PROMISE. – It is the cause of an obligatory relationship, whether unilateral or bilateral, produced by the will of one or more persons who freely and spontaneously bind themselves, in the manner and under the conditions permitted by natural or positive law, to perform, gratuitously or upon the fulfillment of an agreed condition, any act or to refrain from performing any act, in favor of a third party. The overly frequent use of promises and their variety often render a perfect understanding of this institution difficult. It must be noted at once that one must also keep in view various other notions that are either entirely akin to or merely connected with it, particularly what concerns the matter of contracts (see CONTRACT), the difference between a promise and an intention (see), betrothal (see), and also the particular nature of the obligation that a promise produces (see for this purpose fidelity).
The *Code of Canon Law* refers, with regard to the matter of contracts, to the laws of individual states (can. 1529) and contents itself with establishing norms for certain particular contracts, especially concerning ecclesiastical goods (can. 1530-43); it does not, therefore, treat promises *ex professo*. The only exception, besides can. 1017, which briefly regulates the promise of marriage, is constituted by can. 150 §§ 1-2, which establishes that the promise of an ecclesiastical office (see), when the office is not vacant, produces no juridical effect.
A promise may constitute either a simple offer made to another, generally without an obligation of justice, or a true and proper contract, depending on the will of the promisor himself. 1) As a simple offer in favor of a third party, a promise, by natural law, must be entirely spontaneous, not prodigal, gratuitous, known to, and not refused by, the person to whom it is made. Spontaneity is required by the very nature of a promise, which, in this case, being without any counterpart that might constitute remuneration, does not admit of any coercion whatsoever. Only true physical or moral coercion is to be considered as depriving a promise of spontaneity, inasmuch as advice or a desire, even if insistently expressed by outsiders or by the promisee himself, does not have the effect of eliminating the substantial spontaneity necessary in a promise. Moreover, a promise must not be prodigal, that is, it must have a justification and be contained within the limits of the social standing of the promisor (in this regard it is to be recalled that a promise that is entirely prodigal is, after St. Alphonsus, considered by various theologians to be not only illicit but even invalid). Gratuity entails that, on the part of the promisee (or a third party on his behalf), there must be no performance of a true counterpart that is juridically relevant; acts of pure liberality on the part of the promisee are, however, not excluded. Finally, the promise must be known to the promisee and not refused by him; it is not possible, in fact, to have precise obligations, different from those of a mere intention (see), toward someone who is ignorant of what depends solely on another’s will, much less toward someone who may positively renounce the offer. It is also a matter of natural law that every promise must in some way be useful to the promisee; for if there is no purpose, no end, no utility, the very thing itself is lacking for the promisee; and therefore it is not enough that the thing promised be neither harmful nor dishonest. Again, by natural law, a promise may pertain to a personal performance or to the performance of a real thing distinct from a personal activity of the promisor. The obligation to adhere to the promise is one of fidelity alone and, consequently, by its nature light, inasmuch as its non-fulfillment involves nothing more than a lie (it is well known that the eighth commandment obliges, in itself, only under venial sin). In particular cases, however, there may arise an obligation, even a grave one, of continuing justice; in such a case, however, it is indispensable not only that the promisor have the precise intention in this regard but also, at least generally, some external solemnity, such as the presence of witnesses or a written form, and, in addition, some harm to the other party in the event of non-fulfillment of the promise. In any case, a promise not expressly translated into a true and proper contract is never presumed to oblige by strict duty of justice, that is, with the burden of restitution in the event of non-performance.
2) As a contract, a promise is the cession of a right in favor of a third party who accepts it in order to obtain a corresponding performance. The cession of the right in favor of the third party remains gratuitous even if it is followed by or simultaneous with a performance, not only because it is generally spontaneous in its formulation but also because it is often not proportionate to the performance itself. Therefore, a promise, even if materially remunerated, must not be confused with a sale or an exchange. In a promise that is a contract, as in a simple promise, one must above all take into account the will of the promisor in order to judge the nature of the obligation that arises from it; however, it is commonly admitted that strict duties of justice arise from it and, consequently, the burden, on the part of the promisor, of repairing any damages resulting from non-performance of the promise, and, on the part of the promisee, the natural right to compensation, even through hidden set-off (see), for the non-performance and the resulting damages. It should not be thought that this obligation is by its nature and always grave—this depends in part on the will of the promisor, especially as noted by the promisee, and always on the quantity of the matter considered in the concrete circumstances.
As for the cessation of the obligation induced by a promise, in addition to what is said regarding contracts in general, it must be held that a simple promise, whether personal or real, is extinguished by the occurrence of circumstances such that, had they been foreseen, they would have induced the promisor not to make it, and always upon the promisor’s death; a promise that is a contract, if it is real, passes to the heirs, who must satisfy it from the deceased’s estate; both types must also be fulfilled toward the heirs of the promisee if the latter should die first and it was the promisor’s intention to benefit not the person of the promisee but his family.
Lorenzo Giustiniani (Benedict XIV, *De beat. et canoniz. sanctorum*, Bologna 1734, lib. I, cap. 18, nn. 7-8).
This office was in early times always united with that of the fiscal advocate, the latter having the same duty of upholding and defending the rights of the Church (v. *Promotore di Giustizia*). The office of p. della f. was later separated from that of the fiscal advocate. In 1708, Clement XI appointed Monsignor Prospero Bettini, Archbishop of Mira, who held both offices, as coadjutor with future succession, naming Monsignor Lambertini to the office of p. della f. and the nephews of Prospero Bettini to the office of fiscal advocate, thus separating the two offices. For twenty years, Lambertini discharged the office of p. della f. with distinction. Upon becoming pope, wishing to give the distinguished college of consistorial advocates (v.), to which he had belonged, a perpetual mark of benevolence and esteem, he issued the constitution *Inter conspicuos* on 29 August 1744 (*Bull. Ben. XIV*, vol. I, Prato 1845, p. 407), in which, while approving and enlarging their prerogatives, he expressly declared the office of p. della f., which is part of that college, incompatible with that of fiscal advocate. Since the two offices were then held by Monsignor Luigi Valenti by special dispensation of Clement XII, the pope ordered that this grace should not be extended to others, thereby confirming the separation established by Clement XI.
III. Rights and Duties of the P. della F. — The p. della f. in diocesan tribunals must be distinguished from the general promoter of the faith at the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Moreover, in diocesan tribunals, a distinction must be made between promoters for apostolic processes, who are appointed by the general promoter of the faith (sub-promoters of the faith), and the p. della f. for ordinary processes (simply called promoters), who are appointed by the local Ordinary (canons 2010–11).
The duty of the p. della f. is to seek the objective truth in the process. It is his task to draw up concise, purely historical interrogatories designed to uncover the truth, formulating appropriate questions even on the articles of the postulator (v.), of whom he is by office the contradictor. He must pass these interrogatories to the judges in sealed form, under the obligation of secrecy (canon 2012 § 1). It is likewise the duty of the p. della f. to summon witnesses ex officio and to raise necessary exceptions even against witnesses indicated by the postulator. The judges, however, may also summon witnesses ex officio, even against the will of the p. della f., provided they inform him (canon 2012 § 2; cf. also canons 2024, 2059, 2070, 2072, 2078, 2079, 2086 § 2, 2090, 2100, 2110 § 2). The intervention of the p. della f. is also required in the search for the writings of the Servant of God (canon 2046 and V. *perquisizione*, II. *P. degli scritti*), in the instruction of the informative process on the reputation for holiness in general or for martyrdom, in the examination of miracles (canons 2051, 2055), and in the process of non-cult (canon 2059).
III. Rights and Duties of the General Promoter of the Faith — At the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the general promoter of the faith takes office. It is his duty to give his opinion to the cardinal ponens on the selection of the revisers of the writings of the Servant of God, whose names must remain secret (canon 2066 § 1). Against these revisers, the general promoter of the faith must draw up, if there are any, the objections to be discussed by the cardinals of the Sacred Congregation (canon 2070). Even from writings that have received the favorable judgment of the pope, the general promoter of the faith may and must raise objections in the discussion of the virtues (canon 2072). Once the revision of the writings has been successfully completed, the general promoter of the faith draws up, in accordance with canons 2078, 2079, and 2080, his observations (objections) against the introduction of the cause. If, once the cause has been officially introduced before the Sacred Congregation of Rites, it becomes necessary to proceed with the instruction of the process of non-cult because it was not previously completed, then the general promoter of the faith draws up the interrogatories to be put to the witnesses in such a process (canon 2086 § 2). When, moreover, an apostolic process must be instructed either on the reputation for holiness in particular or on martyrdom and its cause, the general promoter of the faith sends (canon 2089) special letters to the curia where the process is to be held, designating two sub-promoters who, in his name, are to be present at the process. The interrogatories to be put to the witnesses in such a process are drawn up by the general promoter of the faith himself, taking into account the objections discussed in the introduction of the cause, the testimony given in the informative process, and any extrajudicial information (canon 2090).
Once this apostolic process has reached the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the general promoter of the faith compiles observations (*animadversiones*) against its validity (canon 2090, n. 2). In the meetings (congregations) where the discussion takes place on the heroic virtues in particular or on martyrdom and its cause, the votes of all the prelates and consultors present must be delivered to the general promoter of the faith (canon 2103 § 3). For each of these three congregations, the general promoter of the faith draws up his *animadversiones* (canon 2106, n. 4; 2109, n. 1; 2113). The general promoter of the faith, even if not consulted, may intervene, especially when the matter is important and the facts need to be more fully elucidated (canon 2103 § 2). Once the discussion on the virtues has been completed and they have been declared heroic by decree, the examination of the two miracles performed through the intercession of the Servant of God is taken up; these miracles are required for beatification. In this examination and discussion as well, the general promoter of the faith participates with his *animadversiones*, following the same norms established for the discussion of the virtues (canons 2120; 2121; 2122; 2123). It is at this point that the general promoter of the faith must be heard regarding the appointment of experts, to whom is entrusted the task of determining, in the light of science, whether the event proposed as a miracle can or cannot be explained by the laws of nature. Once the Servant of God has been solemnly declared blessed, the general promoter of the faith takes part once more in the cause of canonization (canons 2130, 2140).
The general promoter of the faith, who, as has already been noted, is a member of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (1st section for causes of beatification and canonization), has an ordinary audience with the Holy Father on the first Sunday of every month to report on his high office. He receives notification to intervene in public and semi-public consistories. In the peroration, which in public consistories is delivered by the consistorial advocates (rules given by Urban VIII, 23 January 1631) requesting the pope to grant beatification, the general promoter of the faith makes the customary protest and petition that everything established by apostolic constitutions be observed in the cause, that the usual formulas be followed, and that the cause be remitted to the full cognizance of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.
IV. THE OFFICE OF THE *SOTTOPROMOTORE GENERALE* OF THE F
We have already spoken of the *sottopromotori*, appointed by the Father General of the Society of Jesus to instruct the apostolic process in diocesan curiae (can. 2011 § 2). However, alongside him in the Sacred Congregation of Rites there is the *sottopromotore generale* of the F., who until 1824 was merely a study assistant, removable at the will of the Father General of the Society. In that year (by a *motu proprio* of 3 May), in view of his extraordinary merits, Monsignor Cardellini, *sottopromotore*, was also made an assessor of the Sacred Congregation of Rites by Leo XII. This Pope then, in assigning him to assist Monsignor Frattini, established that the office of assessor should be permanent and perpetual, and that the assessor belonged to the class of officials of the same Sacred Congregation, taking rank immediately after the Father General of the Society and having a vote like the other consultors. To this assessorship Leo XII decreed that the office of *sottopromotore generale* of the F. should always be united, and he ordered that, according to the ancient system, the *sottopromotore* should hold study in his own residence for young men desirous of being qualified to act as procurators and advocates in the causes of the Servants of God and other matters within the competence of the Sacred Congregation of Rites; he was also to receive in his capacity as assessor those who wished to be instructed in ceremonial and liturgical matters.As assessor and *sottopromotore*, he must assist as fiscal procurator in all apostolic processes conducted in Rome in the causes of the Servants of God or Blesseds, and also in apostolic processes outside Rome if designated by the Father General of the Society. In practice, however, the *sottopromotore* rarely intervenes in these processes *extra urbem*.
It is the duty of the *sottopromotore* to examine all the processes in the causes proposed, to compile summaries of objections if necessary, and to make the appropriate annotations, which serve as the basis for the Father General of the Society to formulate his *animadversiones* (cf. const. *Sanctissimus Dominus* of Innocent XI, 18 Oct. 1678: *Bull. Rom.*, t. XIX, Turin 1870, p. 123). The compilation of these, however, is the exclusive prerogative of the Father General of the Society, and the *sottopromotore* is merely to prepare, so to speak, the material. He must also examine all the summaries, informations, and writings presented in the causes of the Servants of God and make a *revisio*; indeed, he must correct the printed summaries by comparing them with the original processes or other authentic documents. Then, as assessor, he must examine all liturgical doubts referred to the Sacred Congregation; he must also review all pious considerations, meditations, and prayers intended for publication. Furthermore, he must examine and grant the *nihil obstat* to all prayers and pious works for which some indulgence—plenary or partial—is sought from the Holy See. In ancient times, the *sottopromotore* was also a consultor of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Sacred Relics and was therefore required to cast votes on matters referred to that Congregation.
In canonizations and beatifications, the Father General of the Society and the *sottopromotore generale* of the F., in addition to the usual emoluments, images, and lives of the blessed and saints, receive their relics and a large oil painting depicting them.