|
Objection 1: It would seem that the authority of a prelate is not
required for the commutation or dispensation of a vow. A person may
enter religion without the authority of a superior prelate. Now by
entering religion one is absolved from the vows he made in the world,
even from the vow of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land [Cap.
Scripturae, de Voto et Voti redempt.]. Therefore the commutation
or dispensation of a vow is possible without the authority of a superior
prelate.
Objection 2: Further, to dispense anyone from a vow seems to
consist in deciding in what circumstances he need not keep that vow.
But if the prelate is at fault in his decision, the person who took
the vow does not seem to be absolved from his vow, since no prelate can
grant a dispensation contrary to the divine precept about keeping one's
vows, as stated above (Article 10, ad 2; Article 11).
Likewise, when anyone rightly determines of his own authority that in
his case a vow is not to be kept, he would seem not to be bound; since
a vow need not be kept if it have an evil result (Article 2, ad
2). Therefore the Authority of a prelate is not required that one
may be dispensed from a vow.
Objection 3: Further, if it belongs to a prelate's power to grant
dispensations from vows, on the same count it is competent to all
prelates, but it does not belong to all to dispense from every vow.
Therefore it does not belong to the power of a prelate to dispense from
vows.
On the contrary, A vow binds one to do something, even as a law
does. Now the superior's authority is requisite for a dispensation
from a precept of the law, as stated above (FS, Question 96,
Article 6; FS, Question 97, Article 4). Therefore it is
likewise required in a dispensation from a vow.
I answer that, As stated above (Articles 1,2), a vow is a
promise made to God about something acceptable to Him. Now if you
promise something to anyone it depends on his decision whether he accept
what you promise. Again in the Church a prelate stands in God's
place. Therefore a commutation or dispensation of vows requires the
authority of a prelate who in God's stead declares what is acceptable
to God, according to 2 Cor. 2:10: "For . . . have
pardoned . . . for your sakes . . . in the person of Christ."
And he says significantly "for your sakes," since whenever we ask a
prelate for a dispensation we should do so to honor Christ in Whose
person he dispenses, or to promote the interests of the Church which
is His Body.
Reply to Objection 1: All other vows are about some particular
works, whereas by the religious life a man consecrates his whole life
to God's service. Now the particular is included in the universal,
wherefore a Decretal [Cap. Scripturae, de Voto et Voti
redempt.] says that "a man is not deemed a vow-breaker if he
exchange a temporal service for the perpetual service of religion."
And yet a man who enters religion is not bound to fulfil the vows,
whether of fasting or of praying or the like, which he made when in the
world, because by entering religion he dies to his former life, and it
is unsuitable to the religious life that each one should have his own
observances, and because the burden of religion is onerous enough
without requiring the addition of other burdens.
Reply to Objection 2: Some have held that prelates can dispense
from vows at their will, for the reason that every vow supposes as a
condition that the superior prelate be willing; thus it was stated
above (Article 8) that the vow of a subject, e.g. of a slave or a
son, supposes this condition, if "the father or master consent," or
"does not dissent." And thus a subject might break his vow without
any remorse of conscience, whenever his superior tells him to.
But this opinion is based on a false supposition: because a spiritual
prelate being, not a master, but a dispenser, his power is given
"unto edification, not for destruction" (2 Cor. 10:8), and
consequently, just as he cannot command that which is in itself
displeasing to God, namely, sin, so neither can he forbid what is in
itself pleasing to God, namely, works of virtue. Therefore
absolutely speaking man can vow them. But it does belong to a prelate
to decide what is the more virtuous and the more acceptable to God.
Consequently in matters presenting no difficulty, the prelate's
dispensation would not excuse one from sin: for instance, if a prelate
were to dispense a person from a vow to enter the religious life,
without any apparent cause to prevent him from fulfilling his vow. But
if some cause were to appear, giving rise, at least, to doubt, he
could hold to the prelate's decision whether of commutation or of
dispensation. He could not, however, follow his own judgment in the
matter, because he does not stand in the place of God; except perhaps
in the case when the thing he has vowed is clearly unlawful, and he is
unable to have recourse to the prelate.
Reply to Objection 3: Since the Sovereign Pontiff holds the place
of Christ throughout the whole Church, he exercises absolute power of
dispensing from all vows that admit of dispensation. To other and
inferior prelates is the power committed of dispensing from those vows
that are commonly made and frequently require dispensation, in order
that men may easily have recourse to someone; such are the vows of
pilgrimage (Cap. de Peregin., de Voto et Voti redempt.),
fasting and the like, and of pilgrimage to the Holy Land, are
reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff [Cap. Ex multa].
|
|