We will now turn to a consideration of the vows made by the Priests of
the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX priests), and for this subject there are
three points of inquiry: (1) Whether SSPX priests make vows? (2) Whether
the vows of SSPX priests are public vows? (3) Whether an SSPX priest can
be released from his vow without the permission of his superiors?
Contents
|
(1) Whether SSPX priests make vows?
Objection 1. It would seem that SSPX priests do not make vows, for in the Statutes of the Society of St. Pius X it states: "The Fraternity is a priestly Society of common life without vows, after the pattern of the Society of Foreign Missions." (Statutes, I.1)
But on the other hand, on December 8th every year SSPX priests make an oblation in a public ceremony, part of which reads: "may the sacrifice I offer so appear in Thy sight as to please Thee, O Lord God." And since Can. 1911 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law says that a vow is a promise made to God, hence, the oblation is a vow.
We answer that:
There are two kinds of vows a priest can make: vows of religion and vows not of religion. The Theologian says (ST II-II.186.6) that there are three vows of religion, namely poverty, chastity and obedience:
"poverty, chastity and obedience belong to the perfection of the Christian life. Consequently the religious state requires that one be bound to these three by vow."
SSPX priests do not make the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and therefore they do not make vows of religion. And so, it is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre speaks about vows of religion in the Statutes of the Society of St. Pius X, where he says:
"The Fraternity is a priestly Society of common life without vows, after the pattern of the Society of Foreign Missions." (Statutes, I.1)
But a priest can also make a vow not of religion. We recall here that Canon Law speaks of a vow being a promise made to God:
Can. 1191 §1 A vow is a deliberate and free promise made to God, concerning some good which is possible and better. The virtue of religion requires that it be fulfilled. (1983 Code)
The oblation made by SSPX priests is a deliberate and free promise made to God on December 8th every year. And the promise is made concerning a commitment to belong to the Society of St. Pius X. Hence, the oblation made by SSPX priests would be a vow if belonging to the Society of St. Pius X is a greater good than not belonging. Now we read in the Statutes of the Society of St. Pius X (III.2) that:
"A second purpose of the Fraternity is to assist the sanctification of priests"
In view of this purpose, to belong to the Society of St. Pius X is a greater good than not to belong, as long as the Society of St. Pius X would act according to its purpose of assisting in a member's sanctification. Hence, the oblation made by SSPX priests is a vow.
Reply to Objection 1: The Statutes refer to vows of religion, which SSPX priests do not make, but it is clear that SSPX priests make vows that are not vows of religion.
(2) Whether the vows of SSPX priests are public vows?
Objection 1. It would seem that the vows of SSPX priests are public vows. For when SSPX priests make their vows, they make them in a public ceremony on December 8th every year as already shown (Art. 1). Because SSPX priests make their vows in a public ceremony, hence they are public vows.
Objection 2. Besides this, the vows of SSPX priests are received in this same ceremony by the legitimate superior. But Prümmer says (Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 1953, vol. II, #390) that "a public vow is that which is accepted in the name of the Church by a legitimate superior." Hence the vows made by SSPX priests are public vows.
Objection 3. Furthermore, Jone says (Commentarium in Codicem Iuris Canonici, 1954, p. 482) that "Public vows are vows that are made in religious profession", but the vows made by SSPX priests are vows professing their membership in the Society of St. Pius X. Therefore, the vows made by SSPX priests are public vows.
But on the other hand, Coronata, quoting Vermeersch, says (Institutiones Iuris Canonici ad Usum Cleri, vol. II, De Rebus, 1939, #890, footnote 1): "Consider also the Society of Priests of the Missions who have four vows. These also do not constitute vows of religion because these vows are not accepted in the name of the Church."
We answer that:
A vow is considered to be a public vow when it is accepted by a legitimate superior in the name of the Church. But a vow is accepted in the name of the Church only if the community to which the superior belongs is considered by law to be a religious community. This we shall proceed to demonstrate.
First, consider what Abbo and Hannan say (The Sacred Canons, 1960, vol. II, #1308) about public vows:
"Moreover, a vow is not public unless accepted in the name of the Church; and the lack of this requisite prevents the vows of the members of quasi-religious societies from being public vows, even though they should be accepted by a bishop."
This same is said by Coronata (Institutiones Iuris Canonici ad Usum Cleri, vol. II, De Rebus, 1939, #890):
"It can happen that some community might not be approved as a religious community, but as a society of persons living in common like religious; it is strongly possible that in such a society each person would make the three religious vows under the authority of his confessor, or else even in the presence of the community, but these vows are not public, from a lack of being accepted on behalf of the Church."
As an example of this kind of community with vows of this kind, Coronata quotes Vermeersch (Theologiae Moralis, vol. I, 770; vol. II, 639) who refers to the Society of Priests of the Missions:
"Consider also the Society of Priests of the Missions who have four vows. These also do not constitute vows of religion because these vows are not accepted in the name of the Church." (Vermeersch, as quoted by Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici ad Usum Cleri, vol. II, De Rebus, 1939, #890, footnote 1)
Now the 1917 Code of Canon Law says that if a community does not make the three vows of religion we have already spoken of (Art. 1), then they are not a religious community; ( instead Abbo and Hannan, as we have seen, refer to them as a quasi-religious society):
Can. 673 § 1 A society of men or women who lead a community life after the manner of religious under proper superiors, but without the three usual vows of religious life, is not a religious community properly so called, nor are its members religious in the strict sense of the term. (1917 Code)
The 1983 Code says the same thing, but calls communities without vows "Societies of apostolic life":
Can. 731 §1 Societies of apostolic life resemble institutes of consecrated life. Their members, without taking religious vows, pursue the apostolic purpose proper to each society. Living a fraternal life in common in their own special manner, they strive for the perfection of charity through the observance of the constitutions. (1983 Code)
We have already determined (Art. 1) that SSPX priests do not make the three usual vows of religious life. Therefore, whether we use the term "quasi-religious society" or "society of apostolic life," this is the kind of "society" that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X belong to. In either case, SSPX priests do not constitute a religious community properly speaking, and because of this, the vows made by SSPX priests are not public vows.
Reply to Objection 1: It is not the act of publicly pronouncing the vow that makes a vow a public vow, but rather whether the vow is accepted in the name of the Church by a legitimate superior.
Reply to Objection 2: The vows made by SSPX priests are not accepted in the name of the Church, but in the name of the Society of St. Pius X. This is because SSPX priests do not constitute a religious community properly speaking, as is evident from what has been said above.
Reply to Objection 3: The vows made by SSPX priests are not considered by law to be vows of religious profession, as SSPX priests do not constitute a religious community properly speaking, as has been said above.
(3) Whether an SSPX priest can be released from his vow without the permission of his superiors?
Objection 1. It would seem that an SSPX priest cannot be released from his vow without the permission of his superiors. For, as stated above (Art. 1) a vow is a promise made to God. And the obligation to a promise can be removed only by the person to whom the promise has been made. But God speaks through the Authority of His Church, for Jesus said to the Apostles: "Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven." (Mt. 18:18). And for a priest in a society of apostolic life, just as for a member of a religious community, the Authority of the Church (and hence the will of God) is heard through his superiors. Therefore, an SSPX priest cannot be released from his vow without the permission of his superiors.
Objection 2. Besides which, the Theologian says (ST II-II.88.12) that a dispensation from a vow can be given only by a Prelate to whom the Church has given the jurisdiction to dispense from vows. But for a priest in a society of apostolic life, this is his superior, for Canon Law says that the superior of a clerical society of apostolic life has jurisdiction over his own members (Can. 134, 1983 Code). Therefore, an SSPX priest cannot be released from his vow without the permission of his superiors.
But on the other hand, Prümmer says (Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 1953, vol. II, #409): "A (private) vow ceases from internal causes, when such a change has come about on the part either of the person making the vow or of the matter promised," and such internal causes do not depend on the permission of religious superiors.
We answer that:
The vow obliging one to remain in a particular quasi-religious society or society of apostolic life may cease in two ways: either from external causes, as in the case of a superior granting a dispensation, or from internal causes. In the case of SSPX priests, there is one internal cause to be considered: a substantial change in the matter promised.
A substantial change in the matter promised is one of the causes for the ceasing of a vow enumerated in Canon Law (Can. 1194, 1983 Code). There are several who have commented on what a substantial change in the matter might be. First we shall consider the Theologian, who says (ST II-II.88.10):
"A person who takes a vow makes a law for himself as it were, and binds himself to do something which in itself and in the majority of cases is a good. But it may happen that in some particular case this is simply evil, or useless, or a hindrance to a greater good: and this is essentially contrary to that which is the matter of a vow, as is clear from what has been said above (ST II-II.88.2). Therefore it is necessary, in such a case, to decide that the vow is not to be observed."
Prümmer also says (Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 1953, vol. II, #409):
"A (private) vow ceases from internal causes, when such a change has come about on the part either of the person making the vow or of the matter promised, that, if it had been present at the beginning, certainly the vow would have been hindered, or as St. Thomas briefly says: 'that which would hinder making a vow, if it be present, also takes away the obligation of a vow already made'."
Merkelbach also says (Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1947, vol. II, #733):
"A vow can be partially or totally ceased or suspended... when such a grave change occurs in the matter promised or in the status of the person who made the vow (relative to the matter), that morally it might be believed that the one who made the vow did not intend to obligate himself for such a case or such a state: a vow does not oblige beyond the intention of the one making the vow."
Merkelbach elsewhere briefly lists the causes for suspending the obligation of a vow (Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1947, vol. II, #740):
"The causes are: (on the part of the matter)
-if there would be an occasion or cause of evil such as spiritual ruin
-if it might hinder the common good of the Church or the state or the community"
Finally, Coronata (Institutiones Iuris Canonici ad Usum Cleri, vol. II, De Rebus, 1939, #893) briefly describes how the obligation to a vow can cease from internal causes:
"A vow can cease from internal causes by... a substantial change in the matter promised. A substantial change occurs when the action or the thing promised by the vow is legitimately unable to be served any more or the greater good is hindered."
We can get a better idea of what a substantial change in the matter promised might be in the case of SSPX priests, by looking at the discussion of another question (ST II-II.189.8) by the Theologian. That question is the case of someone transferring from one religious or quasi-religious community to another (although in the case of such a transfer, the Theologian says that the permission of the superior should be sought). For a legitimate transfer to another religious or quasi-religious community the Theologian gives three reasons. It is the second reason that is of interest to us:
"One may commendably pass from one religious order to another for three reasons. First, through zeal for a more perfect religious life... Secondly, on account of a religious order falling away from the perfection it ought to have... thirdly, on account of sickness or weakness."
A religious order falling away from the perfection it ought to have is certainly to be considered a change in the matter promised, for as Prümmer has already said above, if this had been known at the time the person made the vow, he certainly would not have made it.
Hence it is evident from the above that it is possible for an SSPX priest to be released from his vow without the permission of his superiors.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above, the obligation to a private vow ceases when there is a substantial change in the matter promised in the vow. Yet this is the exceptional case. In the normal state of affairs, a substantial change in the matter promised does not occur, and in such cases, the obligation to a promise can be removed only by the one to whom the promise has been made, or by someone whom that person has given the authority to dispense from the vow.
Reply to Objection 2: the reply to Objection 1 suffices as a
reply to Objection 2.