Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 140 (2/2)
Reply Obj. 3: A religious is subject to his superior as to his actions connected with his profession of his rule. Wherefore even though one may be able to do something now and then, when one is not being occupied with other things by one's superior, yet since there is no time when his superior cannot occupy him with something, no vow of a religious stands without the consent of his superior, as neither does the vow of a girl while in (her father's) house without his consent; nor of a wife, without the consent of her husband.
Reply Obj. 4: Although the vow of one who is subject to another's power does not stand without the consent of the one to whom he is subject, he does not sin by vowing; because his vow is understood to contain the requisite condition, providing, namely, that his superior approve or do not gainsay it.
_______________________
NINTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 88, Art. 9]
Whether Children Can Bind Themselves by Vow to Enter Religion?
Objection 1: It would seem that children cannot bind themselves by vow to enter religion. Since a vow requires deliberation of the mind, it is fitting that those alone should vow who have the use of reason.
But this is lacking in children just as in imbeciles and madmen.
Therefore just as imbeciles and madmen cannot bind themselves to anything by vow, so neither, seemingly, can children bind themselves by vow to enter religion.
Obj. 2: Further, that which can be validly done by one cannot be annulled by another. Now a vow to enter religion made by a boy or girl before the age of p.u.b.erty can be revoked by the parents or guardian (20, qu. ii, cap. Puella). Therefore it seems that a boy or girl cannot validly make a vow before the age of fourteen.
Obj. 3: Further, according to the rule of Blessed Benedict [*Ch. 58]
and a statute of Innocent IV, a year's probation is granted to those who enter religion, so that probation may precede the obligation of the vow. Therefore it seems unlawful, before the year of probation, for children to be bound by vow to enter religion.
_On the contrary,_ That which is not done aright is invalid without being annulled by anyone. But the vow p.r.o.nounced by a maiden, even before attaining the age of p.u.b.erty, is valid, unless it be annulled by her parents within a year (20, qu. ii, cap. Puella). Therefore even before attaining to p.u.b.erty children can lawfully and validly be bound by a vow to enter religion.
_I answer that,_ As may be gathered from what has been said above (A.
7), vows are of two kinds, simple and solemn. And since, as stated in the same article, the solemnization of a vow consists in a spiritual blessing and consecration bestowed through the ministry of the Church, it follows that it comes under the Church's dispensation. Now a simple vow takes its efficacy from the deliberation of the mind, whereby one intends to put oneself under an obligation. That such an obligation be of no force may happen in two ways. First, through defect of reason, as in madmen and imbeciles, who cannot bind themselves by vow so long as they remain in a state of madness or imbecility. Secondly, through the maker of a vow being subject to another's power, as stated above (A. 8). Now these two circ.u.mstances concur in children before the age of p.u.b.erty, because in most instances they are lacking in reason, and besides are naturally under the care of their parents, or guardians in place of their parents: wherefore in both events their vows are without force. It happens, however, through a natural disposition which is not subject to human laws, that the use of reason is accelerated in some, albeit few, who on this account are said to be capable of guile: and yet they are not, for this reason, exempt in any way from the care of their parents; for this care is subject to human law, which takes into account that which is of most frequent occurrence.
Accordingly we must say that boys or girls who have not reached the years of p.u.b.erty and have not attained the use of reason can nowise bind themselves to anything by vow. If, however, they attain the use of reason, before reaching the years of p.u.b.erty, they can for their own part, bind themselves by vow; but their vows can be annulled by their parents, under whose care they are still subject.
Yet no matter how much they be capable of guile before the years of p.u.b.erty, they cannot be bound by a solemn religious vow, on account of the Church's decree [*s.e.xt. Decret. cap. Is qui, de Reg. et transeunt. ad Relig.] which considers the majority of cases. But after the years of p.u.b.erty have been reached, they can bind themselves by religious vows, simple or solemn, without the consent of their parents.
Reply Obj. 1: This argument avails in the case of children who have not yet reached the use of reason: for their vows then are invalid, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 2: The vows of persons subject to another's power contain an implied condition, namely, that they be not annulled by the superior. This condition renders them licit and valid if it be fulfilled, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 3: This argument avails in the case of solemn vows which are taken in profession.
_______________________
TENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 88, Art. 10]
Whether Vows Admit of Dispensation?
Objection 1: It would seem that vows are not subject to dispensation.
It is less to have a vow commuted than to be dispensed from keeping it. But a vow cannot be commuted, according to Lev. 27:9, 10, ”A beast that may be sacrificed to the Lord, if anyone shall vow, shall be holy, and cannot be changed, neither a better for a worse, nor a worse for a better.” Much less, therefore, do vows admit of dispensation.
Obj. 2: Further, no man can grant a dispensation in matters concerning the natural law and in the Divine precepts, especially those of the First Table, since these aim directly at the love of G.o.d, which is the last end of the precepts. Now the fulfilment of a vow is a matter of the natural law, and is commanded by the Divine law, as shown above (A. 3), and belongs to the precepts of the First Table since it is an act of religion. Therefore vows do not admit of dispensation.
Obj. 3: Further, the obligation of a vow is based on the fidelity which a man owes to G.o.d, as stated above (A. 3). But no man can dispense in such a matter as this. Neither, therefore, can any one grant a dispensation from a vow.
_On the contrary,_ That which proceeds from the common will of many has apparently greater stability than that which proceeds from the individual will of some one person. Now the law which derives its force from the common will admits of dispensation by a man. Therefore it seems that vows also admit of dispensation by a man.
_I answer that,_ The dispensation from a vow is to be taken in the same sense as a dispensation given in the observance of a law because, as stated above (I-II, Q. 96, A. 6; Q. 97, A. 4), a law is made with an eye to that which is good in the majority of instances.
<script>