching, the reason is evident which shows this opinion to be true. Since regular Prelates possess dominating power over their subjects only insofar as they regard the observance of the Rule, and the governance of the order; and if they do not fully hold dominion over them, in things to which subjects are not subject to their Prelates, they lack this power of invalidating the internal vows of Religious. It seems plain, then, that Prelates can invalidate vows in those matters which fall under their governance, but not in those which touch neither the observance of the Rule, nor the government of the religious order.

III. The other opinion maintains that Prelates of Regulars can directly invalidate all the vows of their subjects, both internal and external. This is defended by Sotus (on justice and law, Bk. VII, q. 3, art. 4, dub. 2), Suárez (Bk. VI, ch. 24, n. 40; Vol. V, on Part III, disp. 4, sect. 2, n. 8; likewise Vol. V, on Religion, Bk. III, on vows, ch. 7, n. 5 and 9; also on the religious state, Bk. VII, ch. 7, n. 8), Prado (ch. 31, q. 13, §2), Bonacina (disp. 4, q. 2, punct. 7, §1, n. 26), Valentia (disp. 7, punct. 6, q. 5), Azor (Bk. XI, ch. 17, q. 16, and n. 17), Vázquez (I-II, disp. 160, ch. 4, n. 17), Tamburini (on law, Vol. III, disp. 18, q. 4, n. 6 and 12), Layman (Bk. IV, tract. 4, ch. 7, n. 6, concl. 1), Leander (tract. 1, disp. 21, q. 24), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 17, ch. 2, punct. 4, n. 37), and many others. St. Thomas too seems to concede this same opinion (II-II, q. 88, art. 8, ad 1): "No vow of a Religious is firm, unless it is by the consent of the Prelate." This is indeed true, in this sense: that Prelates cannot either increase or diminish the vows of their subjects, nor prescribe anything beyond, or against, the Rule; nor can they in any way impose new burdens on themselves, since a subject is bound to the observance of the Rule by his solemn vow. Yet more easily can they render a subject unfit to fulfill these new burdens, which are dedicated to God, if these render him unfit to fulfill what the Rule prescribes. A Religious can elicit very many internal vows — of eliciting so many acts of divine love each day, so many of faith, and as many of hope, of reciting lengthy prayers, of genuflecting, and the like — all of which can, on account of the harm to his health, and the toll such vows may take, impede a Religious from properly discharging his Rule. Since, then, a Religious, by virtue of his profession, is subject to the power of his Prelates, being wholly dedicated to God, he is subject to them even in this — that he cannot make firm vows, unless the consent to be obtained from the Prelates is taken into account.

IV. This opinion is more probable, indeed true. From this, what the first opinion alleges for itself is resolved. For it is true, what St. Thomas teaches, that a Religious is not subject to his Prelates as regards all things. It does not follow from this, however, that he is not subject as regards the making of vows. Subjects are subject to their superiors as regards certain determinate matters, says the Angelic Doctor — that is, as regards those things which are prescribed in the Rule and the Constitutions, and which are annexed to them. The sense of all this is that a Prelate cannot compel a subject to obey him in those things which are neither prescribed in the Rule, nor conduce in any way to the observance of the Rule. Not to belabor the point: a Prelate cannot, at his own whim and pleasure, oblige subjects to carry out things that exceed the bounds of the profession made. Similarly, it is said that the Church does not have direct power over internal acts, insofar as it prescribes or forbids something purely internal. Nonetheless, it by no means follows from this that she does not have the faculty of freeing subjects from some obligation, even an internal one. This invalidation of vows is not a burden, but a liberation, which the Prelate can grant, since... it looks to the good and benefit of that same subject. And although vows may be internal, the execution of vows, even internal ones, nonetheless can bring prejudice to the exterior discipline of the subject. This is established from what we have said. Our own opinion, then, is that a Prelate can invalidate any vows whatsoever of his subjects. Before, however, they are invalidated, the subject ought to observe them, since they are valid, according to what we have taught above, ch. 1, q. 1; and only when the cause is known can the Prelate invalidate the vows.

V. Certain vows, however, are excepted, which cannot be invalidated by Prelates — such as those which constitute a state, whether simple or solemn. For this reason, vows which are made in certain Orders — such as the vow of the Minims to abstain from meat, the vow of the Mercedarians to redeem captives, the four or five vows of the Jesuits beyond the three solemn ones — are in no way subject to the invalidation of Prelates. The vow, too, of transferring to a stricter religious order is not subject to the power of superiors; indeed, not even the Supreme Pontiff can invalidate such a vow of transferring to a stricter one, as theologians commonly teach — since, as Pontiff, he has no power at all of invalidating, but only as the supreme Prelate of all Religious. But as Prelate he cannot invalidate these vows, just as other Prelates cannot. If you wish more, read Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 33, n. 13).

VI. Question II. Which Prelates of Regulars have this faculty? Response: All superiors who possess ordinary power have the power of invalidating the vows of subjects — such as Generals in the whole Order, Provincials in the whole province, and Superiors, or Priors, of particular Convents or houses, who can invalidate the vows of all subjects, even guests remaining beyond a day there.

VII. Question III. Can Legates a latere, and the Congregation of Cardinals, invalidate the vows of Religious? Response: Concerning Legates a latere, Prado affirms this (ch. 31, q. 13, §1, n. 51). Concerning the Congregation of Cardinals on the discipline of Regulars, several teach the same. But it is more probable that neither Legates a latere, nor the Congregation of Cardinals, possess this power. Since they have only the power of jurisdiction over Religious, not dominative power. And although the Supreme Pontiff could delegate this power to them, it is by no means established that it has really been delegated to them. For the rest, in these matters practice must be followed. For if the aforesaid Legates and Congregations did invalidate vows, it would have to be said that the Pontiff had delegated such power to them. It is agreed among almost all, however, that Cardinal Protectors do not have this power.

VIII. Question IV. Do Prelates, or secondary Superiors, whom they are accustomed to call Sub-priors, Vicars, Proctors, and, among Monks, Priors, possess this power of invalidating vows? Response: The common opinion teaches that, when the primary Prelates are present, these secondary Prelates enjoy no power of invalidating vows — since they are then mere coadjutors of the Prelates, and hold no dominion over the subjects. On the contrary, in the absence of the major Prelates, they succeed to their office, and become true Superiors of the subjects, who are bound, by virtue of their vow, to obey them as subjects, and to carry out their precepts. In order, however, for these secondary Superiors to enjoy this power, it is required that the primary Prelates be truly absent. For if they leave the house, to return the same day, or if they are absent for a short time within the same day, this, in common understanding, is not a true absence. Commonly, when they are absent from the Convents for one or another entire natural day, they are understood to be truly absent; and then the secondary Superiors truly possess the power dominant over the subjects, and can invalidate their vows, and impose precepts by right. All this is common ground among authors.

IX. Question V. Can Abbesses, or Prioresses of Nuns, invalidate the vows of their Nuns? Response: Some contend that they can invalidate only those vows which interfere with governance — since they possess only political and domestic power in relation to the household government; not so other vows which do not oppose the exterior government directly. The common opinion, however, defends the opposite — namely, that Abbesses and Prioresses can invalidate all those vows of their Nuns which Abbots and Priors, or Prelates in their Convents, can invalidate — because holy Nuns, no less than Religious men, vow obedience, and are bound to render it to their Abbesses and Prioresses, not only in domestic and political matters, but also, indeed chiefly, in those which concern the spiritual profession of souls. Prado (ch. 31, q. 13, §2, n. 44), Bonacina (disp. 4, q. 2, punct. 7, n. 26), Trullench (Bk. II, ch. 2, dub. 3), Lezana (Vol. II, s.v. Votum), Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 33, n. 19), Lessius (on justice, Bk. II, ch. 40, dub. 13, n. 105), Suárez (Bk. VI, ch. 7), Candido (disp. 25, art. 3, dub. 4), Raphael de la Torre (II-II, q. 88, art. 9, disp. 1, n. 6), Ascanio Tamburini (on law, Bk. III, disp. 32, q. 6), Pellizzari (Vol. II, tract. 10, ch. 7), Garzias (Vol. II, tract. 10, diff. 6, dub. 3, punct. 1, n. 10), Tamburini (on the Decalogue, Bk. III, ch. 16, §3, n. 31), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 17, ch. 2, punct. 3, n. 12), and others.

X. Question VI. Can Prelates of Regulars invalidate the vows of Novices? Response: All commonly deny this. Novices, before they make profession, are their own masters, and neither the Prelates, nor their Masters who most directly bear their charge, hold any dominating power over them. They can, however, impede personal vows which interfere with the exercises and governance of the Novitiate; nor are Novices bound to fulfill such vows. Prelates, or Masters, can also suspend, by right, those vows which excessively burden Novices, for the time of the Novitiate. If, however, Novices, having left religious life, return to the world, the vows revive, and they are bound to fulfill them. Real vows which neither impede the administration, or governance, of the religious order, nor greatly burden the Novices — such as vows to disburse alms, and to dispose of their own goods — Prelates have no faculty either to invalidate or to suspend, or to impede.

[continuing] These vows, however, whether real or personal, can be commuted by the Prelates into other pious burdens. And this commutation would cease, if the Novice should leave the religious order — since the commutation made is deemed to be only for the time of the Novitiate. All this is common ground. As for dispensation, however, it is agreed among theologians that the faculty of dispensing from such vows of Novices belongs to the Prelates, since they possess ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them.