Conferences on the Virtues
By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Number 77
The Obligations of Vows…
And taking of the Divine Name…
Article
3 – Concerning Vows: The obligation
generated by a Vow.
The immediate
effect of a vow is that it imposes upon the votary’s conscience a binding
obligation to fulfill it, that is to perform the acts which constitute the matter
of the vow. These acts are always good
in and of themselves, but, in virtue of the vow, they take on the additional
quality of being acts of the Virtue of Religion as well. That is, acts which render to God the humble
submission we owe Him as our Creator and Father.
This
obligation, considered apart from the matter promised, is grave because it is
made to God. When considered in view of
the matter of the vow, the deeds that are promised, the obligation may
be only slight.
Then, too, the
obligation would not be grave if the votary were to include in the vow the
intention of imposing only a slight obligation upon him/her-self. This might perhaps be the case in the event
one were to promise acts of exalted holiness, (always to turn the other cheek,
never to defend oneself) and therefore very difficult to achieve.
Vows can be of
two types, either to do something positive, or to abstain from certain types of
conduct. As with negative commandments
(Thou shalt not…etc.) a vow to refrain from certain conduct is binding at all
times. As with positive commandments
(Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day), a vow to perform certain deeds obliges
only from time to time, according to the nature of the deed promised or at
times expressly stated in the vow itself (e.g. to observe the First Friday or
First Saturday devotions).
There can also
be vows that are conditional upon the happening of an event that may or may not
happen. We often hear of folks who
promise some difficult or costly good work IF God were to grant a great
favor. E.g., a vow to donate a large
sum of money to an orphanage or to a Missionary endeavor if God were to grant a
cure to a loved one. Should the favor
be granted, the votary is bound to keep the promise. Should it not be granted, the votary is not obliged.
Some
conditional vows are called penal because made for the purpose of doing
penance for having fallen into a sin one is trying very hard to avoid: Lord if I ever allow myself to get drunk
again, I promise to say the Stations of the Cross every day for a month.
Or a
conditional vow could be medicinal; to strengthen one’s will in conquering an
habitual fault or weakness: Jesus I
promise that, whenever I lapse into gossiping, I will put five dollars in the
poor box.
Article
4 – When a Vow Ceases to Bind…
A vow can cease
to oblige the votary for reasons internal or external to the vow itself.
Internal
reasons are those, which involve a substantial change in the matter of the vow
or the condition or status of the votary.
External
reasons would be the intervention of lawful authority to annul the vow or to
grant a dispensation or a commutation.
Examples of substantial
changes in the matter of the vow would be:
a. When
the greater good promised to God is no longer greater, or stands in the
way of a greater good.
This
would be the case were a father of a family, in view of being the owner of a
very lucrative business, to vow always to give thirty percent of his income to
Catholic Charities. The business then
falls upon very hard times, such that the diversion of thirty percent of his
income results in dire want for his family.
Thus the triple tithing would no longer be a greater good for him and
his dependents.
b. When
the personal condition of the votary himself changes in a manner he never
foresaw would occur, such that it is reasonable to believe he never intended to
bind himself in his present new state.
For
example, one may make a vow to assume all the costs of educating a certain,
specific seminarian (a relative, perhaps) for the priesthood. That vow would cease to bind either because
the seminarian is finally ordained, or because he decides he is not called by
God to the priesthood, and terminates his preparatory studies.
We have already
mentioned briefly in last month’s conference that a vow can be annulled by
one’s lawful superior.
Thus, the
parents of a minor child can annul any vow made by the said child.
A husband or
wife has the authority to annul the vow of his/her spouse when fulfillment of
the matter of the vow would adversely affect interpersonal or family life.
One might
wonder how it is that a lawful religious superior can dispense from a promise
made to God. The reason is that this is
contained in the power of the keys conferred upon the Church through St.
peter and the Apostles.
Finally, a vow
may be commuted. Really, this
does not put an end to an obligation in conscience, it merely transfers the
obligation to a matter different from that originally promised.
Interestingly,
the votary himself may commute the vow himself, provided the new matter is better
or at least equally as good as the matter originally promised.
For example,
one may make a vow to become a Lay Discalced Carmelite. It is conceivable that the votary may
eventually commute that to a promise to become a Discalced Carmelite Friar or
Nun.
Or one may make
a vow to attend Mass and receive communion twice during the week in addition
to Sundays, and may himself commute that to attending Mass and receiving
communion daily.
Where the
matter to be substituted is generally considered less than equally good as
originally promised, only someone who enjoys the authority to dispense
can commute the vow.
One may have
vowed to fast and abstain from meat every Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. In the event this becomes too burdensome or
no longer feasible, a confessor or someone else enjoying the power of the keys
may commute that to the lesser good of the recitation of the Rosary on those
days.
Chapter 4 of the Virtue of Religion
Taking the Divine Name
This chapter
will treat of the three ways in which the Divine Name might be taken:
1. When
pronouncing an oath.
2. By
adjuration.
3. When
offering Divine praises.
Question
1 – Oaths
Article
1 – The Essence and Object of an Oath
Oaths were
introduced as a means by which a person making a statement may give assurance
to the listeners that what he has stated is true. It amounts to calling upon God to verify the truth of what has
been said. An oath is defined,
therefore, as: invoking the Divine
Name as a witness to truth.
This is what my
textbook has to say about Oaths:
The
purpose of an oath is the confirmation of truth. In the Sciences, the truth of things is confirmed by reason,
which bases its conclusions upon [physical] evidence. Scientists never resort to oaths to prove their findings. It would be ridiculous for them to resort to
oaths in order to convince others of the truth of their discoveries.
But particular
facts concerning human beings and their free, uncoerced activities cannot
always be proved by means of intrinsic [physical] evidence. In most cases the truth of these facts can
be proved only by means of witnesses.
Unfortunately,
human testimony does not always suffice to confirm the truth of statements
because of the want of veracity or of accurate perception in the witness. Thus recourse is had to divine testimony,
since God can neither tell lies nor be ignorant of the truth.
The person who
pronounces the oath is not asking that God here and now give a tangible sign
that the testimony given is true, for that would amount to tempting God. But rather, he asks that He do so by
permitting the happening of some future event that will serve as an indication
of the truth of the matter, including a punishment upon himself, the witness.
Thus the oath
serves to create instant credibility in human affairs because it is commonly
believed that no one would be so bold or impious as to ask God to be an
accomplice in the telling of a lie. To
do so amounts to asking God to deny His very Nature, and so would expose the
false witness to divine vengeance.
As an
invocation, an oath must be a calling upon God in which intellect and
free will participate. The one taking
the oath must know what he is doing and intend to do so. If either of these components are lacking,
it is not a true invocation, and hence, not a true oath.
At times,
circumstances indicate whether what is materially an oath, that is, what
sounds like an oath, is really one in point of fact. In a teaching situation, in a theatrical presentation, in just
telling a story, merely saying the words that constitute an oath does
not make it real.
Sometimes, too,
expressions used as interjections in common parlance sounds just like oaths,
but are not really intended as such, e.g., God is my witness!
Because it is
necessary that one intend to call upon God as witness to the truth of what one
states, it is possible that in real life [courtroom] situations one may intend
only to give the impression that he is making an oath, and does not really
intend to invoke God as a witness.
That would be a
false oath and a sin against the virtue of religion. Because of the gravity of the harm that can
be done to an innocent party in that situation, this would be a very serious
sin.
Very often not
only are the words of an oath spoken, but to add more solemnity, they are
spoken while the right hand is upraised or placed upon a Bible.
When the person
swearing the oath is a known atheist or agnostic, he/she is not required
to use the customary form of an oath, but is asked merely to solemnly affirm
that the testimony to be given is the truth.
Fortunately,
too, the customary formulas include words such as to the best of my
knowledge, so that good faith errors or inaccurate perceptions that are
asserted as true do not become formal lies.
Obviously, one
may call upon God for different reasons and under different aspects.
It would not
be an oath to call upon God as merciful or as all-powerful
and so to assist in the quest for the truth about a certain matter. Neither would it be an oath to call upon
Him, in virtue of those same attributes, to induce others to believe
that we are telling the truth about something.
To be an oath, God, as infinite, uncreated Truth, must be called upon to
be a co-witness and guarantor that the testimony given is true.
Though we don’t
hear this terminology very often, if at all, oaths can be either assertive
or promissory.
What we are
familiar with are the assertive oaths.
These have to do with the truth of a present, stated fact.
The promissory
oath attests that at the present moment the one swearing has the firm,
irrevocable intention of doing or omitting something at a future time. As my textbook explains it:
In a promissory oath,
1. God
is invoked as witness to the present intention of the oath-taker to carry out
what he proposes to do. Hence it
includes an assertion concerning a present fact, but adds a future
proposal. We must say, therefore, that
an assertive oath is actually merely assertive, i.e., without more.
2. The
promissory oath does not call upon God to be a witness to the future
execution of what is promised, since it is impossible for us humans infallibly
to predict that specified human acts of free individuals will actually occur.
3. In
a promissory oath God is more like a patron. That is, the promise is made under His patronage. As a consequence, the promisor is able to
confer greater force and reliability upon his intention to do or omit the
proposed future deed, since his filial fear of offending God strengthens his
resolve.
* * * * * * * * *
MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.