Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/574

 vows

512

VOWS

intention must be reasonable: in an unimportant matter, one eannot bind oneself under pain of grievous sin. In order to estimate the gravity of the matter, we distinguish between vows which affect isolated acts, and vows which relate to a series of acts. To an isolated act the well-known rule apphes: The matter is grave if, in the hypothesis of an ecclesiastical com- mand, it would oblige under mortal sin; but if the vow relates to a series of acts, then we must see what is truly important in regard to the end pursued. Thus every grave offence against the virtue of chas- tity, as it should be observed outside the married state, is a serious matter for the vow of chastity. The omission of one or two Masses or one or two Rosaries is not a grave matter in the case of a vow to be present at Mass or to say the Rosary every day. Every mortal sin is a grave offence against a vow to do what is most perfect; it is not the same with venial sin, even when dehberate; there must be a habit of com- mitting acts which are certainly imperfect, in order to constitute a grave sin against this vow.

A vow is fulfilled by doing what has been promised, even without a positive intention of fulfilling the vow. One should personally fulfil the vow of some act or omission, promised as such ; as, for instance, the vow of a pilgrimage, but may fulfil through another such a vow as that of almsgiving, or donation or restitution of property. All obligation ceases when the fulfil- ment of the vow becomes impossible or harmful, or if the reason for the vow ceases to exist. (As to dispen- sation from vows, see section III.) A vow is a good action, but should be made with prudence and dis- cretion ; in the Christian life, love is better than bonds. We should avoid vows which are embarrassing, either because they are too numerous or because we may be unable to fulfil them (for failure to fulfil a vow is .sure to be followed by sorrow which may endure for a long time); besides such vows as are not helpful to sanctifi- cation or charity. The more important the obliga- tion, the more careful reflection and preparation it requires. No objection can be made to reasonable vows made in order to increase the efficacy of prayer; but the vows to be commended above all are those which give us strength against some weakness, help us to cure some fault, or, best of all, contain the germ of some great spiritual fruit. Such are the vows of re- ligion or missionary work.

III. Canonical Aspect. — A. Division of Vows. — The vow properly so called is made to God alone, but promises made to the saints have a certain resem- blance to vows and are often accompanied by a vow, as we have already seen. A vow may be the act of a private person, or the act of a superior representing a community. In the latter case the community is only indirectly bound by the vow. The sentiment which leads a person to take a vow marks the distinction be- tween absolute and conditional vows. The condition may be suspensive, that is to say, it may make the commencement of the obligation depend on the hap- pening or the not happening of some future uncertain event; for instance, the words, "If I recover my health", make the obligation commence upon the re- covery; or it may be resolutory, that is, it may have the effect of rescinding the vow, as if the person .adds to the vow the words, "Unless I lose my fortune", in which case the vow ceases to bind if the fortune is lost. The same sentiment distinguishes between simple, or pure, vows, by which a person promises simply to do an act which is pleasing to God, and vows having some special end in view, such as another's conver- sion. According to their object, vows may be per- sonal, as a promise to do a certain act; or real, as a promise of a certain thing; or mixed, as a promise to nurse a sick person with one's own hands. They may also have reference to a single definite object, or leave the choice among two or three objects (disjunc- tive vows). According to the manner of their utter-

ances, there are vows interior and exterior; vows ex- press, and vows tacit or implied (as for instance, that of the subdeacon at his ordination); vows secret, and vows made in public. According to their juridical form, they may be private or made with the Church's recognition; and these last are divided into simple and solemn vows. Lastly, from the point of view of the dispensation required, vows are either reserved to the Holy See or not reserved. In itself the vow is a promise, and does not imply any surrender or transfer of rights; certain vows, however, according to eccle- siastical law, modify the rights of persons; such are the vows taken in religious orders.

B. Simple and Solemn Votes. — Under Religious Life we have seen how the distinction arose histori- cally between simple .and solemn vows, the names of which appear in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Various opinions have been expressed as to the matter of this distinction, and the question has not yet been decided. Some persons make the essential solemnity consist in the surrender of oneself which accompanies certain vows; this is the opinion of Gregory of Valentia (Comment, theol.. Ill, D. 6, Q. vi, punct. 5) and many recent Thomists. But the surrender is found in vows which are not solemn, such as the vows of scholastics of the Society of Jesus, who would not be religious properly so-called, if their surrender differed essentially from that of the professed fathers. More- over, the surrender really accompanies only a vow of obedience accepted in a religious order, while other vows are solemn, even without any question of obedi- ence, such as the vow of chastity made by subdeacons. In the opinion of Lehmkuhl (Theol. mor., I,nn. 647- 50) the solemnity of the vow consists in a spiritual consecration, the effect of which is that, after such a vow, a person is irrevocably set apart and appointed by the Church to serve God by the offering of that vow. This opinion has its attractive side; but does it agree with history? The vow of pilgrimage to the Holy Land was temporary and .solemn. Or does it agree with the definition of law? Boniface VHI de- clares those vows to be solemn which are accompanied either by a consecration or by a religious profession. And lastly, does not the consecration logically follow the solemnity, rather than precede or cause it? In spite of its complication and the forced explanations to which recourse is had, in order to escape from the difficulty, the opinion of Suarez (De rehgione, tr. VII, c. ii, c. X, n. 1 ; c. .\ii, nn. 7-9; c. xiii, nn. 3, 8-13; c. xiv, n. 10) still finds distinguished defenders, especially Wernz (Jus Decretalium, III, n. 572). This opinion places the essence of the solemnity in the absolute sur- render of himself by the rehgious, and the acceptance of that surrender by the religious order, which is ac- complished by solemn profession, and also in the inca- pacity of a person who is bound by solemn vows to perform validly acts that are contrary to those vows; such as the incapacity to possess property, or to con- tract marriage. But historically this incapacity was not and is not always attached to solemn vows; the solemn vow of obedience does not as such involve any particular incapacity; and often solemn vows do not produce this effect. Will they be called solemn as being attached to the vow of obedience, and solemnized by the surrender of oneself?

But, apart from the arbitrary nature of these ex- planations, the vow of the Crusader was solemn with- out being attached to any more general vow of obedi- ence; and we ha\'e seen that the surrender does not constitute the solemnity. For this rea.son we prefer a simple ojjinion, which, in accord with Vasquez (In I-II, Q. xcvi, d. clxv, especially n. S3) and Sanchez (In decalogum, 1, 5, c. 1, n. 11-13), places the material solemnity of vows of religion in the surrender foUowcxI by irrevocable acceptance; and with Laymann (De statu religioso, c. i, n. 4), Pellizarius (Manuale regu- lariuni, tr. IV, c. i, nn. 10-18), Medina (De sacrorum