Book — Concina, Theologia Christiana III
Book Five — On the Decalogue — Treating of the Second Commandment:
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain." — Exodus 20:7
Preliminary Remarks
The first commandment of the Decalogue has supplied us with an ample subject for disputation. The second, however, presents a subject for discussion not, indeed, so vast, but far more sorrowful on account of the depravity of Christians. For in the commentary on that commandment, which I undertake to treat with a fuller pen, lies that oath which has always been held in the highest veneration, and in great esteem, by all nations, however wild, barbarous, and uncultivated. But, O the times, O the customs! Although the Christian religion, above all others, professes the sanctity of the oath, and teaches that it is to be employed with reverence, only in the most extreme circumstances, its conditions observed, and with the greatest caution, on solemn occasions only — nonetheless the abuse is so great, that very many Christians have nothing more frequent in their mouths, in the midst of professing this sound doctrine and evangelical teaching, than oaths, whether in ratifying pacts and contracts, or in the buying and selling of goods, now in games and amusements, now, finally, in every familiar conversation. This frequency of swearing, moreover, introduces such a habit of perjury, that it exposes the law and profession of Jesus Christ to the contempt, mockery, and reproach, indeed nearly to the peril, of all the infidel nations. For pagans cannot bring themselves to believe that Christians worship and love the true God with faith, hope, and charity, when they hear them everywhere holding his most sacred name in contempt, and abusing it in almost every word.
But what demands a still more abundant fount of tears is the teaching of certain Casuists, who do not recall the laws themselves, and the rules to be observed in the use of oaths, back to a just and holy custom of swearing; but, on the contrary, accommodate the rules of oaths to the depraved morals of perjurers — which I would not have understood in the sense that any of them approve the horrendous crime of perjury; but rather that, deceived by a false and cruel benignity, not a few of them, when they hear the holy name of God usurped in almost every utterance, strive, with a merciful intention and in good faith, to persuade the multitude that this is not truly an oath according to the sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers, so as to withdraw very many from the danger of perjury — that swearing is not the formula of this or that particular nation, but a peculiar one. For the unbridled and unchecked license of many in employing the divine name without discrimination, judgment, and justice has given occasion to not a few submissive writers to write that men do not swear, although they affirm "By God" that what they utter is true — since either they have no intention of swearing, or this invocation "By God" is, among certain nations, reduced to a mere customary manner of speaking; or, by mental restrictions, the matter is withdrawn from the oath; or the oath is directed toward some other meaning than that which the one to whom it is sworn understands. Hence the frequency of Christians' swearing has driven not a few Casuists to coin lax opinions; and their opinions, in turn, more bold, have made Christians more reckless in the use of oaths; and finally, both on account of the laxity of the former's writing, and on account of the latter's vain usurpation of the divine name, the sacrilegious custom of perjury has struck such deep roots, and flourishes so obstinately and with such impunity everywhere, that it has already almost shed the enormity of its crime. Wherefore, before I proceed to untangling the difficulties of the oath, I will set before the eyes, according to custom, the errors of the heretics, and the propositions of certain Casuists, proscribed by the Church, and, partly, though not proscribed, nonetheless straying too far from evangelical honesty. To all these, however, I must first prefix what God really commands, and what he forbids, by this his second commandment. For very many things are contained in these words, "thou shalt take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," which, unless I expound beforehand, my discourse, being defined by no boundary, could not be consistent with itself everywhere, nor proceed by a straight path. I will, then, first disclose the various meanings of the words by which God expressed his second commandment; then I will proceed to handling the proposed subject.
Within this book
Dissertation I — On the Oathnn. 15–28
- Chapter I — What God commands, or forbids, by this second precept of the Decalogue, is explained
- Chapter II — Several heretics who condemn the sacred oath as unlawful. Their errors are reviewed. The oath is shown to be an honorable act, lawful for Christians, and the fruit of the virtue of religion, or of latria
- Chapter III — Propositions are reviewed which, holding the oath cheap, the Church has proscribed. Innocent XI condemned themnn. 15–28
- Chapter IV — Lax, or improbable, propositions are reviewed, which not a few Casuists teach
- Chapter V — What an oath is; various formulas of swearing are explained
- Chapter VI — Some further little questions concerning oath formulas are resolved. Rules too are assigned for distinguishing what counts, or does not count, as an oath, especially concerning this formula: "By God"
- Chapter VII — The divisions of oaths are given, and whether all oaths are of the same species is explained
- Chapter VIII — Under what conditions an oath is lawful; a threefold condition is necessary for it: truth, judgment, justice. Other rules of swearing are assigned by St. Thomas
- Chapter IX — What truth is required in an assertory oath. The defect of even the smallest truth in this oath is a mortal sin. Some little questions concerning perjury are resolved
- Chapter X — On the defect of justice, and of judgment, in an assertory oath. Some little questions are resolved
Dissertation II — On the Promissory Oath
- Chapter I — On the truth and judgment necessary in a promissory oath. Little questions of no small moment are examined
- Chapter II — On the justice necessary for a promissory oath
- Chapter III — On the matter of a promissory oath, which induces an obligation
- Chapter IV — What the obligation of a promissory oath is. It is compared with the obligation of a vow. What intention, or resolve, is required in a promissory oath. To swear without the intention of swearing is always a mortal sin
Dissertation III — On the Deceitful, Equivocal, Ambiguous, and Amphibological Oath: On Mental Restrictions, and on Lying
- Chapter I — The errors of Plato, Origen, Hilary, John Chrysostom, Cassian, John Climacus, and Martin of Braga, concerning the licit use of a lie in extreme necessity, are reviewed
- Chapter II — The authors who, before, or around, Augustine's time, declared war on lying, are recounted. After Augustine, none of the Catholics favored lying
- Chapter III — A compendious narration of everything that St. Augustine writes in his Book on Lying
- Chapter IV — A compendium of the Book Against Lying, which St. Augustine wrote to Consentius
- Chapter V — How opportune Augustine's teaching is for settling the controversy concerning the deceitful oath will be made plain from the following propositions
- Chapter VI — A historical narration of the doctrine which several more recent writers devised for concealing truth. Purely mental restrictions, not-purely-mental restrictions, equivocations, amphibologies, and material locutions are reviewed
- Chapter VII — The Supreme Pontiff Innocent XI condemned the principles of the aforesaid propositions. Later theologians devised new inventions, by which to conceal truth. A synopsis of the various doctrines, and of the various principles, of these theologians is woven together
- Chapter VIII — A comparison of the doctrine of certain more recent writers with the doctrine of Cassian, to whom lies were licit in extreme necessity, and of Augustine, who pronounces lies to be contrary in every event. The same cases, both proposed and resolved by Augustine, and by the contrary doctrine
- Chapter IX — The doctrine of more recent writers concerning purely mental restrictions is false, and was rightly condemned by the Church
- Chapter X — The opinion which asserts that words, by common consent of the human commonwealth, signify nothing, when they are employed to conceal a truth which cannot be manifested without grave harm, is rejected as altogether improbable, and false
- Chapter XI — The response of Tamburini is refuted, whose assertion seems altogether laxer than the very proposition condemned concerning mental restrictions
- Chapter XII — The opinion of Fr. Cattaneo, of Fr. La Croix, and of a few other authors, who compare a lie with a theft committed in extreme necessity, does not seem consonant with the teaching of the Church
- Chapter XIII — The common opinion of very many more recent writers, which defends restrictions not purely mental, by the benefit of communicable and incommunicable, useful and non-useful knowledge, is brought under examination. It does not differ from the opinion of authors upholding purely mental restrictions
- Chapter XIV — The causes why very many more recent writers really defend proscribed purely mental restrictions. Fr. Sánchez disapproves, beforehand, the opinion of later Casuists. More recent writers' opinions concerning oaths confirmed by restrictions are more dangerous than the ancients' doctrine on the licit use of lying. St. Augustine's invectives against restrictions
- Chapter XV — The causes are further explained why very many more recent writers really teach purely mental restrictions, and consequently lies. The explanation by which Fr. La Croix interprets the condemned propositions is rejected. His judgment concerning Fr. Cárdenas is approved, and extended to other authors
- Chapter XVI — Fr. Diego de la Fuente Hurtado upholds that purely mental restrictions are licit for an honorable cause, even after Innocent XI condemned these restrictions. Fr. Carlo Antonio Casnedi teaches that purely mental restrictions are not condemned
- Chapter XVII — Our own opinion is proposed. Amphibology is licit, which, whether by force of words, or of circumstances, admits a double sense, both intelligible to the hearer. Not all truths can always be concealed by amphibologies. The error of very many more recent writers on this matter is exposed. Various rules are assigned for full understanding of the question, and for practice
- Chapter XVIII — The texts of Sacred Scripture which the ancients oppose in defense of lies, and more recent writers in defense of mental restrictions, are expounded
- Chapter XIX — Certain Gospel texts are adduced, which are customarily brought forward in favor of mental restrictions, and are explained
- Chapter XX — Some objections, drawn both from reason, and from examples, and from the doctrine of the Saints — especially St. Raymond, and from the work of Annibaldus, commonly ascribed to St. Thomas — are resolved