Case 3. A Vocation Lost

Mary, a nun professed in a religious institute of simple vows, then learned for the first time that sexual pleasure in marriage is lawful; if she had known this before emitting her vows, she would never have vowed. She often conceives a desire to marry if it were lawful. At length, when her aging parents, having fallen into poverty, manifest by letter their will to enjoy her presence and assistance, Mary rejoices that an occasion has been offered to request a dispensation from her vows, which she accordingly requested from her confessor. When these things have been disclosed, the latter asks:

1. What kind of error invalidates vows?

2. Is the desire for a bad thing under the condition “if it were lawful” a sin, and of what kind?

3. Is it lawful to rejoice at another’s misfortune?

4. What can or ought to be done by the confessor in the case?

1. What sort of mistake makes vows invalid?

Substantial mistake about the substance of the vow makes it invalid just as such a mistake makes other contracts invalid, for a vow is a promise made to God. Private vows are also rendered invalid if they were taken under a mistake about some accidental circumstance of great importance which was a principal motive for taking the vows, and probably even by a mistake about some accidental circumstance of less moment, if the mistake was such that the vows would not have been taken if the truth had been known. However, this probable opinion can not be applied to vows taken in an approved Religious Order, for such vows place the person who takes them in a fixed and permanent state of life, and only substantial mistake makes them invalid. Much in the same way marriage is a permanent state of life, and only substantial mistake can be admitted as a diriment impediment of marriage.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, book iii, no. 198.

2. Is a desire of evil under the condition “if it were lawful” a sin, and of what sort ?

If the condition takes away the whole malice of the desire and it is not dangerous to entertain it, a conditional desire of evil is not sinful. Thus if on a Sunday I say, “I should like to stay at home to-day if the Church did not bid me go to Mass,” I do not commit a sin. This doctrine holds in matters of mere positive law. In matters which belong to natural law, where a voluntary inclination toward a wrongful act is sinful and remains sinful even under the condition “If it were allowed,” such conditional desires are wrong, and belong to the same species of sin as does the corresponding external act. Thus the conditional desire, “I should like to kill my enemy if it were lawful,” is a sin of the same malice as homicide; it is the expression of a movement of hatred for one’s neighbor which goes the length of desiring to take his life; the added condition “if it were lawful” does not annul this movement of hatred nor take away its malice.

3. Is it lawful to rejoice at the misfortune of another?

No; as it is uncharitable to wish evil to another, so it is uncharitable to rejoice at his misfortune. But it is not uncharitable to be glad that a misfortune has befallen my neighbor because thereby greater good accrued to him or to the public. In this case the object of joy is the good, not the misfortune, of one’s neighbor.

4. The case. Mary, a nun, learned after profession of simple vows that venereal pleasure is lawful in marriage, and if she had known it before she would not have become a nun. We must suppose that Mary knew what chastity is when she took her vow. Her ignorance with regard to marital rights was not substantial mistake about her vow, nor did it render the vow invalid.

She often forms a conditional desire of marrying if it were lawful. In this Mary does wrong, for although such a desire is not wrong in itself, yet one in Mary’s position can not foster such desires without exposing herself to temptations against her vow or against her vocation. How seriously Mary sinned in this would depend on the degree of danger to which she exposed herself.

Her parents become old and poor, and write to Mary that they desire her presence and help. If Mary can be of any real help to her parents, she has good reason for asking for a dispensation from her vows. If the necessity of her parents were extreme, she would be bound to go and help them; if it is grave, the question whether she is bound to go is disputed. At any rate if she can help them and relieve their necessity, she may ask for a dispensation from her vows, nor does she commit a sin in being glad of the opportunity. The confessor, however, can not grant her a dispensation; it will be his duty to consider her character and circumstances so as to be able to give her good advice. It might be that she would be useless to her parents, and would have no chance of marrying if she left her convent, in which case her confessor would advise her to stay in religion, and give what help she could to her parents with the permission of her superiors. But it might also be that, all things considered, it would be better if Mary returned to the world, and in that case the confessor would advise her how to ask for a dispensation from her vows.