On the Second Precept of the Decalogue

“6. God is praised by blasphemy.” Proposition of Eckhart condemned by John XXII.

Title of the Cause. — “I, the undersigned, appointed by the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord N. N., Cardinal Ponent or Relator of the Cause, as a secret Theological Censor for the examination of the writings attributed to the aforesaid Servant of God, touching these Most Holy Gospels of God placed before me, swear and promise faithfully to fulfill the office committed to me and to disclose my judgment in writing according to the truth, in accordance with the form prescribed by Pope Benedict XIV of holy memory. I further swear and promise religiously to preserve secrecy, and not to disclose in any way to anyone my appointment or judgment, except only to the aforesaid Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal, to the Most Reverend Father, Lord Promoter of the Faith, to his Subpromoter, to the Chancellor of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and to his Substitute, under pain of perjury and excommunication latae sententiae, from which I cannot be absolved except by the Supreme Pontiff—even the Major Penitentiary being excluded—apart from danger of death. Thus I promise and swear; so may God help me and these His Holy Gospels. — Rome, on this day ____.”

— Signature.

“Since in certain missions the following question has arisen concerning the interpretation and force of the Bulls Ex quo and Omnium sollicitudinum, which Benedict XIV issued concerning the oath to be made by Missionaries to the Chinese and Indian peoples—namely, whether, besides European priests, native priests also are bound to take the said oath—the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, to which a doubt of this kind had been proposed, judged that the whole matter was to be referred to the Holy Office. Now, on Wednesday, the 29th day of last May, the aforesaid Congregation gave the following response concerning the doubt referred to it, which was thereafter confirmed by Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, namely: According to information newly received, they are bound. While I communicate to Your Amplitude this decision, to which thereafter the individual priests of every mission, whether European or native, will have to adhere faithfully, I also make use of this occasion to signify to you that the oath concerning which there is question above, once it has been taken before any Prelate of a mission, will always thereafter remain in its force; so that it is not necessary for it to be renewed if the Missionary passes to another mission and becomes the subject of another Superior. He will nevertheless have to exhibit to that Superior testimony concerning the same oath having been taken.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 June 1895.

“We do not condemn an oath; indeed, we believe with a pure heart that it is lawful to swear with truth, judgment, and justice.” Profession of Faith of the Waldensians prescribed by Innocent III.

“The third error of these persons—the Fraticelli—agrees with the error of the Waldensians, since both these and those assert that an oath is to be taken in no event, dogmatizing that those whom it should happen to be bound by the religious obligation of an oath are polluted by the contagion of mortal sin and held liable to punishment.” Error condemned by John XXII in a Constitution issued in 1318.

“101. Nothing is more opposed to the spirit and doctrine of Jesus Christ than to make oaths common in the Church, because this is to multiply occasions of perjury, to spread snares for the weak and uneducated, and to bring it about that the name and truth of God sometimes serve the counsel of the impious.” Proposition of Paschasius Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“43. Oaths which are made to confirm human contracts and civil commerce are unlawful.” Proposition of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“75. The doctrine which declares that, in the blessed times of the nascent Church, oaths seemed so foreign to the instructions of the divine Preceptor and to golden evangelical simplicity that even to swear without extreme and unavoidable necessity would have been regarded as an irreligious act, unworthy of a Christian man; which moreover maintains that a continuous series of the Fathers demonstrates that oaths were held to be forbidden according to the common understanding; and which proceeds therefrom to disapprove the oaths which the ecclesiastical court, following—as it says—the norm of feudal jurisprudence, adopted in investitures and in the sacred ordinations of Bishops themselves; and which establishes that a law is therefore to be implored from the secular power for abolishing oaths which are exacted even in ecclesiastical courts for undertaking functions and offices, and generally for every curial act: false, injurious to the Church, harmful to ecclesiastical law, subversive of the discipline introduced and approved by the canons.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“1. Whether it is lawful for the Bishops and clergy to swear to the Spanish Civil Constitution of the year 1869 according to the formula prescribed by the Government. — 2. Whether the Spanish Bishops and the other local Ordinaries ought by pastoral letters to instruct the faithful people concerning the true sense of taking the oath.

“As regards the first question, it is readily evident to anyone that the prescribed oath is unlawful for clerics and laity alike, in view of the formula of the same oath, circumscribed by no limitations. For a Catholic man cannot be permitted to swear that he will observe those laws which are opposed both to divine and to ecclesiastical sanctions. Moreover, it is not hidden from the Bishops of Spain, and Your Eminence knows well, that in that Constitution are contained laws by which Catholic unity is gravely injured, a most extensive liberty of forms of worship and doctrine is introduced and established, and other things opposed to divine and ecclesiastical law are established, which were reproved by the united voice of the Bishops and by the votes of nearly all Spaniards. Hence it has happened that there have not been lacking those who, with a truly praiseworthy counsel, preferred to resign from public offices rather than bind themselves by an oath of this kind against conscience. Nevertheless, if the Government should persist in what it has begun—which may God avert—and the clergy should be compelled to make this oath, then, in order to avoid greater evils, and only in a case of coercion, the Sacred Penitentiary has judged that it can be tolerated that the taking of the oath be made according to the prescribed formula, provided that this limitation is added to the text of the formula: excepting those things which are opposed to the laws of God and of His holy Catholic Church.

“But as regards the second question, since from the taking of an oath of this kind, especially when made by ecclesiastics, an occasion of scandal would easily be furnished on account of the peculiar condition of the Spanish people unless they are rightly instructed concerning the aforesaid limitation appended to it, this Sacred Penitentiary has therefore judged it greatly expedient that the Bishops and local Ordinaries admonish and instruct the flock entrusted to them concerning the appended limitation by pastoral letters. Indeed, it would be desirable that these pastoral admonitions become known to the people before the aforementioned oath is made. But since other sacred Prelates of Spain have also proposed similar questions, I readily persuade myself that Your Eminence will courteously and willingly furnish them with a copy of these letters, so that in so great a matter all may be able and willing to proceed with equal step.” Cf. P. Villada, Cas. Consc. his praesent. tempor. accommod., part 1, On Liberalism, Brussels, 1884, p. 266 ff.; A. S. S., vol. 2, p. 675.

“Whether it is lawful to take the oath proposed by the intruding Government, in these or similar words, in which unlimited obedience is contained: I swear fidelity and obedience to Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, and to his successors. I swear that I will observe the Statute and every other law of the State for the inseparable good of the King and of the Italian fatherland. — Resp. The oath, as it is set forth, is not lawful; but an oath of merely passive obedience can be tolerated in all things which are not opposed to divine and ecclesiastical laws, according to the form approved by Pius VII of holy memory and expressed in these words, namely: I promise and swear that I will never give assistance to a conspiracy, assembly, or sedition of any kind against the present Government; and likewise that I will be subject and obedient to it in all those things which are opposed neither to the laws of God nor to those of the Church.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 561.

“Can a Bishop who is asked take an oath, or can he at least promise a certain observance toward the new order of affairs? — Resp. In the negative, both because ecclesiastics are prohibited by the Sacred Canons from taking an oath before lay authorities, and because the oath, as it is proposed, is unlawful, as is evident from the Response in the Letter of 10 Dec. 1860.” Sacred Penitentiary, 14 Dec. 1866; A. S. S., vol. 2, p. 675.

“Moreover, it has been reported that in many regions of the Indies Catholics are accustomed, when the making of an oath occurs, to swear upon Bibles corrupted by Protestants and presented by the Government; while, on the other hand, it is not difficult to obtain from the civil Government itself that Catholics be given the power of taking an oath upon their own Bibles. Therefore, let all Apostolic Vicars in whose missions a custom of this kind is usually employed diligently take care that the Anglo-Indian Government leave to the faithful the liberty of swearing upon Sacred Scripture received by the Catholic Church. But until they shall obtain this from the civil authority, let them prudently remain silent if they see the faithful taking oaths upon the Bibles of heretics, provided that there is question of a lawful oath. Meanwhile, let them inform the Sacred Congregation whether the Bibles of heretics presented for an oath are substantially corrupted; whether they are presented so that they may be approved by Catholics; whether our Latin Vulgate is customarily excluded; and finally, by whom, in what circumstances, and for what object oaths of this kind are exacted.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 8 Dec. 1869; C. 1664.

“Since Protestant officials preside over all tribunals, courts, customs houses, and public offices of the Government, both civil and military—in French, les bureaux—and the manner of swearing among them is by touching and kissing the Bibles, heretical Bibles are everywhere furnished to be touched and kissed, and it is conceded to the clergy alone that they swear by placing a hand upon the breast. These things being posited, it is asked whether the faithful are to be disturbed concerning the manner which has become prevalent of touching and kissing Bibles of this kind. — Resp. In the case and circumstances set forth, the response is to be in the negative; namely, they are not to be disturbed.” Holy Office, 23 Feb. 1820. — Cf. n. 367.

“14. Likewise, whether he believes that perjury knowingly committed for any cause or occasion whatsoever, for the preservation of the bodily life of oneself or another, even in favor of the faith, is a mortal sin.” Articles from the Bull Inter cunctas of Martin V concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wycliffe and Hus are to be questioned.

“24. To call God as witness to a slight lie is not such great irreverence that on account of it He should will or be able to condemn a man. — 25. With cause, it is lawful to swear without the intention of swearing, whether the matter is slight or grave. — 26. If anyone, whether alone or before others, whether questioned or of his own accord, whether for the sake of recreation or for any other end whatsoever, should swear that he did not do something which he in fact did, understanding within himself some other thing which he did not do, or another manner different from that in which he did it, or anything else true added, he does not in reality lie, nor is he perjured. — 27. A just cause for using these equivocations exists whenever this is necessary or useful for preserving bodily health, honor, or family property, or for any other act of virtue, so that the concealment of truth is then considered expedient and deliberate. — 28. He who through recommendation or a gift has been promoted to a magistracy or public office will be able, with a mental reservation, to take the oath which by command of the King is customarily exacted from such persons, without regard to the intention of him exacting it, because he is not bound to confess a hidden crime.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

“The faculty of dispensing from vows does not of itself include the faculty of dispensing from an oath.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 19 May 1845; C. 2087.

“3. Vows concerning the doing of something are impediments to perfection.” Proposition of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

A vow of communities to celebrate certain feasts of precept with a vigil and procession, insofar as it has force from the vow, although confirmed by the Bishop, obliges only those making the vow. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Decrees 834, 2113.