Chapter IX — To whom, by ordinary right, the power of dispensing in vows belongs

I. The dispensation of vows, which, as has been said, is a fruit not of order, but of spiritual jurisdiction, pertains to all, and only to, Prelates of the Church who have jurisdiction over subjects. Wherefore neither secular Princes, nor Abbesses, or Prioresses, nor Parish priests, nor simple Priests, possess the faculty of dispensing in vows — since they are not simply Prelates, nor do they have spiritual jurisdiction in the external forum.

II. This power can be delegated, or committed, to all Priests, and Clerics marked with the first tonsure, provided they are not married. For the power of dispensing is of jurisdiction, not of order. But because it is spiritual, and ecclesiastical, it can reside only in an ecclesiastical person. A Cleric adorned with the first tonsure is an ecclesiastical person; for he can indeed be made a Bishop's Vicar General, absolve from excommunication in the external forum, and inflict excommunication. A married Cleric, however, is not reckoned an ecclesiastical person, but only enjoys the privilege of the canon, under certain conditions, to be explained in their proper place; on this account this faculty of dispensing cannot be granted to a married Cleric, since the ecclesiastical laws can moderate, amplify, and restrict all these things according to the opportuneness of the times.

This power resides, first, and in general, in the Supreme Pontiff, as the supreme and universal Pastor of the Church, and as the Head, and Vicar of Christ, to whose office it is annexed by ordinary right; then, in Council, in the Pontiff's Nuncios with respect to a whole province or kingdom, in Archbishops, Bishops, in the Cathedral Chapter, the See being vacant, in those having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, in the Supreme Pontiff's Grand Penitentiary, in Legates a latere, and can, for a reasonable cause. The Supreme Pontiff, however, can also, all things reserved, [do so] with respect to Abbots and all Prelates of Regulars, over their subjects.

III. All these possess, by ordinary right, with... their subjects, both personal and real vows, the reserved ones excepted, of which more below. Cardinal Protectors of Orders, however, cannot, by ordinary right, dispense in vows — since, as such, they do not have jurisdiction over designated subjects.

IV. The vows of a community can be dispensed by the Bishop, if a just cause occurs, if the discussion concerns those who made the vows in a solemn manner. Successors, however, who did not vow, but who are bound to the vow, not by force of the vow itself, as has been said above, but only by the precept and law of the Bishop, can be dispensed at the same Bishop's discretion. Wherefore neither those vowing, nor the people, can, without consulting the Bishop, exempt themselves by right from the vows or oaths of a community.

V. Question. Can one who has the power of granting a dispensation from a vow to others also apply this same privilege to himself? Response: Our discussion is about all those whom we have established can, by ordinary right, dispense in vows with their subjects — whether they can likewise dispense with themselves. It is agreed among all that the Supreme Pontiff can, since he has no superior to whom he might have recourse — so that, just as he chooses a confessor for himself for the absolution of sins, so too he might confer upon that same confessor the power of dispensing with him in vows. Concerning other Prelates, there is disagreement among theologians.

VI. The theologians of Salamanca (tract. 17, ch. 2, punct. 9, n. 79) maintain that any Prelates who can dispense with others can use this same privilege with themselves. For this opinion they praise Sánchez, Bonacina, Bartolomeo a San Fausto, Fagundez, Tamburini, Azor, Rodríguez, Trullench, and Francisco Suárez. The matter is not of such weight that I should examine all these authors. As for Suárez, whose authority I always hold in great regard, he not only does not defend this opinion, but, in express words, teaches the opposite in the very place cited by the theologians of Salamanca themselves — namely, Vol. II, on Religion, Bk. VI, on vows, ch. 11, n. 5, where he has this: "If, however, it is a regular Prior, Guardian, and the like, he is to be dispensed by the Provincial; the Provincial by the General, or Commissary, if he has one; and finally an inferior is to be dispensed by a superior: since a superior has jurisdiction over an inferior Prelate, and not the reverse, nor does the same one have it over himself. The supreme Prelate of a religious order, however, such as a General, is to be dispensed by the whole religious order, which is superior to him." Concerning Bishops, he writes this at the end of the preceding number: "Even if, therefore, the custom of Bishops extends such a faculty, they depend, by ordinary right, on the Pontiff in this dispensation — since they are subject to him in spiritual matters." Martínez de Prado too, whom the theologians of Salamanca allege in their own favor, supports this contrary opinion, when recourse to a superior is open — which the cited Trullench also affirms concerning Superiors of Regulars (Bk. II, ch. 2, dub. 38, n. 17). It is more probable to us, then, that all Prelates, in dispensations of vows, ought to have recourse to their respective superiors, as it is said — since no one is a judge in his own cause, nor can anyone truly and properly exercise jurisdiction over himself. The reasoning of the contrary opinion — that otherwise these Prelates would be of a worse condition than their subjects — is of no weight. Since both these Prelates, and their subjects, although of different rank, are equally subject to the laws in this manner. Wherefore, just as subjects must be dispensed by their immediate Prelates, so these Prelates must be dispensed by Prelates of a higher order.