Section — Koch–Preuss
Section 2: Lawfulness of Oaths
1. the Teaching of Sacred Scripture
That oaths are lawful cannot simply be deduced from the fact that they are acts of divine worship, for they are not usually taken for the purpose of honoring God. The lawfulness of oaths was denied by some of the Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, by certain ancient and medieval sects which pretended to restore Christianity to its pristine purity, and by sundry Protestant denominations. All of them maintain that oaths are forbidden by the Bible. The principal texts which they cite in support of their contention are the following: a) Christ says: ‘You have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil (from evil).”1 b) St. James writes: ‘Above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other oath. But let your speech be, yea, yea: no, no: that you fall not under judgment.”2
2 Jas. V, 12; cfr. Ex. XX, 7; Lev. XIX, 12; Numb. XXX, 3.
- These texts, it is asserted, not only forbid wanton, false, and unjust swearing, or swearing by creatures instead of by the Creator, or cursing (which is not really swearing at all, rather a mere profanation of the divine name),3 but oaths as such (non iurare omnino). However, the prohibition contained in our Lord’s utterance and in that of St. James is plainly not absolute. If it were, Sacred Scripture would contradict itself, for not only has God repeatedly guaranteed His veracity by an oath, but oaths were an acknowledged part of the legal system of the Old Testament.4 Christ acknowledged the adjuration addressed to Him by the high priest, for He replied to his query.5 St. Paul repeatedly calls God to witness in a most solemn manner to the truth and sincerity of his preaching,6 and in his Epistle to the Hebrews expressly declares that “an oath for confirmation is the end of all controversy.”7
3 Cfr. St. Jerome, In Evangelium Matth., l. I, c. 5: “The Jews are known always to have this very bad custom of swearing by the elements. . . . Consider that here the Saviour did not forbid swearing by God, but by heaven and earth and Jerusalem and your head.” (Migne, P. L., XXVI, 39).—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 89, art. 2, ad 1.
4 Deut. VI, 13; Ps. CIX, 4; Luke I, 73.
5 Matt. XXVI, 63 sq.
6 Rom. I, 9; 2 Cor. I, 23; XI, 31; Gal. I, 20; Phil. I, 8.
7 Heb. VI, 16.
- The apparent contradiction between the two series of texts which we have cited can be easily solved. Both our Lord and St. James state it as a moral principle that in the kingdom of God oaths are not necessary, since all men would be honest and veracious if they lived up to His teaching. The disciples are forbidden to swear because oaths are incompatible with the perfect constitution of Christian society. In matter of fact, however, men are not perfect. They lie, they mistrust and cheat one another in consequence of the Fall, and whenever important interests are at stake, demand that God be called as a witness, “to whose eyes all things are naked and open” and to whom all men are responsible.8 By being asked to swear, a man is reminded of Him who is the author and avenger of the law, and his sense of duty is thereby sharpened.
An oath, therefore, is the highest and securest guarantee of human veracity, but it is at the same time a necessary evil, the last resource of society in sustaining law and order. It is, as the Ro- man Catechism truly says, “a remedy of human frailty and a necessary means of proving the truth of what we advance,” and “has been instituted on account of human weakness and really proceeds from evil” (i. e., from the depravation of human nature), as “‘it indicates either the inconstancy of him by whom, or the contumacy of him for whom it is taken, because he cannot otherwise be induced to believe.”9
9 Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 3, qu. 7, 19.
If taken under the conditions set forth in our next section, an oath is good and lawful because it presupposes, both in him who demands and in him who takes it, belief in an omniscient, truthful, and just God, and in this sense may be regarded as a solemn profession of faith.10 This explains why the Church has condemned it as erroneous to deny the lawfulness of oaths.11
10 Profession of Faith Prescribed to the Waldenses by Innocent III: “We do not condemn an oath; rather, we believe with a pure heart that it is lawful to swear with truth, judgment, and justice.” (Denz.-Bannwart, n. 425).—St. Augustine, De Serm. Dom. in Monte, l. I, c. 17, n. 51: “If you are compelled to swear, know that this comes from the necessity of the weakness of those whom you are persuading of something; and that weakness is certainly an evil. . . . Accordingly He did not say, ‘Whatsoever is more is an evil,’ but ‘is of evil.’ For you do no evil when you make good use of an oath, which, though not good, is nevertheless necessary, so that you may persuade another of what you usefully advise; but it is from the evil of him by whose weakness you are compelled to swear.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIV, 1255).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 89, art. 2: “An oath in itself is lawful and honorable. This is plain from its origin and its end: from its origin, because an oath was introduced from faith, by which men believe that God possesses infallible truth and knowledge and providence concerning all things; from its end, because an oath is introduced to justify men and to end controversies, as is said in Heb. VI, 16. But an oath turns to evil for someone from the fact that he uses it badly, that is, without necessity and due caution. For he seems to have little reverence for God who introduces Him as witness for a slight cause, something he would not presume to do even concerning an honorable man. There is also imminent danger of perjury, because man easily offends in word (Ecclus. XXIII, 9, 12; Jas. III, 2).”—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 3, qu. 6, 7, 15, 16,
11 Errors of John Wyclif condemned by Martin V, n. 43; Questions to Be Proposed to Wyclifites and Hussites, n. 12 sq.; proposition of Quesnel condemned by Clement XI, n. 101: “Nothing is more opposed to the spirit of God and the teaching 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 simple, and to cause the name and truth of God sometimes to serve the counsel of the impious.”—Cfr. proposition of the Diocesan Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI, n. 75 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 623, 662 sq., 1451, 1575).
- Oaths being justified only as a necessary means of human intercourse, as an antidote to untruth and dishonesty, and as a corrective of the unreliability of human testimony, their very nature demands that they be administered only in important cases, such as legal proceedings and trials, that no individual take an oath except at the demand of legitimate authority, and that the occasions on which it is demanded be restricted as much as possible, in order that what is in itself a sacred function be not cheapened to the detriment of society and sink to the level of an empty ceremony.12 The too frequent swearing of oaths diminishes their value and the respect in which they are held by the people.
12 St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 89, art. 5.—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 3, qu. 19.—F. A. Göpfert, Der Eid, pp. 221 sqq.
An oath should be demanded only when it can be made with proper regard to truth and the reverence due to God. No man should be compelled to swear to the truth of a complicated or obscure statement.
It is entirely just and consistent to debar per- sons who are notoriously unreliable or immoral, such as profligates, drunkards, usurers, and those convicted of perjury, from taking oaths. But it would be unjust, on the other hand, to demand an oath of the members of religious sects who in good faith reject swearing as immoral. American legislation generally allows such persons to “affirm” the truth of their statements and accepts this affirmation in lieu of an oath. If they “affirm” what is false they are liable to be prosecuted for perjury.
It goes without saying that atheists are incapable of taking an oath; to admit or, a fortiori, to compel them to take an oath would be contrary to the very nature of the oath as a religious act.13
13 Wisd. XIV, 28.—Göpfert, Der Eid, pp. 158 sqq.
READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 89, art. 2.—V. Cathrein, S.J., Moralphilosophie, 4th ed., Vol. I, pp. 39 sqq.—E. Müller, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 5th ed., pp. 195 sqq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 9th ed., pp. 265 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 254 sqq.—E. Hubrich, Konfessioneller Eid oder religionslose Beteuerung, Leipsic 1900.—N. Cecchini, Del Carattere Religioso del Giuramento e della Soppressione, Pistoia 1903.