It sounds like you have a tendency towards being scrupulous. You have this idea that God’s just waiting for a way to condemn you …
I think this sort of language is unnecessary and hyperbolic. I think we ought to be careful that we not label things as scrupulosity which, in reality, could be a simple desire to please to God out of love for Him, as well as a deep inclination to want to do good, coupled with
a desire to form one’s conscience.
Let’s not forget that true scrupulosity is OCD, which in turn is a
psychological condition that requires psychological evaluation. This forum is no place for such evaluations. Moreover, ignorance of the minutia of moral theology is not scrupulosity, or else 99% of posters here would suffer from OCD.
Regarding the relevance of the claim that vows must be made before bishops, etc., see CCC 2101.
Instead of invoking the “s-word,” let’s just provide good, solid, Catholic information, so folks can form their consciences better.
Veronica, here is an article from the Catholic Encylopedia on vows:
newadvent.org/cathen/15511a.htm
What you did strikes me strongly as this:
a simple resolution which is a present purpose to do or omit certain things in the future.
Elsewhere:
A vow, even in an unimportant matter, presupposes the full consent of the will …
Fr. Hardon’s
dictionary defines promise like this:
A declaration telling God or another person that one will or will not do something. A promise made to God is equivalently a vow, and it binds in conscience according to the gravity of the promise and the intention to obligate oneself under pain of sin. Promises made to people must be kept, and they oblige in justice or charity, with more or less seriousness depending on one’s ability to fulfill a promise and the harm caused to another by not keeping one’s word.
According to Fr. Hardon, therefore, you would be sinning if you failed to keep a promise you made to God AND if you originally intended to bind yourself
under pain of sin to your promise.
At the very least, you would have to say something like,
God, I promise to you that I will do thus and such, and I absolutely, in my freedom of will, obligate myself to this promise under pain of sin.
Now, while even the above would have question marks on it, I think it safe to say that that is the least you would have to do.
Also, I would humbly recommend you ask your confessor about something called equiprobablism.
Again, from Fr. Hardon’s
dictionary:
A strict moral theory for resolving practical doubts. Equiprobabilism demands that the opinion that favors freedom be equally or almost equally probable as the one favoring the law. furthermore one may apply this principle only when the doubt concerns the existence of a law, not in a doubt as to whether an existing law has ceased to bind or has been fulfilled.
In other words, if, in your well-formed conscience, you feel there is a 50-50 chance that something is only a venial sin, you may go ahead and treat this situation as if you have a true doubt about the gravity of the “sin,” and thus may treat it as being only venial.
(This is as opposed to laxity, which states that, even if there is a one percent chance that something is a venial sin, we may treat it as such; and, on the other hand, rigorism, which states that, even if there is a one percent chance that something is a mortal sin, we ought to view it as such. Both of these extremes are condemned by the Church, and many “scrupulous” people strike me as being a bit rigorist in their thinking.)
I think knowledge of this important aspect of Catholic moral theology can be so important for folks, like me, who have scruples on occasion. Again, ask your confessor about it!
The King of Universe. Runs. To. Us.
