Never swear an oath?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gumbygo1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gumbygo1

Guest
I was wondering what a sound Catholic interpretation of Matthew 5:33-37 is. Jesus says not to swear at all (some translations say to “make no oath at all”).
“Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.” (NAB)
Click to expand...
I’ve encountered some Protestants who claim one should not even make wedding vows based on this passage, since we probably won’t uphold the vows perfectly. After reading Scott Hahn’s “Swear to God” it seems to me that the idea of swearing an oath is pretty basic to the Catholic idea of the sacraments (obviously we rely on the grace of God to empower us to fulfill the promises we make, and we do not rely completely on our own power).

As a Catholic, how should I understand Matthew 5:33-37 in light of this?
 
Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a2.htm#2150 II. TAKING THE NAME OF THE LORD IN VAIN
2150 The second commandment* forbids false oaths*. Taking an oath or swearing is to take God as witness to what one affirms. It is to invoke the divine truthfulness as a pledge of one’s own truthfulness. An oath engages the Lord’s name. "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name."81
2151 Rejection of false oaths is a duty toward God. As Creator and Lord, God is the norm of all truth. Human speech is either in accord with or in opposition to God who is Truth itself. When it is truthful and legitimate, an oath highlights the relationship of human speech with God’s truth. A false oath calls on God to be witness to a lie.
2152 A person commits *perjury *when he makes a promise under oath with no intention of keeping it, or when after promising on oath he does not keep it. Perjury is a grave lack of respect for the Lord of all speech. Pledging oneself by oath to commit an evil deed is contrary to the holiness of the divine name.

2153 In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained the second commandment: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not swear at all. . . . Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one."82 Jesus teaches that every oath involves a reference to God and that God’s presence and his truth must be honored in all speech. Discretion in calling upon God is allied with a respectful awareness of his presence, which all our assertions either witness to or mock.

2154 Following St. Paul,83 Cf. 2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20.] the tradition of the Church has understood Jesus’ words as not excluding oaths made for grave and right reasons (for example, in court). "An oath, that is the invocation of the divine name as a witness to truth, cannot be taken unless in truth, in judgment, and in justice."84

2155 The holiness of the divine name demands that we neither use it for trivial matters, nor take an oath which on the basis of the circumstances could be interpreted as approval of an authority unjustly requiring it. When an oath is required by illegitimate civil authorities, it may be refused. It must be refused when it is required for purposes contrary to the dignity of persons or to ecclesial communion.
 
Sorry Friends,
Having read and understood the Latin, I am satisfied that the words of Our Lord are totally unambiguous.
You should not swear oaths for any reason, and no court or house of law will force you so to do if you object to swearing an oath.
Should an overzealous person demand you swear, take the Gospel, and open it at the page, and read the words of Our Lord to the zealot, then plainly and unambiguously affirm that you will be truthful.
That is sufficient, and that complies with the instructions of Our Lord on the matter.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Sorry Friends,
Having read and understood the Latin, I am satisfied that the words of Our Lord are totally unambiguous.
You should not swear oaths for any reason, and no court or house of law will force you so to do if you object to swearing an oath.
Should an overzealous person demand you swear, take the Gospel, and open it at the page, and read the words of Our Lord to the zealot, then plainly and unambiguously affirm that you will be truthful.
That is sufficient, and that complies with the instructions of Our Lord on the matter.
Click to expand...
So you disagree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
 
gumbygo1 said:
I was wondering what a sound Catholic interpretation of Matthew 5:33-37 is. Jesus says not to swear at all (some translations say to “make no oath at all”).

I’ve encountered some Protestants who claim one should not even make wedding vows based on this passage, since we probably won’t uphold the vows perfectly. After reading Scott Hahn’s “Swear to God” it seems to me that the idea of swearing an oath is pretty basic to the Catholic idea of the sacraments (obviously we rely on the grace of God to empower us to fulfill the promises we make, and we do not rely completely on our own power).

As a Catholic, how should I understand Matthew 5:33-37 in light of this?
Click to expand...
Actually, outside the Catholic Church, you CANNOT be required to take an oath. If you are to be sworn in as a jury member, for example, you can AFFIRM. In fact, if you are about to be sworn in as the President of the United States, the Constitution makes it quite clear that you can AFFIRM, not swear an oath. :eek:

I refuse to swear an oath, and INSIST on being affirmed. I have that right, and so do you.👍
 
Don’t we all ‘swear’ when you sign your signature on a check, a document form, and driver license, a loan … 🙂
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Are you protestant or something? You made reference to “Our Lord” so Im not sure where you comming from.
Did you read paragraph 2164 which referenced 2 Cor 1:23 and Gal 1:20?
Click to expand...
Actually, 2154 I believe, according to the previous post.
However, Where tradition or commentary conflicts with the Gospel I choose the higher authority.
I guess that makes me a fundamentalist!
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Actually, 2154 I believe, according to the previous post.
However, Where tradition or commentary conflicts with the Gospel I choose the higher authority.
I guess that makes me a fundamentalist!
Click to expand...
So what are your thoughts on the Scriptures provided in 2154?
 
water said:
Don’t we all ‘swear’ when you sign your signature on a check, a document form, and driver license, a loan … 🙂
Click to expand...
No, adding your signature to a document of any kind is merely to bear witness to that document.
To swear, is to call upon some higher authority to bear witness.
Our Lord specificly tells us not to call upon GOD to bear witness.
However, affirming before a court that you will answer truthfully to the court is a lesser form of swearing, for the court is called upon to bear witness.
Our Lord in fact seems to be saying that even this is too much.
Our word should be our bond.
Everyone should be aware of this.
Thus oaths should not be needed.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
So what are your thoughts on the Scriptures provided in 2154?
Click to expand...
I consider it to be commentary and tradition.
I consider it to be in conflict with the Gospel.
I consider the Gospel to be a higher authority.
Thus I do not consider it binding.
But then it is not a doctrine of binding, but a doctrine of loosening.
So, if it is not too Irish, I do not consider this doctrine of loosening to be binding.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
I consider it to be commentary and tradition.
I consider it to be in conflict with the Gospel.
I consider the Gospel to be a higher authority.
Thus I do not consider it binding.
But then it is not a doctrine of binding, but a doctrine of loosening.
So, if it is not too Irish, I do not consider this doctrine of loosening to be binding.
Click to expand...
Now you lost me. How can you call yourself a Fundamentalist if you dont consider St Paul’s Epistles to be inspired and inerrant?
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Now you lost me. How can you call yourself a Fundamentalist if you dont consider St Paul’s Epistles to be inspired and inerrant?
Click to expand...
Very simple, and very basic.
You consider the commentary of St Paul to be the basic foundation of Christianity.
I consider the Gospel of Our Lord to be the foundation of Christianity.
Fundamental, from Latin ‘fundus’: bottom; farm, estate;(law) authorizer.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
No, adding your signature to a document of any kind is merely to bear witness to that document.
To swear, is to call upon some higher authority to bear witness.
Our Lord specificly tells us not to call upon GOD to bear witness.
However, affirming before a court that you will answer truthfully to the court is a lesser form of swearing, for the court is called upon to bear witness.
Our Lord in fact seems to be saying that even this is too much.
Our word should be our bond.
Everyone should be aware of this.
Thus oaths should not be needed.
Click to expand...
In the US, when you are in court, you swear that you would tell the truth…“so help me God”…that is what you are asked to swear. Other than that, I do not see any place where you are asked to swear upon any other higher authority.

This has nothing to against God’s commandment.
 
water said:
In the US, when you are in court, you swear that you would tell the truth…“so help me God”…that is what you are asked to swear. Other than that, I do not see any place where you are asked to swear upon any other higher authority.

This has nothing to against God’s commandment.
Click to expand...
When you AFFIRM in court, the phrase “so help me God” is not supposed to be a part of the affirmation. You may affirm under the pains and penalties of purjury. You may affirm on your honor. But not God.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Very simple, and very basic.
You consider the commentary of St Paul to be the basic foundation of Christianity.
I consider the Gospel of Our Lord to be the foundation of Christianity.
Fundamental, from Latin ‘fundus’: bottom; farm, estate;(law) authorizer.
Click to expand...
No, Catholics dont consider Paul’s Epistles the foundation of Christianity, the life and teachings of Jesus are the foundation, especially as they are set down the the Four Gospel accounts. That being said we dont believe there is any conflict or contradictions in the Bible, in the case of Paul’s Epistles they are as inerrant as the Gospels.

You appear to be saying “St Paul got it wrong, so I will have to side with Jesus on this issue”…Catholics dont believe or talk like that.
 
You should not swear oaths for any reason, and no court or house of law will force you so to do if you object to swearing an oath.
Click to expand...
I work for the Criminal Justice System and occasionally have to go into court to give evidence on behalf of the Prosecution.

I am deeply troubled by the Lord’s teaching. Therefore, I have explained to the court that I cannot conscientiously swear on God’s name or the Bible so they allow me to take a ‘Plain’ Oath whereby I swear by my integrity.

It IS required to take an oath. As part of the Prosecution, it is in my view vital that one is bound by promise to ‘tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth’.

But is saddens me how readily Defendents take the oath on the Bible then go on to tell lies heaped upon lies. I ‘was there’, I KNOW EXACTLY what happened.

I am not out to chop anyone, on the contrary as a committed Christian ALWAYS err on the side of Christian charity which is above and beyond what my colleagues do. They deliver justice by the letter of the law, but despite this bias in favour of the accused, I still cannot take an oath on the bible.

In view of how it is routinely abused, I would like to see the bible withdrawn for this purpose as it just makes a mockery of the whole process and of course leads to the sin of Purgery.

In court, one MUST SWEAR or find another job!!! But one does not have to swear on any sacred book if one choses not to 👍

PS It is still valid to swear on the carcases of two strangled chickens but I have never heard that done 👍 👍
 
Catholic_Dude said:
No, Catholics dont consider Paul’s Epistles the foundation of Christianity, the life and teachings of Jesus are the foundation, especially as they are set down the the Four Gospel accounts. That being said we dont believe there is any conflict or contradictions in the Bible, in the case of Paul’s Epistles they are as inerrant as the Gospels.

You appear to be saying “St Paul got it wrong, so I will have to side with Jesus on this issue”…Catholics dont believe or talk like that.
Click to expand...
Well nearly.
I consider Paul to be a reliable witness, but then Paul had to put a spin on the message, to avoid too many un-necessary crucifixions.
His aim was to make the message seem friendly to Rome, and so lay blame on the Judeans for the Crucifixion, rather than on Rome.
Also interspersed in his inspired writings are his comments, and the comments of subsequent copyists. Thus I cannot accept the writings of Paul as 100% inerrant. Sadly, even the Latin Gospels have suffered copying errors, some of which can be corrected by appeal to context, but many cannot.
So even my fundament neads treating with caution.
 
As a Friend, we do not perform oaths. Friends believe to swear an oath to tell the truth is indicating that one’s word can only be accepted as true when one is under an oath. We must “speak the truth in love” at all times…not just when we are under oath. Our words are to be our bond. Our plain speech of “yes” or “no”.

It was partly through our conscience and refusal to take oaths that our judicial system allows “affirmations”…“I afirm I am speaking the truth.”

“Let your “yes”, be “yes” and your “no” be “no”, swear not at all.”

Our “weddings” are quite simple…at the appointed time the bride and groom face one anonther, hold hands and say something to the effect…“In the presence of God and these Friends I take you as my wife/husband, as long as we both shall live.”…then the Clerk of the Meeting pronounces them “husband and wife”…all present sign the certificate of marriage and it is recorded by the Recorder of the Meeting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top