On Lying: A Moral Guide Based Upon Lombard’s Sentences. Part IX: By What Authority Can Oaths Be Made?

Last updated on: March 23, 2009 at 4:00 am by Henry Karlson

On Lying: A Moral Guide Based Upon Lombard’s Sentences. Part IX: By What Authority Can Oaths Be Made? 2009-03-23T04:00:40-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Part I Part II

Part III                                                                     Part IV
Part V                                                                       Part VI
Part VII                                                                   Part VIII

Oaths, of whatever sort, bring many questions for Christians to ponder. Should we even make them? Some believe that we should not, using Christ’s injunction as proof: “But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:34-37). Lombard thinks there is something to this, that one should not make oaths lightly, and that was what Christ wanted to impart. They should not be made unless out of grave need. “For to swear voluntarily and without necessity, or to swear a falsehood, is a great sin.“[1] Lombard lists three situations where he believes such necessity could be found: when one has to provide evidence to protect oneself from false accusations, when one is providing helpful information, or when one is entering a peace treaty. In each case, the oath is intended to reinforce the good will between the one who is making the oath and the one who hears. And in each situation, if an oath is asked for and not given, the speaker’s statements would be doubted; if the matter is serious, the kinds of danger involved with such doubt is easily discerned (wars have come out of such doubt). But, Lombard points out, it would be better if we did not swear, and if we can convince others without it, then we should do so; the need to swear indicates a fragile situation caused by evil, the kind of which we pray to be delivered from.[2]

But, looking back to what Jesus said, one can ask, how are we to make an oath, if and when it is deeded necessary? Can we swear by God or by one of God’s creations? Is there one which is better, more binding, than another? And what exactly are we, as Christians, to make of oaths sworn to false gods?

Lombard suggests that one could, in theory, swear by a creature, if one understands that it is a creature, and in their oath, they are not giving it more authority and dignity than it actually has. That is, if one swears by a created thing, one is giving it honor, and it is possible that in doing so, one is giving it more honor than it deserves. The danger, for example, of swearing by angels would be to elevate the angels too much, and to treat them as gods. In this way, Lombard suggests the ordinary Jew was told not to swear, and if they swore, the oath should be made to God, and no one else.[3] But, we find honorable people, like Joseph, swearing by that which is not God. Because they did not raise the dignity of that which was being sworn to as being equal to God, there was no fault in their action.[4]

Since he thought that the temptation might be too great to elevate the one who is being sworn by to godhood, or because an oath made to a creature could be that much more easily broken, Lombard suggests Jesus told us not to swear by any creature whatsoever.[5] But does this really answer the question? It would appear as if Lombard is of two minds here. His main explanation for why an oath should not be taken to anything other than God is because of the confusion that might result. Yet, he wants us to believe that Joseph (and many others like him in Scripture) did not sin when they made such oaths. Is he making Joseph too sinless? After all, the other sins of the Patriarchs are there for us to see, so why would this not be one? Would not a better solution here be the same one which is given for the veneration of the saints? If one understands that, by calling upon a creature, one is also calling upon the authority of the Creator through the creature, then it would seem permissible to swear upon them, because the ultimate, if indirect, guarantor is God. Why should we assume that one is going to automatically elevate the object of our oath to godhood, when know not to the saints to godhood when we honor them?

Indeed, it seems that the Master of the Sentences has this in mind when he answers the question, what kind of oath has greater authority, one sworn by God alone, or one sworn by a creature? The one which directly invokes God is of greater because anything else is only receiving authority given to it by God.[6] That means, God is still being invoked, but only indirectly so, by oaths sworn upon some creature. Thus Lombard asserts, “And so to swear by any creature is this: namely to produce its Creator as a witness.”[7] Lombard also suggests that, in making such an oath, one is possibly rendering that which is sworn by to God’s justice, and God is still acting as the guarantor; the implication is that if such an oath is broken, God is free to render his justice upon that which was sworn over (if he pleases to do so).[8]

Next, Lombard addresses the question – how are we to understand those who swear to a false god, demon, or idol? Obviously, unlike swearing by the authority of the Pharaoh, or over the lives of one’s children, these false gods have no authority nor can they be given over to God as a pledge. Lombard responds through a lengthy quote from Augustine: “In this matter I beg you to consider whether, in the event of a man failing to keep his word after having pledged himself by such an oath, you would not regard him as guilty of a twofold sin. For if he kept the engagement which he had confirmed by this oath, he would be pronounced guilty in this only, that he swore by such deities; but no one would justly blame him for keeping his engagement. But in the case supposed, seeing that he both swore by those whom he should not worship, and did, notwithstanding his promise, what he should not have done, he was guilty of two sins: whence it is obvious that in using, not for an evil work, but for some good and lawful end, the service of a man whose fidelity is known to have been confirmed by an oath in the name of false gods, one participates, not in the sin of swearing by the false gods, but in the good faith with which he keeps his promise. The faith which I here speak of as kept is not that on account of which those who are baptized in Christ are called faithful: that is entirely different and far removed from the faith desiderated in regard to the arrangements and compacts of men. Nevertheless it is, beyond all doubt, worse to swear falsely by the true God than to swear truly by the false gods; for the greater the holiness of that by which we swear, the greater is the sin of perjury.”[9]

There are many ideas which have been addressed here, and we should look at them in turn. Augustine points out that a person would face two kinds of sins if they swear to a false god and later break their oath. One sin would be the breaking of the oath itself. The second would be the worship of a false god, giving adoration, which should be given to God alone, to someone or something else (whether or not it exists). Even though the entity being sworn to and treated as if a god is not one, Augustine makes it clear that the oath is still valid. Interestingly enough, he says that it is better to swear by a false god and to keep that oath than to swear by God and break it. The good of the oath itself, while it does not justify the evil of idolatry, nonetheless is praiseworthy, even as the good intention involved in a lie which helps someone is praiseworthy, even if the lie itself is not. It is for this reason why, later in the passage, Augustine contends that one can make an oath one who would swear by a false god. The good of the oath itself, especially because it provides for good social order, justifies that oath, even if the other involved with the oath sins in the process of making that oath. In a passage not quoted by Lombard, Augustine indicates the necessity of oath-making for the social order justifies the action, even though one could say by making them, a Christian is helping a pagan to sin: “The question whether we ought to take advantage of the concord which is established between other parties by their exchange of oaths is entirely different. If we answer this in the negative, I know not whether we could find any place on earth in which we could live. For not only on the frontier, but throughout all the provinces, the security of peace rests on the oaths of barbarians.”[10] For Augustine, Scripture shows this to be the case, where we find examples of believers in the true God making such pacts with non-believers: “In answering this question, we may accept as decisive those examples which you yourself quoted of Laban and of Abimelech (if Abimelech did swear by his gods, as Laban swore by the god of Nahor). This is, as I have said, another question, and one which would perchance perplex me, were it not for those examples of Isaac and Jacob, to which, for anything I know, others might be added.”[11] What this indicates is that cooperation with a sinner engaging in a specific sin does not mean one is necessarily guilty of that sin as well.[12]

Footnotes

[1] Peter Lombard, Sentences. Book III, dist XXXIX, c4. It is without surprise that he cites Augustine as an authority here, such as when he says, “And therefore let him who understands that swearing is to be reckoned not among things that are good, but among things that are necessary, refrain as far as he can from indulging in it, unless by necessity, when he sees men slow to believe what it is useful for them to believe, except they be assured by an oath,” St. Augustine, The Sermon of the Mount, in NPNF1(6), bk1 c17.
[2] Once again, Lombard quotes Augustine here. “Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; this is good and what is to be desired. For whatsoever is more than these comes of evil; i.e., if you are compelled to swear, know that it comes of a necessity arising from the infirmity of those whom you are trying to persuade of something; which infirmity is certainly an evil, from which we daily pray to be delivered, when we say, Deliver us from evil. Hence He has not said, Whatsoever is more than these is evil; for you are not doing what is evil when you make a good use of an oath, which, although not in itself good, is yet necessary in order to persuade another that you are trying to move him for some useful end; but it comes of evil on his part by whose infirmity you are compelled to swear,” ibid. This once again shows us that situations can require us to do that which would ordinarily be wrong to do, and, when put into them, that necessity can be said to be the exception which proves the rule. But we should strive not to be put into such situations, and indeed, that is what Augustine suggests is meant, at least in part, when we pray, “Deliver us from evil.”
[3] Lombard’s authority here, interestingly enough, is St Jerome*: In Matthaeum* 5.
[4]Here, Lombard is referencing a story from Genesis, where Joseph makes an oath in the name of the Pharaoh: “By this you shall be tested: by the life of Pharaoh, you shall not go from this place unless your youngest brother comes here. Send one of you, and let him bring your brother, while you remain in prison, that your words may be tested, whether there is truth in you; or else, by the life of Pharaoh, surely you are spies” (Gen. 42:15-16).
[5] “But Christ forbade swearing by creatures, lest there should be believed to be something divine in them for the sake of which reverence would be owed to them; or perhaps, lest in swearing a falsehood by them, men should believe that they were not bound by their oath,” Peter Lombard, Sentences. Book III, dist XXXIX, c5.
[6] Cf. Peter Lombard, Sentences. Book III, dist XXXIX, c6.
[7] Peter Lombard, Sentences. Book III, dist XXXIX, c7.
[8] Ibid. Here, Lombard via Augustine (Sermo 180) gives the example of swearing by one’s children, saying that if one makes such an oath, their children are given over as a pledge and the consequences of breaking their oath would involve their children. But we should ponder, what do we expect would happen if such an oath is broken? While we can understand a state accepting such an oath, and taking the children away from the parents, we should not expect God to harm children because some reckless parents made an oath over them. In this case, perhaps not all pledges we give will be validated by God, but neither does it seem all oaths would require such validation.
[9] St. Augustine, Letter 47 in NPNF1(1), n2.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid. See Gen. 31:51- 54 and Gen. 20:22-32 to find Augustine’s examples.
[12] One wonders of the implications this idea would have in regards to other situations, such as voting in a democratic election. Is not the action of a voter, outside of the election, of greater consequence than the vote itself? Should one not accept that a vote will not be for an ideal candidate, but a real, concrete candidate, who would therefore be imperfect, even a sinner? One does not confirm them in their sins when one votes for them, just as one does not confirm a pagan in their idolatry when one makes a pact with them. The sins of the Christian voter outside of the election, in their daily life, when it goes against the good they want to establish from their vote, is of far more consequence to that person than the sins a politician will make while in the process of establishing the agreed upon good. Obviously there are differences, and these must be drawn out: the agreement made between a politician and the voter is of a general kind, and the politician will not be able to know which aspects of their platform a particular voter will contend against. But does this not mean there is more separation between a voter and a politician than between a Christian and a pagan making an oath together when they swear by the authority of their gods? And yet the second, as Augustine points out, is permissible. But this is not to say there is no corruption, no guilt, involved in either case, for there is a kind of cooperation with evil going on, but the cooperation is indirect and material, not direct and formal.

Previous Post

March 21, 2009

The Sunday of St John Climacus

Next Post

March 23, 2009 Cardinal George "Keep Conscience Clause"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Ebenezer" mean, as in the stone Samuel set up?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Stone of David Stone of help Stone of God Stone of Law