|
Objection 1: It would seem that not all perjury is a mortal sin.
It is laid down (Extra, De Jurejur, cap. Verum): "Referring
to the question whether an oath is binding on those who have taken one
in order to safeguard their life and possessions, we have no other mind
than that which our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs are known to have
had, and who absolved such persons from the obligations of their oath.
Henceforth, that discretion may be observed, and in order to avoid
occasions of perjury, let them not be told expressly not to keep their
oath: but if they should not keep it, they are not for this reason to
be punished as for a mortal sin." Therefore not all perjury is a
mortal sin.
Objection 2: Further, as Chrysostom [Hom. xliv in Opus
Imperfectum on St. Matthew] says, "it is a greater thing to swear
by God than by the Gospels." Now it is not always a mortal sin to
swear by God to something false; for instance, if we were to employ
such an oath in fun or by a slip of the tongue in the course of an
ordinary conversation. Therefore neither is it always a mortal sin to
break an oath that has been taken solemnly on the Gospels.
Objection 3: Further, according to the Law a man incurs infamy
through committing perjury (VI, qu. i, cap. Infames). Now it
would seem that infamy is not incurred through any kind of perjury, as
it is prescribed in the case of a declaratory oath violated by perjury
[Cap. Cum dilectus, de Ord. Cognit.]. Therefore,
seemingly, not all perjury is a mortal sin.
On the contrary, Every sin that is contrary to a divine precept is a
mortal sin. Now perjury is contrary to a divine precept, for it is
written (Lev. 19:12): "Thou shalt not swear falsely by My
name." Therefore it is a mortal sin.
I answer that, According to the teaching of the Philosopher
(Poster. i, 2), "that which causes a thing to be such is yet
more so." Now we know that an action which is, by reason of its very
nature, a venial sin, or even a good action, is a mortal sin if it be
done out of contempt of God. Wherefore any action that of its
nature, implies contempt of God is a mortal sin. Now perjury, of
its very nature implies contempt of God, since, as stated above
(Article 2), the reason why it is sinful is because it is an act of
irreverence towards God. Therefore it is manifest that perjury, of
its very nature, is a mortal sin.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Question 89, Article
7, ad 3), coercion does not deprive a promissory oath of its
binding force, as regards that which can be done lawfully. Wherefore
he who fails to fulfil an oath which he took under coercion is guilty of
perjury and sins mortally. Nevertheless the Sovereign Pontiff can,
by his authority, absolve a man from an obligation even of an oath,
especially if the latter should have been coerced into taking the oath
through such fear as may overcome a high-principled man.
When, however, it is said that these persons are not to be punished
as for a mortal sin, this does not mean that they are not guilty of
mortal sin, but that a lesser punishment is to be inflicted on them.
Reply to Objection 2: He that swears falsely in fun is nonetheless
irreverent to God, indeed, in a way, he is more so, and
consequently is not excused from mortal sin. He that swears falsely by
a slip of tongue, if he adverts to the fact that he is swearing, and
that he is swearing to something false, is not excused from mortal
sin, as neither is he excused from contempt of God. If, however,
he does not advert to this, he would seem to have no intention of
swearing, and consequently is excused from the sin of perjury.
It is, however, a more grievous sin to swear solemnly by the
Gospels, than to swear by God in ordinary conversation, both on
account of scandal and on account of the greater deliberation. But if
we consider them equally in comparison with one another, it is more
grievous to commit perjury in swearing by God than in swearing by the
Gospels.
Reply to Objection 3: Not every sin makes a man infamous in the eye
of the law. Wherefore, if a man who has sworn falsely in a
declaratory oath be not infamous in the eye of the law, but only when
he has been so declared by sentence in a court of law, it does not
follow that he has not sinned mortally. The reason why the law
attaches infamy rather to one who breaks a promissory oath taken
solemnly is that he still has it in his power after he has sworn to
substantiate his oath, which is not the case in a declaratory oath.
|
|