Article II. On the Vow of Chastity

I say. The object of the vow of chastity, which is certainly more excellent than the vow of poverty, embraces two things, namely those things which are already prohibited by natural and divine law, and also those things which could be done licitly in legitimate matrimony. Therefore this is the efficacy of the vow of chastity: that what otherwise could be licit becomes illicit for a Religious; but those things which are prohibited to all, he must avoid from a double obligation, namely of chastity and of religion.

Question 1. Are sins of luxury, even merely internal ones, opposed to the vow of chastity?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the true and most common doctrine; because a Religious, by force of this vow, as this is commonly understood by Religious themselves, is held to abstain from every voluntary venereal delectation, which can be both internal and external. Therefore in whatever way he wounds chastity, he incurs a double guilt, namely of luxury and sacrilege. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 33.

Question 2. What is the gravity of sins committed against the vow of chastity?

Resp. This general rule must be established: the gravity of sin against the vow is exactly the same as against the sixth and ninth precept of the Decalogue; namely, a sin against religion is mortal or venial according as it is mortal or venial against chastity. But smallness of matter is not to be admitted in sins of sought or admitted luxury, nor can the fault be light except from imperfect consent, according to those things which have been said elsewhere.

Question 3. Whether, or what, is the difference between the virtue and the vow of chastity?

Resp. There is no distinction by reason of object, since the vow extends as widely as the virtue itself. Nevertheless they differ in this, that in those things which are prohibited by virtue there are two sins if the vow is violated, while one sin is committed in that which is interdicted by the vow alone. For if someone bound by a simple vow of chastity contracted marriage, he would commit one sin, namely against religion, in the use of marriage. Therefore sometimes the vow can be violated without the virtue itself being wounded.