Article II. On Irritation

I. Notion. Irritation is the annulment of a vow, validly emitted, made by one who has dominative power over the will of the one vowing. Irritation is customarily distinguished as twofold, direct and indirect; but indirect irritation is rather called suspension, which is also more conformable to the Code of Canon Law (cf. can. 1312, § 2).

II. The existence of the power of irritating vows is clear both from the tradition and practice of the Church, and from can. 1312, § 1.

III. The source of the power. The power of irritating vows seems to be founded either in dominative power alone, or in dominative power completed or perfected by positive law.¹ According to the former opinion, dominative power of itself imports the power of irritating vows; according to the other, the power of irritating vows is indeed suggested, as to the power of parents, by the weakness of children; as to the power of religious superiors, by the fact that the subjection of the religious is most especially ordered to the direction of those things which can contribute to perfection, such as vows. From the things said, I say, the power of irritating is indeed suggested, but nevertheless it is not present in dominative power unless in some way it is completed or perfected by positive law (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 227). Whatever the case, in fact dominative power certainly has annexed to it the power of irritating, as will be clear from what must now be said.

¹ Some derive the power of irritating vows from positive law alone; others judge that, at least in some cases, it must be strengthened and more accurately circumscribed by positive law (cf. Damen, cited work, pp. 11-12).

IV. The subject of the power of irritating vows is all those who enjoy dominative power over the will of the one vowing (can. 1312, § 1). If the power of the superior, for example of the father with respect to a pubescent child, has not wholly ceased, the faculty of irritating vows emitted in the time of subjection persists, provided the one vowing, after the time of subjection, has not confirmed the vow with knowledge of the infirmity of the vow. Otherwise one must speak if the power of the superior, for example of a regular Prelate, has been wholly extinguished, or some religious is now no longer subject to him (St. Alphonsus, III, 238).

To whom specifically the power of irritating vows belongs, see in the corollary.

V. The extent of the power. The power of irritating extends to all vows of subjects emitted in the time of subjection, even to those which are reserved as to dispensation; likewise to those which are to be executed after the time of subjection has passed; likewise to those which the lord himself has approved. Indeed, he cannot even abdicate the faculty annexed to dominative power, namely that of irritating vows. It was disputed whether the power extended to vows concerning internal acts; but much more commonly it was affirmed, and can. 1312, § 1 does not except them (St. Alphonsus, III, 227).

VI. The use of the power. Irritation made without cause is valid; however, it is lightly illicit, insofar as the progress of the subject is irrationally impeded. Moreover, any just or reasonable cause suffices (can. 1312, § 1; St. Alphonsus, III, 228).

VII. The effect of irritation is that the vow is entirely extinguished, so that in no case does the obligation afterward revive (can. 1312, § 1).

Corollary. The following can irritate vows:

1. A father can irritate vows emitted by prepubescent children, provided that when they become pubescent they have not confirmed them while aware of the infirmity of the prior vow. If, unaware of the infirmity, they confirm them, strictly speaking they only renew the vow as it was; but it was infirm or irritatable. The aforesaid power also belongs to him who, either by law (as a tutor), or by the father's disposition, is substituted in his place. The reason is that, because of the weakness of prepubescents, power over their will, that is, dominative power, must be judged to belong to the father and to the others enumerated. But dominative power, by can. 1312, § 1, has annexed to it the power of irritating vows (St. Alphonsus, III, 229, 238; cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 88, a. 9).

It is disputed whether a father can irritate vows emitted by pubescent minors. Now the matter seems wholly doubtful, because the father's dominative power over pubescent minors is not proved. Nor is can. 89, which declares: "A minor person remains subject to the power of parents or guardians in the exercise of his rights, except in those things in which the law holds minors exempt from power"; nor is the cited canon, I say, judged to settle the question or theoretical controversy whether or not the father enjoys dominative power over pubescent minors.

Corollary. In doubt whether a vow was emitted before or after puberty, the power of irritating is doubtful, because it is doubtful whether the vow was emitted at a time when it was certainly subject to irritation.

2. The mother seems able to do the same as the father, provided he does not contradict, or with dependence on the father. The reason is that dominative power seems to belong to the mother as much as to the father, because she is the principle of the child no less than the father. Once dominative power is admitted, the power of irritating vows also must be admitted (St. Thomas, opusc. 17, cap. 13, vers. Decimo; St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tr. 5, n. 36).

3. The husband seems to have the power of irritating the vows of the wife, because he seems to enjoy dominative power over her; for such power of itself is very expedient for the good of conjugal society, that is, for fostering dependence and intense love, for restraining the wife's impulses of mind, and for favoring the peace of the family. But dominative power carries with it the power of irritating vows (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 88, a. 8, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, III, 324).¹

4. Superiors of religious, both exempt and non-exempt, both solemnly and simply professed, and likewise Superioresses, can directly irritate vows emitted by subjects during the time in which they were subject to themselves or to other Superiors, for example to a predecessor (can. 501, § 1). The power does not extend: 1. to substantial religious vows, for since these are constitutive of subjection, they are emitted independently of this subjection, and therefore cannot be called infirm or irritatable; 2. to vows annexed to the substantial vows, because since they are emitted together with the substantial vows, they likewise are judged to have been made independently of subjection. They also except the vow of passing to a stricter Religion² (St. Alphonsus, III, 233; IV, 53, 54).

What has been said about Superiors of religious should also be applied: 1. to the Pope with respect to professed male and female religious (cf. can. 499, § 1); 2. to Chapters of religious according to the norm of the constitutions and common law (cf. can. 501, § 1); 3. to the Bishop, if it is a question of a religion of diocesan right.

A Superior cannot irritate the vows of novices unless, according to the things said under I, he truly supplies the place of a parent, and it is a question of a vow which a parent could irritate (St. Alphonsus, IV, 55). Nor does the faculty of irritating the vows of novices or other faithful belong to the Supreme Pontiff, because he lacks dominative power over them.

Question. Whether the Church supplies probable power of irritating vows.

Response. We judge that it must be denied. For the power of irritating vows supposes dominative power; if this is present, the Church certainly completes it; if it is not present, it cannot be completed.

Corollary. Those who enjoy the power of irritating vows can also in advance render subjects incapable of vowing, either in some matter or universally, so that vows from that time are null from the beginning (St. Alphonsus, III, 228).

¹ Cf. Num. 30:7-13; Eph. 5:24.

² Cap. 18, de Reg.