|
Objection 1: It would seem that oaths are desirable and to be used
frequently as something useful and good. Just as a vow is an act of
religion, so is an oath. Now it is commendable and more meritorious
to do a thing by vow, because a vow is an act of religion, as stated
above (Question 88, Article 5). Therefore for the same
reason, to do or say a thing with an oath is more commendable, and
consequently oaths are desirable as being good essentially.
Objection 2: Further, Jerome, commenting on Mt. 5:34, says
that "he who swears either reveres or loves the person by whom he
swears." Now reverence and love of God are desirable as something
good essentially. Therefore swearing is also.
Objection 3: Further, swearing is directed to the purpose of
confirming or assuring. But it is a good thing for a man to confirm
his assertion. Therefore an oath is desirable as a good thing.
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 23:12): "A man
that sweareth much shall be filled with iniquity": and Augustine says
(De Mendacio xv) that "the Lord forbade swearing, in order that
for your own part you might not be fond of it, and take pleasure in
seeking occasions of swearing, as though it were a good thing."
I answer that, Whatever is required merely as a remedy for an
infirmity or a defect, is not reckoned among those things that are
desirable for their own sake, but among those that are necessary: this
is clear in the case of medicine which is required as a remedy for
sickness. Now an oath is required as a remedy to a defect, namely,
some man's lack of belief in another man. Wherefore an oath is not to
be reckoned among those things that are desirable for their own sake,
but among those that are necessary for this life; and such things are
used unduly whenever they are used outside the bounds of necessity.
For this reason Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i,
17): "He who understands that swearing is not to be held as a good
thing," i.e. desirable for its own sake, "restrains himself as far
as he can from uttering oaths, unless there be urgent need."
Reply to Objection 1: There is no parity between a vow and an
oath: because by a vow we direct something to the honor of God, so
that for this very reason a vow is an act of religion. On the other
hand, in an oath reverence for the name of God is taken in
confirmation of a promise. Hence what is confirmed by oath does not,
for this reason, become an act of religion, since moral acts take
their species from the end.
Reply to Objection 2: He who swears does indeed make use of his
reverence or love for the person by whom he swears: he does not,
however, direct his oath to the reverence or love of that person, but
to something else that is necessary for the present life.
Reply to Objection 3: Even as a medicine is useful for healing,
and yet, the stronger it is, the greater harm it does if it be taken
unduly, so too an oath is useful indeed as a means of confirmation,
yet the greater the reverence it demands the more dangerous it is,
unless it be employed aright; for, as it is written (Ecclus.
23:13), "if he make it void," i.e. if he deceive his
brother, "his sin shall be upon him: and if he dissemble it," by
swearing falsely, and with dissimulation, "he offendeth double,":
"and if he swear in vain," i.e. without due cause and necessity,
"he shall not be justified."
|
|