Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 143 (1/2)
Reply Obj. 2: In the very fact that a man takes G.o.d as witness by way of an oath, he acknowledges Him to be greater: and this pertains to the reverence and honor of G.o.d, so that he offers something to G.o.d, namely, reverence and honor.
Reply Obj. 3: Whatsoever we do, we should do it in honor of G.o.d: wherefore there is no hindrance, if by intending to a.s.sure a man, we show reverence to G.o.d. For we ought so to perform our actions in G.o.d's honor that they may conduce to our neighbor's good, since G.o.d also works for His own glory and for our good.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 89, Art. 5]
Whether Oaths Are Desirable and to Be Used Frequently As Something Useful and Good?
Objection 1: It would seem that oaths are desirable and to be used frequently as something useful and good. Just as a vow is an act of religion, so is an oath. Now it is commendable and more meritorious to do a thing by vow, because a vow is an act of religion, as stated above (Q. 88, A. 5). Therefore for the same reason, to do or say a thing with an oath is more commendable, and consequently oaths are desirable as being good essentially.
Obj. 2: Further, Jerome, commenting on Matt. 5:34, says that ”he who swears either reveres or loves the person by whom he swears.” Now reverence and love of G.o.d are desirable as something good essentially. Therefore swearing is also.
Obj. 3: Further, swearing is directed to the purpose of confirming or a.s.suring. But it is a good thing for a man to confirm his a.s.sertion.
Therefore an oath is desirable as a good thing.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 23:12): ”A man that sweareth much shall be filled with iniquity”: and Augustine says (De Mendacio xv) that ”the Lord forbade swearing, in order that for your own part you might not be fond of it, and take pleasure in seeking occasions of swearing, as though it were a good thing.”
_I answer that,_ Whatever is required merely as a remedy for an infirmity or a defect, is not reckoned among those things that are desirable for their own sake, but among those that are necessary: this is clear in the case of medicine which is required as a remedy for sickness. Now an oath is required as a remedy to a defect, namely, some man's lack of belief in another man. Wherefore an oath is not to be reckoned among those things that are desirable for their own sake, but among those that are necessary for this life; and such things are used unduly whenever they are used outside the bounds of necessity. For this reason Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 17): ”He who understands that swearing is not to be held as a good thing,” i.e. desirable for its own sake, ”restrains himself as far as he can from uttering oaths, unless there be urgent need.”
Reply Obj. 1: There is no parity between a vow and an oath: because by a vow we direct something to the honor of G.o.d, so that for this very reason a vow is an act of religion. On the other hand, in an oath reverence for the name of G.o.d is taken in confirmation of a promise. Hence what is confirmed by oath does not, for this reason, become an act of religion, since moral acts take their species from the end.
Reply Obj. 2: He who swears does indeed make use of his reverence or love for the person by whom he swears: he does not, however, direct his oath to the reverence or love of that person, but to something else that is necessary for the present life.
Reply Obj. 3: Even as a medicine is useful for healing, and yet, the stronger it is, the greater harm it does if it be taken unduly, so too an oath is useful indeed as a means of confirmation, yet the greater the reverence it demands the more dangerous it is, unless it be employed aright; for, as it is written (Ecclus. 23:13), ”if he make it void,” i.e. if he deceive his brother, ”his sin shall be upon him: and if he dissemble it,” by swearing falsely, and with dissimulation, ”he offendeth double,” (because, to wit, ”pretended equity is a twofold iniquity,” as Augustine [*Enarr. in Ps. lxiii, 7]
declares): ”and if he swear in vain,” i.e. without due cause and necessity, ”he shall not be justified.”
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 89, Art. 6]
Whether It Is Lawful to Swear by Creatures?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not lawful to swear by creatures. It is written (Matt. 5:34-36): ”I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven ... nor by the earth ... nor by Jerusalem ... nor by thy head”: and Jerome, expounding these words, says: ”Observe that the Saviour does not forbid swearing by G.o.d, but by heaven and earth,” etc.
Obj. 2: Further, punishment is not due save for a fault. Now a punishment is appointed for one who swears by creatures: for it is written (22, qu. i, can. Cleric.u.m): ”If a cleric swears by creatures he must be very severely rebuked: and if he shall persist in this vicious habit we wish that he be excommunicated.” Therefore it is unlawful to swear by creatures.
Obj. 3: Further, an oath is an act of religion, as stated above (A.
4). But religious wors.h.i.+p is not due to any creature, according to Rom. 1:23, 25. Therefore it is not lawful to swear by a creature.
_On the contrary,_ Joseph swore ”by the health of Pharaoh” (Gen.
42:16). Moreover it is customary to swear by the Gospel, by relics, and by the saints.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 3), there are two kinds of oath. One is uttered as a simple contestation or calling G.o.d as witness: and this kind of oath, like faith, is based on G.o.d's truth.
Now faith is essentially and chiefly about G.o.d Who is the very truth, and secondarily about creatures in which G.o.d's truth is reflected, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 1). In like manner an oath is chiefly referred to G.o.d Whose testimony is invoked; and secondarily an appeal by oath is made to certain creatures considered, not in themselves, but as reflecting the Divine truth. Thus we swear by the Gospel, i.e. by G.o.d Whose truth is made known in the Gospel; and by the saints who believed this truth and kept it.
The other way of swearing is by cursing and in this kind of oath a creature is adduced that the judgment of G.o.d may be wrought therein.
Thus a man is wont to swear by his head, or by his son, or by some other thing that he loves, even as the Apostle swore (2 Cor. 1:23), saying: ”I call G.o.d to witness upon my soul.”
As to Joseph's oath by the health of Pharaoh this may be understood in both ways: either by way of a curse, as though he pledged Pharao's health to G.o.d; or by way of contestation, as though he appealed to the truth of G.o.d's justice which the princes of the earth are appointed to execute.
Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord forbade us to swear by creatures so as to give them the reverence due to G.o.d. Hence Jerome adds that ”the Jews, through swearing by the angels and the like, wors.h.i.+pped creatures with a Divine honor.”