Case 11. Solemnity of Vows

Caius, a solemnly professed religious, after preaching with the applause of all in a certain secular church, is asked by Paul, the missionary who serves that church, to preach there again at Easter, and Paul is unwilling to accept any excuses. Caius therefore seriously promises that he will come. Nevertheless, having returned home and remembered the opinion of the Doctors according to which a solemn vow renders invalid every obligation undertaken by a subject independently of the superior’s will, he doubts whether he is bound to anything by reason of the promise. Hence it is asked:

1. In what does the solemnity of vows consist?

2. What difference exists between a simple and a solemn vow of obedience?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. In what does the solemnity of vows consist?

This is a disputed question among canonists and divines. The better opinion seems to be that it consists in a certain efficacy by which a Religious who is solemnly professed is thereby firmly and perpetually devoted and bound to the service of God in religion and to his Order. It may be called a consecration with St. Thomas.¹

1 Lehmkuhl, vol. i, n. 647.

2. What is the difference between a solemn and simple vow of obedience?

All must admit that there is a difference inasmuch as the solemn vow is dispensed with greater difficulty than the simple vow. Besides this greater firmness in the solemn vow, some authors maintain that the solemn vow renders the Religious incapable of binding himself by promise or contract except with leave of his Superior, while the simple vow does not render a Religious incapable of binding himself, but he can not bind himself lawfully independently of the will of the Superior who can annul the obligation. Other authors deny that there is such a difference between the solemn and the simple vow of obedience, though it certainly exists between the solemn and simple vow of poverty. Génicot, vol. ii, n. 103.

3. The case. Caius, a solemnly professed Religious, seriously promised a secular priest to come and preach for him. The promise was made without his Superior’s knowledge, but not against his orders. Caius would certainly be bound by such a promise to do what in him lay to fulfil his engagement. The utter invalidity of such promises made by one who is solemnly professed is not necessary for the end Sof religious life, and it can not be shown to exist. Caius therefore should, tell his Superior of his promise, and unless the Superior uses his authority to forbid him, he should fulfil it.