|
Objection 1: It would seem that an oath is not voided by a condition
of person or time. An oath, according to the Apostle (Heb.
6:16), is employed for the purpose of confirmation. Now it is
competent to anyone to confirm his assertion, and at any time.
Therefore it would seem that an oath is not voided by a condition of
person or time.
Objection 2: Further, to swear by God is more than to swear by the
Gospels: wherefore Chrysostom [Hom. xliv in the Opus
Imperfectum] says: "If there is a reason for swearing, it seems a
small thing to swear by God, but a great thing to swear by the
Gospels. To those who think thus, it must be said: Nonsense! the
Scriptures were made for God's sake, not God for the sake of the
Scriptures." Now men of all conditions and at all times are wont to
swear by God. Much more, therefore, is it lawful to swear by the
Gospels.
Objection 3: Further, the same effect does not proceed from
contrary causes, since contrary causes produce contrary effects. Now
some are debarred from swearing on account of some personal defect;
children, for instance, before the age of fourteen, and persons who
have already committed perjury. Therefore it would seem that a person
ought not to be debarred from swearing either on account of his
dignity, as clerics, or on account of the solemnity of the time.
Objection 4: Further, in this world no living man is equal in
dignity to an angel: for it is written (Mt. 11:11) that "he
that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he,"
namely than John the Baptist, while yet living. Now an angel is
competent to swear, for it is written (Apoc. 10:6) that the
angel "swore by Him that liveth for ever and ever." Therefore no
man ought to be excused from swearing, on account of his dignity.
On the contrary, It is stated (II, qu. v, can. Si quis
presbyter): "Let a priest be examined 'by his sacred
consecration,' instead of being put on his oath": and (22, qu.
v, can. Nullus): "Let no one in ecclesiastical orders dare to
swear on the Holy Gospels to a layman."
I answer that, Two things are to be considered in an oath. One is
on the part of God, whose testimony is invoked, and in this respect
we should hold an oath in the greatest reverence. For this reason
children before the age of puberty are debarred from taking oaths
[Caus. XXII, qu. 5, can. Parvuli], and are not called
upon to swear, because they have not yet attained the perfect use of
reason, so as to be able to take a oath with due reverence. Perjurers
also are debarred from taking an oath, because it is presumed from
their antecedents that they will not treat an oath with the reverence
due to it. For this same reason, in order that oaths might be treated
with due reverence the law says (22, qu. v, can. Honestum):
"It is becoming that he who ventures to swear on holy things should do
so fasting, with all propriety and fear of God."
The other thing to be considered is on the part of the man, whose
assertion is confirmed by oath. For a man's assertion needs no
confirmation save because there is a doubt about it. Now it derogates
from a person's dignity that one should doubt about the truth of what
he says, wherefore "it becomes not persons of great dignity to
swear." For this reason the law says (II, qu. v, can. Si quis
presbyter) that "priests should not swear for trifling reasons."
Nevertheless it is lawful for them to swear if there be need for it,
or if great good may result therefrom. Especially is this the case in
spiritual affairs, when moreover it is becoming that they should take
oath on days of solemnity, since they ought then to devote themselves
to spiritual matters. Nor should they on such occasions take oaths
temporal matters, except perhaps in cases grave necessity.
Reply to Objection 1: Some are unable to confirm their own
assertions on account of their own defect: and some there are whose
words should be so certain that they need no confirmation.
Reply to Objection 2: The greater the thing sworn by, the holier
and the more binding is the oath, considered in itself, as Augustine
states (Ad Public., Ep. xlvii): and accordingly is a graver
matter to swear by God than the Gospels. Yet the contrary may be the
case on account of the manner of swearing for instance, an oath by the
Gospels might be taken with deliberation and solemnity, and an oath by
God frivolously and without deliberation.
Reply to Objection 3: Nothing prevents the same thing from arising
out of contrary causes, by way of superabundance and defect. It is in
this way that some are debarred from swearing, through being of so
great authority that it is unbecoming for them to swear; while others
are of such little authority that their oaths have no standing.
Reply to Objection 4: The angel's oath is adduced not on account
of any defect in the angel, as though one ought not to credit his mere
word, but in order to show that the statement made issues from God's
infallible disposition. Thus too God is sometimes spoken of by
Scripture as swearing, in order to express the immutability of His
word, as the Apostle declares (Heb. 6:17).
|
|