Chapter VII — On the power of masters over the vows of servants

I. A distinction must be drawn between household staff and slaves. "Household staff" are called those who, hired for a set wage, serve their masters, being otherwise their own masters, or constituted under paternal power, or that of a guardian. Their vows do not depend on their masters' will, but are firm, and ratified, no regard being had to the masters' will. Masters can only suspend the vows of household staff, if these impede the service owed them; and the servants themselves can either defer the execution, or leave their masters. Of these, then, there is no discussion at present.

II. Slaves, properly received, are chattels reduced into slavery. These slaves enjoy no liberty; and therefore we inquire concerning their vows. The first opinion contends that all the vows of slaves are subject to invalidation, which can be established from the law "The final," on promises, where it is said: "For a son of the family, or a slave, without his father's, or master's, authority..." St. Thomas seems to concede to this same opinion (Bk. IV, dist. 38, q. 1, art. 1, qc. ult., ad 3): "A slave, indeed, is not obliged by his own authority — for he does not have any time exempt from his master's service, and therefore no time is free to him in which he might do whatever he likes. And because every vow must be fulfilled within some time, therefore, just as a slave, so too a Religious cannot make any vow without the consent of his superior."

III. The second opinion maintains that no vows of slaves can be directly invalidated by masters. Since, although the bodies of slaves are subject to their masters, their souls are nonetheless not subject to their dominion. Nonetheless, masters can indirectly invalidate the vows of slaves, insofar as these can interfere with the homage and service owed to themselves.

IV. The third opinion teaches that masters can invalidate all the vows of slaves, the vow of chastity excepted — since all vows, except the vow of chastity, need some interval of time for their execution.

V. Let me dispatch this matter in a few words. A master has the right to slavery, and homage, to be rendered by the slave to himself. A master can invalidate all those vows which impede this. The reason is evident: he has the right that the offices of slavery be rendered to him by the slave. Those vows, then, which are repugnant to this right, are subject to invalidation, since they are subject to the master's dominion. The Angelic Doctor teaches this (II-II, q. 104, art. 5, in the body), where he has this: "Man is bound to obey man in those things which are to be done exteriorly by the body; in these, as regards the nature of the body, man is subject to man, as when servile works are performed. But man is not bound to obey another man in those things which pertain to the nature of the body, but is bound only to obey God — because all men are naturally equal, as, for instance, in those things which pertain to the sustenance of the body, and the procreation of children. Whence slaves are not bound to their masters, nor sons to their parents, to obey them in the matter of contracting marriage, or of preserving virginity, or in anything else of this kind. But in those things which pertain to the disposition of human acts and affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior according to the ground of the superiority — as a soldier to the leader of the army in matters that pertain to war; a slave to his master in matters that pertain to the performance of servile works; a son to his father in matters that pertain to the discipline of life, and domestic care; and so on for others." In these last words the Angelic Doctor gives a universal teaching applicable to all who are subject to a superior's power, and teaches that the vows of those who are subject to superiors are valid, whenever they do not interfere with the right owed by rendering [service]. St. Thomas's opinion is subscribed to by Sotus (Bk. VII, on justice, q. 3, art. 1, ad 1), Navarrus (in the Manual, ch. 12, n. 64), Suárez (Vol. II, on Religion, Bk. III, on vows, ch. 7, n. 19, and Bk. VI, ch. 3, n. 1), Azor (Bk. XI, ch. 16, q. 8), Sayr (Bk. VI, Clavis Regia, ch. 5, n. 7), Lessius (Bk. II, ch. 40, dub. 10, n. 81), Valentia (II-II, q. 88, disp. 6, q. 6, punct. 6), Bonacina (disp. 4, q. 2, punct. 7, §1, n. 7), Prado (ch. 31, q. 13, n. 89), Tamburini (Bk. III, ch. 16, §3, n. 45), Leander (tract. 1, disp. 16, q. 151), Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 36, n. 2), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 17, ch. 2, punct. 7, n. 63), and several others.

V (cont). It is customarily disputed whether this invalidation of vows is to be called direct, or indirect. But the disagreement is of no importance. Since, according to the various notions which each person fashions for himself, he defends a different opinion. As seems more likely to me, it ought rather to be called indirect invalidation — since masters have no dominion over the will of slaves, but only over their matter, or their bodily operations subject to the vow. But there is no need to discuss this at greater length.

VI. Masters, then, cannot invalidate the vows of chastity, of prayers, or of fasts of their slaves, which do not interfere with the service owed; nor vows concerning the observance of divine and ecclesiastical precepts; nor vows to disburse alms from goods over which the slaves have dominion; nor vows made at the time of slavery, but to be fulfilled after liberty has been obtained; nor, finally, vows made before slavery, but only these can they suspend. What is to be said of the master's wife? If the slave belongs to the master's wife, over whom she has not only dominion, but also administration, and if he pertains to her paraphernal goods, she can invalidate the vows of the slaves in the same manner as the husband. Wives of masters, however, cannot absolutely invalidate the vows of slaves, since they exercise only the governance of the household belonging to their husband, who alone can invalidate the vows of slaves for this reason: that they are inconvenient to this governance.

VII. Sons of the family who have slaves as goods pertaining to their military allowance, over which they have both dominion and administration, can invalidate their vows, since they are true and absolute masters — provided, however, the sons of the family are pubescent. It must be judged otherwise, if the slaves pertain to the professional allowance; for then only the father, who has dominion and administration of such an allowance, can invalidate their vows. If, however, the slaves pertain to the acquired allowance, then too the father alone can invalidate their vows, and the son, since he is master, if the vow is against the dominion: in which case both the father, as administrator, and the son, as master, will be able to dissolve the vows of the slaves' dominion of such an allowance. A ward, and a minor, if he lacks a guardian and curator, cannot invalidate the vows of slaves; it must be judged otherwise, if he has a guardian or curator.