|
Objection 1: It would seem that a vow is not solemnized by the
reception of holy orders and by the profession of a certain rule. As
stated above (Article 1), a vow is a promise made to God. Now
external actions pertaining to solemnity seem to be directed, not to
God, but to men. Therefore they are related to vows accidentally:
and consequently a solemnization of this kind is not a proper
circumstance of a vow.
Objection 2: Further, whatever belongs to the condition of a
thing, would seem to be applicable to all in which that thing is
found. Now many things may be the subject of a vow, which have no
connection either with holy orders, or to any particular rule: as when
a man vows a pilgrimage, or something of the kind. Therefore the
solemnization that takes place in the reception of holy orders or in the
profession of a certain rule does not belong to the condition of a vow.
Objection 3: Further, a solemn vow seems to be the same as a public
vow. Now many other vows may be made in public besides that which is
pronounced in receiving holy orders or in professing a certain rule;
which latter, moreover, may be made in private. Therefore not only
these vows are solemn.
On the contrary, These vows alone are an impediment to the contract
of marriage, and annul marriage if it be contracted, which is the
effect of a solemn vow, as we shall state further on in the Third
Part of this work [XP, Question 53, Article 2].
I answer that, The manner in which a thing is solemnized depends on
its nature [conditio]: thus when a man takes up arms he solemnizes
the fact in one way, namely, with a certain display of horses and arms
and a concourse of soldiers, while a marriage is solemnized in another
way, namely, the array of the bridegroom and bride and the gathering
of their kindred. Now a vow is a promise made to God: wherefore,
the solemnization of a vow consists in something spiritual pertaining to
God; i.e. in some spiritual blessing or consecration which, in
accordance with the institution of the apostles, is given when a man
makes profession of observing a certain rule, in the second degree
after the reception of holy orders, as Dionysius states (Eccl.
Hier. vi). The reason of this is that solemnization is not wont to
be employed, save when a man gives himself up entirely to some
particular thing. For the nuptial solemnization takes place only when
the marriage is celebrated, and when the bride and bridegroom mutually
deliver the power over their bodies to one another. In like manner a
vow is solemnized when a man devotes himself to the divine ministry by
receiving holy orders, or embraces the state of perfection by
renouncing the world and his own will by the profession of a certain
rule.
Reply to Objection 1: This kind of solemnization regards not only
men but also God in so far as it is accompanied by a spiritual
consecration or blessing, of which God is the author, though man is
the minister, according to Num. 6:27, "They shall invoke My
name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them." Hence a
solemn vow is more binding with God than a simple vow, and he who
breaks a solemn vow sins more grievously. When it is said that a
simple vow is no less binding than a solemn vow, this refers to the
fact that the transgressor of either commits a mortal sin.
Reply to Objection 2: It is not customary to solemnize particular
acts, but the embracing of a new state, as we have said above. Hence
when a man vows particular deeds, such as a pilgrimage, or some
special fast, such a vow is not competent to be solemnized, but only
such as the vow whereby a man entirely devotes himself to the divine
ministry or service: and yet many particular works are included under
this vow as under a universal.
Reply to Objection 3: Through being pronounced in public vows may
have a certain human solemnity, but not a spiritual and divine
solemnity, as the aforesaid vows have, even when they are pronounced
before a few persons. Hence the publicity of a vow differs from its
solemnization.
|
|