Conferences on the Virtues
By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Number 78
The Lawfulness of Oaths…
We continue now
with the treatment of the Virtue of Religion.
Last time we began the chapter that deals with the deeds by means of
which we take the Divine Name, and considered Article 1 – the Nature of
Oaths. This time we will consider:
Article 2 – The Lawfulness of Oaths.
According to my
author, an oath is not something that is good in itself that is apart
from other considerations. Of its very
nature, it is a means to an end.
Thus its use can only be justified in cases of necessity (no other
lawful means exists) and then subject to certain conditions.
These
conditions are found in Holy Scripture (Jeremiah 4:2, The Confraternity
version):
Then you can swear “As the Lord
lives” in truth, in judgment and in justice.
Saint Jerome
calls these three elements the companions of an oath.
Truth
requires that the person swearing states verbally what is in perfect conformity
with his mind. This element of truth,
therefore, does not allow for objective error, because, although one may state
accurately what is in his mind, his mind on a particular matter
may be incorrect. The important thing
is that he exclude any intention to deceive.
Included in the
element Judgment is the notion of deciding whether one has a
legitimate reason for resorting to an oath.
Lawful reasons for swearing an oath would be i) for the sake of common
good, ii) for peace within a family, iii) to provide assurance to parties to a
contract, iv) to safeguard the good name of oneself or of another person, etc.
The element of Justice
(or righteousness) signifies that the matter asserted be something good and
decent.
For example, to
divulge under oath what one is obliged to keep secret would not be good and
decent.
To swear under
oath that one has seen another commit a shameful act is ordinarily not a good
and decent thing.
However, when
one is called as a witness in a criminal case and is obliged to speak the truth
when questioned under oath, the fact that the testimony is given in a judicial
proceeding makes it good and decent.
Surely the
reason for this is that the witness is not stating his/her opinion concerning
the state of soul of the accused, but only stating without more) what he/she
has seen or heard or otherwise perceived through the senses concerning the
matter.
My author asks
a question: Is taking an oath
something that anyone at all can fittingly do? He answers:
In
taking an oath, two things are to be considered. The first is that we must always have the greatest reverence
toward God, who is being invoked as a co-witness to the truth of what is
asserted under oath. Therefore,
children (minors) ought not to be required to take oaths. As you know, children and minors, by law,
are deemed to lack the judgment required for lawful oaths.
Neither
should individuals known to be deceitful be required or allowed to take an
oath. Since oaths were instituted to
remove doubts about the veracity of what is stated, taking the testimony of a
known liar would only serve to introduce greater doubts.
The second has
to do with reverence toward the person who is being asked to swear. For example
people enjoying a reputation for honesty and integrity should not be required
to take an oath. To do so would be a
kind of insult, because in the case of people known to be truthful, there can
be no doubt that what they state is factually true to the best of their
knowledge.
My author also
states that, ordinarily, it is not a sign of reverence to require
someone holding a position of dignity and authority in society to take an
oath. The only thing that would justify
doing so would be a grave need or for some extraordinary usefulness. Judging from what we read in the papers
about high government officials being called to testify under oath, we are
living in less than ordinary times.
Article 3 – The Obligation Arising Out of
Promissory Oaths…
The intrinsic
effect of swearing a promissory oath is that one is obliged, by the Virtue of
Religion, to fulfill what one has promised thereby to do.
As we have
suggested in last month’s conference, the promissory oath is taken because the
one promising is seeking to firm up his resolve to keep his word by relying on
the patronage of God. Not to keep his
word, therefore, would do God an injury, even if the omission were not, by
itself, something sinful.
This obligation
is not as serious as the obligation arising out of a vow. Vows are made directly to God,
whereas promissory oaths are made with God as sponsor, so to speak.
As in the case
of vows, the obligation to fulfill a promissory oath is serious of its very
nature (i.e., prescinding from circumstances).
But again, as in the case of vows, the obligation may be slight in
virtue of slight, or non-grievous, matter.
For the
validity of promissory oaths, the conditions that must be met are almost the
same as for the validity of vows.
On the part of
the one swearing, there must be
1) A
true internal intent to bind oneself
2) Full
deliberation
3) Complete
freedom
4) At
least an implicit expression thereof
On the part of
the matter promised, it must be
1) Something
good in itself, and
2) Possible
These
conditions differ on two points from those of a valid vow.
First, in the
case of vows, fear imposed from without takes away the required freedom,
and renders a vow invalid.
According to my
author, inflicted fear does not invalidate a promissory oath. The reason, he says is that the victim can
later appeal to lawful authority to have the obligation of the oath dissolved.
Second, the
matter of a vow must not only be good in itself, it must also be better than
its alternatives.
This is not the
case with promissory oaths. They are
usually made for the benefit of third parties.
And so the mere fact that what is promised is good and useful to the
promise suffices for its validity.
Again, the
obligation contracted by a promissory oath ceases for the same reasons that the
obligation contracted by a vow ceases, plus one more. The third person in whose favor the promissory oath is made may
renounce or refuse the favor promised, or may simply remit the obligation.
Second Question – Adjuration
Adjuration,
in religious terminology, means the calling upon the Divine Name (or a Divine
attribute) as a means of commanding or inducing someone to do something, or to
refrain from doing something.
The same term
is applied to invoking saints or sacred objects for the same reason.
The former is direct
adjuration, the latter indirect, in that its power to induce someone to
act or not to act is derived from the Saint’s or the sacred object’s
relationship to God. Both are,
therefore, acts of the Virtue of Religion.
It is possible,
also, to adjure in the name of a person who is highly respected by the person
being addressed, but this is not a religious adjuration.
Adjuration does
have something in common with a promissory oath. One makes a promissory oath to induce
himself/herself to fulfill the promise out of reverence for the Divinity. Adjuration seeks to induce another to
perform and act or to refrain from acting based on the addressee’s reverence
for the Divine name and Authority.
There are two
forms that an adjuration can take, depending upon whether one is speaking to a superior
or to a peer on the one hand, or whether one is speaking to an inferior
person, on the other.
Addressing a
superior or a peer, one requests that something be done or omitted out
of respect for God.
Addressing an
inferior, one commands that the deed be done out of reverence for God.
The former is a
benevolent inducement. The
latter exerts benevolent force.
This being Holy
Week, I am reminded of the familiar example taken from the account of the
Passion of Jesus: I adjure you, by
the Living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, he Son of
God! (Caiaphas to Jesus before the
Sanhedrin, Matthew 26:63)
Adjuration
is included among acts of the virtue of Religion because it tends to evoke
evidence of reverence (filial respect) or fear (service respect) toward God,
and of submission to Him because of His supreme excellence and dominion.
The conditions
for the lawful use of adjuration are two, both of which were mentioned above in
connection with oaths: Justice and
judgment.
Justice
(righteousness) requires that the thing sought to be done or omitted be
something good, and that it be requested or commanded in a good and worthy
manner.
Judgment
requires that there be sufficient reason for resorting to adjuration as a means
of inducing another to act or to refrain from acting.
We don’t often
advert to the fact, but the Church ends all its Liturgical prayers of petition,
addressed to God the Father, with an adjuration. She concludes them with the following or
equivalent words: We ask this in the
Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, who lives and reigns with You, etc…
The effect of
an adjuration (when addressed to a believer) is twofold:
i)
it moves the believer to perform the act
requested, and
ii)
moves God Himself to exert His own influence
upon the believer to assist Him to comply with the adjuration.
According to my
author, it is by means of adjuration that the Church, through officially
designated representatives, performs exorcisms. These adjurations derive their efficacious power
from the Will of Christ and the share in His Divine Authority, which he has
communicated to His Church.
Third Question – Divine Praises
Praise
is described as speech that highlights the magnitude of the
excellence and virtue of some person or thing.
To preach and extol the goodness and the perfections of someone who truly
possesses that excellence is a good and laudable deed.
Since God is
the supreme good and possesses infinite excellence and power, He is deserving
of praise, not only in mind and heart but also through speech.
Of course, His
infinite perfection in every good quality surpasses the capacity of the mind to
conceive and the tongue to express.
Thus we cannot praise Him adequately as He is in Himself, but we are
obliged to do so to the extent of our capability, at least in regard to those
of His marvelous works and their effects, which are ordained to the usefulness
and to the good of humankind.
My author has
this to say about divine Praises:
Although
God has no need to our praise (as if our doing so could add anything to His infinite
perfection), nor is it necessary that we need to express to Him what is in our
minds concerning our admiration and awe of His Supreme majesty (since He is the
searcher of hearts), nevertheless to do so redounds to the benefit of both him
who praises God and of those who hear that praise, because thereby
i)
in each the affection of the heart for God
is enkindled
ii)
the heart is enabled to withdraw more
resolutely from all that is against God, and
iii)
one is inclined to dedicate all the
powers of body and soul to His service.
Here is another
interesting paragraph taken from my textbook on the subject of divine praises:
It
is fitting to offer divine praises in song, as
evident from Scripture (Luke 2:13,14; Colossians 3:16), and from the
uninterrupted practice of the Church from the beginning. This is to be believed contrary to what
Wyclif and the Waldenses says, who compare singing clerics to the prophets of
Baal. After all, vocal praise is
necessary in order to engender the love of God in humankind. Thus, whatever is useful to achieve that
purpose can fittingly be used in offering divine praise. We all know what a powerful effect music can
have in the human soul, and there is no more desirable effect than to use it in
praising God, so as to increase in our feeble souls the fervor of our devotion
to Him.
Praise of God
is directly opposed to taking the name of God in vain. Since God’s Name is Holy, it must always be
accompanied by the reverence that is His due.
To pronounce it in vain is to do so without a sufficient reason.
This happens
when one uses God’s Name to express anger or impatience, or any other strong
emotion that overtakes the soul. This
is usually a slight (venial) sin, unless done deliberately out of contempt for
God or to express anger against Him. It
could also be a serious sin if one does so knowing that it will cause scandal.
Another way of
using God’s Name in vain is out of habit (as an expletive) or out of levity (to
amuse).
Fear of using
God’s name in vain should not deter one from frequently calling upon the Lord
in the depths of one’s heart out of love and fervent devotion.
Once upon a
time it was a custom in certain Catholic countries for people to greet one
another with the expression Praised be Jesus Christ! To which was
responded: Now and forever!
We fittingly
call upon and praise the Name of the Lord in our hearts when we thank Him for
both the good and the bad things that occur in our lives, especially when we
are suffering because of bodily pain, disappointments or setbacks.
It is most
laudable always to imitate the holy man Job, who said; we received good
things from the Lord. Why should we not
receive evil? As the Lord wills, so let
it be done! May the Name of the Lord be
blessed.
This is indeed
Divine praise because it is based upon Faith in the Infinite Mercy, Wisdom and
Power of God.
* * * * * * * * *
MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.