THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 98, Art. 3]

Whether All Perjury Is a Mortal Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that not all perjury is a mortal sin. It

is laid down (Extra, De Jurejur., cap. Verum): "Referring to the

question whether an oath is binding on those who have taken one in

order to safeguard their life and possessions, we have no other mind

than that which our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs are known to have

had, and who absolved such persons from the obligations of their

oath. Henceforth, that discretion may be observed, and in order to

avoid occasions of perjury, let them not be told expressly not to

keep their oath: but if they should not keep it, they are not for

this reason to be punished as for a mortal sin." Therefore not all

perjury is a mortal sin.

Obj. 2. Further, as Chrysostom [*Hom. xliv in the Opus Imperfectum on

St. Matthew, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says, "it is a

greater thing to swear by God than by the Gospels." Now it is not

always a mortal sin to swear by God to something false; for instance,

if we were to employ such an oath in fun or by a slip of the tongue

in the course of an ordinary conversation. Therefore neither is it

always a mortal sin to break an oath that has been taken solemnly on

the Gospels.

Obj. 3: Further, according to the Law a man incurs infamy through

committing perjury (VI, qu. i, cap. Infames). Now it would seem that

infamy is not incurred through any kind of perjury, as it is

prescribed in the case of a declaratory oath violated by perjury

[*Cap. Cum dilectus, de Ord. Cognit.]. Therefore, seemingly, not all

perjury is a mortal sin.

_On the contrary,_ Every sin that is contrary to a divine precept is

a mortal sin. Now perjury is contrary to a divine precept, for it is

written (Lev. 19:12): "Thou shalt not swear falsely by My name."

Therefore it is a mortal sin.

_I answer that,_ According to the teaching of the Philosopher

(Poster. i, 2), "that which causes a thing to be such is yet more

so." Now we know that an action which is, by reason of its very

nature, a venial sin, or even a good action, is a mortal sin if it be

done out of contempt of God. Wherefore any action that of its nature,

implies contempt of God is a mortal sin. Now perjury, of its very

nature implies contempt of God, since, as stated above (A. 2), the

reason why it is sinful is because it is an act of irreverence

towards God. Therefore it is manifest that perjury, of its very

nature, is a mortal sin.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 89, A. 7, ad 3), coercion does not

deprive a promissory oath of its binding force, as regards that which

can be done lawfully. Wherefore he who fails to fulfil an oath which

he took under coercion is guilty of perjury and sins mortally.

Nevertheless the Sovereign Pontiff can, by his authority, absolve a

man from an obligation even of an oath, especially if the latter

should have been coerced into taking the oath through such fear as

may overcome a high-principled man.

When, however, it is said that these persons are not to be punished

as for a mortal sin, this does not mean that they are not guilty of

mortal sin, but that a lesser punishment is to be inflicted on them.

Reply Obj. 2: He that swears falsely in fun is nonetheless irreverent

to God, indeed, in a way, he is more so, and consequently is not

excused from mortal sin. He that swears falsely by a slip of tongue,

if he adverts to the fact that he is swearing, and that he is

swearing to something false, is not excused from mortal sin, as

neither is he excused from contempt of God. If, however, he does not

advert to this, he would seem to have no intention of swearing, and

consequently is excused from the sin of perjury.

It is, however, a more grievous sin to swear solemnly by the Gospels,

than to swear by God in ordinary conversation, both on account of

scandal and on account of the greater deliberation. But if we

consider them equally in comparison with one another, it is more

grievous to commit perjury in swearing by God than in swearing by the

Gospels.

Reply Obj. 3: Not every sin makes a man infamous in the eye of the

law. Wherefore, if a man who has sworn falsely in a declaratory oath

be not infamous in the eye of the law, but only when he has been so

declared by sentence in a court of law, it does not follow that he

has not sinned mortally. The reason why the law attaches infamy

rather to one who breaks a promissory oath taken solemnly is that he

still has it in his power after he has sworn to substantiate his

oath, which is not the case in a declaratory oath.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 641 / 1128 题