§ I. On the Irritation of Vows

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. But it is called direct, if it falls directly upon the person or upon the will of the one vowing; indirect, if it falls only upon the matter of the vow. In the former case the vow is altogether annulled; but in the latter only its obligation is suspended.

I Say 1st. § 1. He who legitimately exercises dominative power over the will of the one vowing can validly, and from a just cause also licitly, render his vows invalid, so that in no case does the obligation afterward revive (Can. 1312). The reason is taken from the right which the superior then has of directing their will, and consequently of preventing them from taking up a new obligation. Hence particular vows of Regulars and Nuns can be irritated: 1st, by the Supreme Pontiff as supreme Prelate of all Regulars; 2nd, by superiors, even women, of the Order or house; 3rd, by the proper Bishop, if the Orders are not exempt from his jurisdiction. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 227.

I Say 2nd. § 2. He who has power not indeed over the will of the one vowing, but over the matter of the vow, can suspend the obligation of the vow as long as fulfillment of the vow brings prejudice to him (Can. 1312); because each one has a right not to be injured in things subject to his dominion. Hence:

1st. A husband can irritate the vows of a wife which prejudice conjugal right, the education of children, or the governance of the house.

2nd. A wife can irritate the vows of a husband which injure the rights of marriage, such as a vow of chastity, of a long pilgrimage, of putting on the habit of a hermit, etc.

3rd. A master can irritate or suspend the vows of servants which impede or lessen the service owed, such as a vow of hearing Mass daily. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 241 and following.

Vows emitted before religious profession are suspended as long as the one vowing has remained in religion (Can. 1315).

Question 1. Can a father directly irritate all the vows of children?

Response. Affirmatively, if the children are impubescent, as is clear from canon law, C. Puella, causa 20, q. 2, c. 2, determining natural law. Indeed not only can the vows of the impubescent be directly irritated by the father, but also, in default of the father, by the paternal grandfather, by a tutor, and, these being lacking, by the mother; indeed also, at least probably, by the mother when the father or tutor is present and yet does not contradict. - But if the children are pubescent, it will also be answered affirmatively if it is a question of vows emitted before puberty, and they still remain under paternal power. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 229, 230 and 238.

Question 2. Can a husband irritate all the vows of his wife?

Response. It is controverted; for some deny it, and say that a husband can only indirectly irritate those vows which stand in the way of his rights; but others with St. Alphonsus attribute to the husband the right also of irritating directly vows emitted during matrimony, because, as the Apostle says, Ephes. v, 22 and 23: "let women be subject to their husbands ... because the man is the head of the woman." - From this it follows that spouses who by mutual consent have emitted a vow of continence can again use matrimony, if the husband first directly irritates the vow of the wife, and she afterward, having recovered the right of petitioning what is due, indirectly irritates the vow of the husband. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 234. - Baller., note (b), p. 326.

Question 3. Can irritation be made without cause?

Response. Affirmatively, as regards validity, because an owner validly disposes of his own thing even without cause. Indeed also as regards liceity, speaking of itself, or by reason of the irritation itself; for the vows of subjects are emitted under the condition of the consent of the superior, which the superior of himself is not held to give. But by accident, or by reason of circumstances, some fault will rarely be absent, either because the act is imprudent or because the spiritual progress of the subject is irrationally impeded, etc. Yet this of itself, with an evil affection or grave harm of the subject excluded, scarcely exceeds venial sin. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 228. - Baller., note (a), p. 328.

Question 4. Can a superior irritate vows ratified by himself?

Response. Affirmatively, because he cannot take away from himself the power which he has over subjects. But on the other hand, if the superior who once irritated the vow of a subject later repents, the vow is not for that reason revalidated. The reason is that by direct irritation a vow is extinguished; but that something extinguished may revive, the repentance of the superior who irritated does not avail, but the will of the subject who again obliges himself by a vow is required. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 239. - Baller., note (b), p. 326, and note (a), p. 327.