Summa Theologica Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 142

(6) Whether it is lawful to swear by a creature?

(7) Whether an oath is binding?

(8) Which is more binding, an oath or a vow?

(9) Whether an oath is subject to dispensation?

(10) Who may lawfully swear, and when?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 89, Art. 1]

Whether to Swear Is to Call G.o.d to Witness?

Objection 1: It would seem that to swear is not to call G.o.d to witness. Whoever invokes the authority of Holy Writ calls G.o.d to witness, since it is His word that Holy Writ contains. Therefore, if to swear is to call G.o.d to witness, whoever invoked the authority of Holy Writ would swear. But this is false. Therefore the antecedent is false also.

Obj. 2: Further, one does not pay anything to a person by calling him to witness. But he who swears by G.o.d pays something to Him for it is written (Matt. 5:33): "Thou shall pay [Douay: 'perform'] thy oaths to the Lord"; and Augustine says [*Serm. clx.x.x] that to swear (_jurare_) is "to pay the right (_jus reddere_) of truth to G.o.d." Therefore to swear is not to call G.o.d to witness.

Obj. 3: Further, the duties of a judge differ from the duties of a witness, as shown above (QQ. 67, 70). Now sometimes a man, by swearing, implores the Divine judgment, according to Ps. 7:5, "If I have rendered to them that repaid me evils, let me deservedly fall empty before my enemies." Therefore to swear is not to call G.o.d to witness.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in a sermon on perjury (Serm.

clx.x.x): "When a man says: 'By G.o.d,' what else does he mean but that G.o.d is his witness?"

_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Heb. 6:16), oaths are taken for the purpose of confirmation. Now speculative propositions receive confirmation from reason, which proceeds from principles known naturally and infallibly true. But particular contingent facts regarding man cannot be confirmed by a necessary reason, wherefore propositions regarding such things are wont to be confirmed by witnesses. Now a human witness does not suffice to confirm such matters for two reasons. First, on account of man's lack of truth, for many give way to lying, according to Ps. 16:10, "Their mouth hath spoken lies [Vulg.: 'proudly']." Secondly, on account of [his] lack of knowledge, since he can know neither the future, nor secret thoughts, nor distant things: and yet men speak about such things, and our everyday life requires that we should have some cert.i.tude about them. Hence the need to have recourse to a Divine witness, for neither can G.o.d lie, nor is anything hidden from Him. Now to call G.o.d to witness is named _jurare_ (to swear) because it is established as though it were a principle of law (_jure_) that what a man a.s.serts under the invocation of G.o.d as His witness should be accepted as true. Now sometimes G.o.d is called to witness when we a.s.sert present or past events, and this is termed a "declaratory oath"; while sometimes G.o.d is called to witness in confirmation of something future, and this is termed a "promissory oath." But oaths are not employed in order to substantiate necessary matters, and such as come under the investigation of reason; for it would seem absurd in a scientific discussion to wish to prove one's point by an oath.

Reply Obj. 1: It is one thing to employ a Divine witness already given, as when one adduces the authority of Holy Scripture; and another to implore G.o.d to bear witness, as in an oath.

Reply Obj. 2: A man is said to pay his oaths to G.o.d because he performs what he swears to do, or because, from the very fact that he calls upon G.o.d to witness, he recognizes Him as possessing universal knowledge and unerring truth.

Reply Obj. 3: A person is called to give witness, in order that he may make known the truth about what is alleged. Now there are two ways in which G.o.d makes known whether the alleged facts are true or not. In one way He reveals the truth simply, either by inward inspiration, or by unveiling the facts, namely, by making public what was. .h.i.therto secret: in another way by punishing the lying witness, and then He is at once judge and witness, since by punishing the liar He makes known his lie. Hence oaths are of two kinds: one is a simple contestation of G.o.d, as when a man says "G.o.d is my witness," or, "I speak before G.o.d," or, "By G.o.d," which has the same meaning, as Augustine states [*See argument On the contrary]; the other is by cursing, and consists in a man binding himself or something of his to punishment if what is alleged be not true.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 89, Art. 2]

Whether It Is Lawful to Swear?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not lawful to swear. Nothing forbidden in the Divine Law is lawful. Now swearing is forbidden (Matt. 5:34), "But I say to you not to swear at all"; and (James 5:12), "Above all things, my brethren, swear not." Therefore swearing is unlawful.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever comes from an evil seems to be unlawful, because according to Matt. 7:18, "neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit." Now swearing comes from an evil, for it is written (Matt. 5:37): "But let your speech be: Yea, yea: No, no. And that which is over and above these is of evil." Therefore swearing is apparently unlawful.

Obj. 3: Further, to seek a sign of Divine Providence is to tempt G.o.d, and this is altogether unlawful, according to Deut. 6:16, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy G.o.d." Now he that swears seems to seek a sign of Divine Providence, since he asks G.o.d to bear witness, and this must be by some evident effect. Therefore it seems that swearing is altogether unlawful.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 6:13): "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy G.o.d ... and shalt swear by His name."

_I answer that,_ Nothing prevents a thing being good in itself, and yet becoming a source of evil to one who makes use thereof unbecomingly: thus to receive the Eucharist is good, and yet he that receives it "unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself" (1 Cor. 11:29). Accordingly in answer to the question in point it must be stated that an oath is in itself lawful and commendable. This is proved from its origin and from its end. From its origin, because swearing owes its introduction to the faith whereby man believes that G.o.d possesses unerring truth and universal knowledge and foresight of all things: and from its end, since oaths are employed in order to justify men, and to put an end to controversy (Heb. 6:16).

Yet an oath becomes a source of evil to him that makes evil use of it, that is who employs it without necessity and due caution. For if a man calls G.o.d as witness, for some trifling reason, it would seemingly prove him to have but little reverence for G.o.d, since he would not treat even a good man in this manner. Moreover, he is in danger of committing perjury, because man easily offends in words, according to James 3:2, "If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man." Wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 23:9): "Let not thy mouth be accustomed to swearing, for in it there are many falls."

Reply Obj. 1: Jerome, commenting on Matt. 5:34, says: "Observe that our Saviour forbade us to swear, not by G.o.d, but by heaven and earth.

For it is known that the Jews have this most evil custom of swearing by the elements." Yet this answer does not suffice, because James adds, "nor by any other oath." Wherefore we must reply that, as Augustine states (De Mendacio xv), "when the Apostle employs an oath in his epistles, he shows how we are to understand the saying, 'I say to you, not to swear at all'; lest, to wit, swearing lead us to swear easily and from swearing easily, we contract the habit, and, from swearing habitually, we fall into perjury. Hence we find that he swore only when writing, because thought brings caution and avoids hasty words."

Reply Obj. 2: According to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i. 17): "If you have to swear, note that the necessity arises from the infirmity of those whom you convince, which infirmity is indeed an evil. Accordingly He did not say: 'That which is over and above is evil,' but 'is of evil.' For you do no evil; since you make good use of swearing, by persuading another to a useful purpose: yet it 'comes of the evil' of the person by whose infirmity you are forced to swear."

Reply Obj. 3: He who swears tempts not G.o.d, because it is not without usefulness and necessity that he implores the Divine a.s.sistance.

Moreover, he does not expose himself to danger, if G.o.d be unwilling to bear witness there and then: for He certainly will bear witness at some future time, when He "will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of hearts" (1 Cor.

4:5). And this witness will be lacking to none who swears, neither for nor against him.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 89, Art. 3]

Whether Three Accompanying Conditions of an Oath Are Suitably a.s.signed, Namely, Justice, Judgment, and Truth?

Objection 1: It would seem that justice, judgment and truth are unsuitably a.s.signed as the conditions accompanying an oath. Things should not be enumerated as diverse, if one of them includes the other. Now of these three, one includes another, since truth is a part of justice, according to Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 53): and judgment is an act of justice, as stated above (Q. 60, A. 1).

Therefore the three accompanying conditions of an oath are unsuitably a.s.signed.

Obj. 2: Further, many other things are required for an oath, namely, devotion, and faith whereby we believe that G.o.d knows all things and cannot lie. Therefore the accompanying conditions of an oath are insufficiently enumerated.

Obj. 3: Further, these three are requisite in man's every deed: since he ought to do nothing contrary to justice and truth, or without judgment, according to 1 Tim. 5:21, "Do nothing without prejudice,"

i.e. without previous judgment [*Vulg.: 'Observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by declining to either side.']. Therefore these three should not be a.s.sociated with an oath any more than with other human actions.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jer. 4:2): "Thou shalt swear: As the Lord liveth, in truth, and in judgment, and in justice": which words Jerome expounds, saying: "Observe that an oath must be accompanied by these conditions, truth, judgment and justice."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), an oath is not good except for one who makes good use of it. Now two conditions are required for the good use of an oath. First, that one swear, not for frivolous, but for urgent reasons, and with discretion; and this requires judgment or discretion on the part of the person who swears.

Secondly, as regards the point to be confirmed by oath, that it be neither false, nor unlawful, and this requires both truth, so that one employ an oath in order to confirm what is true, and justice, so that one confirm what is lawful. A rash oath lacks judgment, a false oath lacks truth, and a wicked or unlawful oath lacks justice.

Reply Obj. 1: Judgment does not signify here the execution of justice, but the judgment of discretion, as stated above. Nor is truth here to be taken for the part of justice, but for a condition of speech.

Reply Obj. 2: Devotion, faith and like conditions requisite for the right manner of swearing are implied by judgment: for the other two regard the things sworn to as stated above. We might also reply that justice regards the reason for swearing.

Reply Obj. 3: There is great danger in swearing, both on account of the greatness of G.o.d Who is called upon to bear witness, and on account of the frailty of the human tongue, the words of which are confirmed by oath. Hence these conditions are more requisite for an oath than for other human actions.

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 89, Art. 4]

Whether an Oath Is an Act of Religion, or Latria?

Objection 1: It would seem that an oath is not an act of religion, or latria. Acts of religion are about holy and divine things. But oaths are employed in connection with human disputes, as the Apostle declares (Heb. 6:16). Therefore swearing is not an act of religion or latria.

Obj. 2: Further, it belongs to religion to give worship to G.o.d, as Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 53). But he who swears offers nothing to G.o.d, but calls G.o.d to be his witness. Therefore swearing is not an act of religion or latria.

Obj. 3: Further, the end of religion or latria is to show reverence to G.o.d. But the end of an oath is not this, but rather the confirmation of some a.s.sertion. Therefore swearing is not an act of religion.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 6:13): "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy G.o.d, and shalt serve Him only, and thou shalt swear by His name." Now he speaks there of the servitude of religion. Therefore swearing is an act of religion.

_I answer that,_ As appears from what has been said above (A. 1), he that swears calls G.o.d to witness in confirmation of what he says. Now nothing is confirmed save by what is more certain and more powerful.

Therefore in the very fact that a man swears by G.o.d, he acknowledges G.o.d to be more powerful, by reason of His unfailing truth and His universal knowledge; and thus in a way he shows reverence to G.o.d. For this reason the Apostle says (Heb. 6:16) that "men swear by one greater than themselves," and Jerome commenting on Matt. 5:34, says that "he who swears either reveres or loves the person by whom he swears." The Philosopher, too, states (Metaph. i, 3) that "to swear is to give very great honor." Now to show reverence to G.o.d belongs to religion or latria. Wherefore it is evident that an oath is an act of religion or latria.

Reply Obj. 1: Two things may be observed in an oath. The witness adduced, and this is Divine: and the thing witnessed to, or that which makes it necessary to call the witness, and this is human.

Accordingly an oath belongs to religion by reason of the former, and not of the latter.