SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 98, Art. 2]

Whether All Perjury Is Sinful?

Objection 1: It would seem that not all perjury is sinful. Whoever

does not fulfil what he has confirmed on oath is seemingly a

perjurer. Yet sometimes a man swears he will do something unlawful

(adultery, for instance, or murder): and if he does it, he commits a

sin. If therefore he would commit a sin even if he did it not, it

would follow that he is perplexed.

Obj. 2: Further, no man sins by doing what is best. Yet sometimes by

committing a perjury one does what is best: as when a man swears not

to enter religion, or not to do some kind of virtuous deed. Therefore

not all perjury is sinful.

Obj. 3: Further, he that swears to do another's will would seem to be

guilty of perjury unless he do it. Yet it may happen sometimes that

he sins not, if he do not the man's will: for instance, if the latter

order him to do something too hard and unbearable. Therefore

seemingly not all perjury is sinful.

Obj. 4: Further, a promissory oath extends to future, just as a

declaratory oath extends to past and present things. Now the

obligation of an oath may be removed by some future occurrence: thus

a state may swear to fulfil some obligation, and afterwards other

citizens come on the scene who did not take the oath; or a canon may

swear to keep the statutes of a certain church, and afterwards new

statutes are made. Therefore seemingly he that breaks an oath does

not sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. Jacobi; Serm.

cxxx), in speaking of perjury: "See how you should detest this

horrible beast and exterminate it from all human business."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 89, A. 1), to swear is to call

God as witness. Now it is an irreverence to God to call Him to

witness to a falsehood, because by so doing one implies either that

God ignores the truth or that He is willing to bear witness to a

falsehood. Therefore perjury is manifestly a sin opposed to religion,

to which it belongs to show reverence to God.

Reply Obj. 1: He that swears to do what is unlawful is thereby guilty

of perjury through lack of justice: though, if he fails to keep his

oath, he is not guilty of perjury in this respect, since that which

he swore to do was not a fit matter of an oath.

Reply Obj. 2: A person who swears not to enter religion, or not to

give an alms, or the like, is guilty of perjury through lack of

judgment. Hence when he does that which is best it is not an act of

perjury, but contrary thereto: for the contrary of that which he is

doing could not be a matter of an oath.

Reply Obj. 3: When one man swears or promises to do another's will,

there is to be understood this requisite condition--that the thing

commanded be lawful and virtuous, and not unbearable or immoderate.

Reply Obj. 4: An oath is a personal act, and so when a man becomes a

citizen of a state, he is not bound, as by oath, to fulfil whatever

the state has sworn to do. Yet he is bound by a kind of fidelity, the

nature of which obligation is that he should take his share of the

state's burdens if he takes a share of its goods.

The canon who swears to keep the statutes that have force in some

particular "college" is not bound by his oath to keep any that may be

made in the future, unless he intends to bind himself to keep all,

past and future. Nevertheless he is bound to keep them by virtue of

the statutes themselves, since they are possessed of coercive force,

as stated above (I-II, Q. 96, A. 4).

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 640 / 1128 题