Section — Konings, Theologia Moralis
§ I. On The Irritation Of Vows
- Definition. Irritation of a vow is its annulment or suspension made by him to whose power the will of the one vowing, or the matter of the vow, is subject.
Division. It is: 1° direct, or annihilation of the vow, if it falls directly upon the person or upon the will of the one vowing; 2° indirect, or its suspension, if it falls only upon the matter of the vow.
Principles. - I. Every Superior furnished with dominative power over the will of another (as a Regular Superior by force of the vow of obedience) can directly irritate all vows of subjects; nor do they ever revive once irritated. Therefore the vows of inferiors, whose will, by force of their state, is perfectly subject to the Superior, always involve this tacit condition: unless the Superior shall have opposed.
Hence, with the exception of the vow of passing to a stricter Religion, the other particular vows of Regulars and Nuns can be irritated: 1° by the Supreme Pontiff as supreme Prelate of all Regulars; 2° by the Superiors of the Order or house.1
II. Every Superior or lord can irritate indirectly all vows of subjects in those things in which his power is injured; because anyone has the right not to be injured in things subject to his dominion; but these vows revive when they can be fulfilled without prejudice to another.
Hence: 1° A husband can irritate the vows of a wife which prejudice conjugal right, the education of children, or the governance of the house.
2° A wife can irritate the vows of a husband which injure the rights of matrimony, as a vow of chastity, of a long pilgrimage, of putting on the habit of a hermit, etc.
3° A master can irritate or suspend the vows of servants which impede or diminish owed service, as a vow of hearing Mass daily.2
III. All vows of the impubescent, even vows of chastity and Religion, can be directly irritated by paternal power. This is established from Canon Law.3 But males are pubescent when the fourteenth year is completed, and girls when the twelfth is completed.
Hence vows of the impubescent can be directly irritated by the father, and, in defect of the father, by the paternal grandfather, by a tutor, and, these failing, by the mother, and probably even when the father is present (provided however that he does not contradict), or the tutor.1
- Questions. - Quaer. 1° Can a husband irritate all vows of a wife?
Resp. It is disputed. Some deny, and say that the husband can irritate only indirectly those vows which stand in the way of his rights. For as to the others the wife is not subject. - Thus Voit,2 Laymann, etc. - Yet others better, with St. Thomas3 and St. Alphonsus,4 attribute to the husband the right of irritating even directly vows emitted while the marriage stands.
Quaer. 2° Can a father directly irritate the vows of pubescent children emitted before puberty?
Resp. Affirmatively, provided the children, after reaching puberty, have not confirmed them; indeed probably even if they have ratified them, not knowing that they are irritatable.5
Quaer. 3° Can irritation be made without cause?
Resp. Affirmatively, as to validity, because the lord validly disposes concerning his own thing; but negatively as to liceity, because the spiritual progress of the subject is impeded irrationally, etc. Yet this commonly does not exceed venial sin. - St. Alphonsus,6 and others commonly.
Quaer. 4° Can a Superior directly irritate vows ratified by himself?
Resp. Affirmatively, as to validity, because he cannot take away from himself the power which he has over subjects.7
Quaer. 5° Can spouses mutually irritate a vow of continence emitted by mutual consent?
Resp. In this case the wife cannot irritate the vow of the man; for the wife has only the right of indirectly irritating the vows of the husband, and she renounced this right by ratifying his vow. But since the man can directly irritate any vows whatsoever of the wife and cannot renounce this right, as was said in the first question above, a solid reason why he cannot do this seems hardly able to be brought forward; yet since the opposite opinion in this case is common, St. Alphonsus8 leaves the matter to be decided by wiser men.