D
DL82
Guest
This is not a thread about Freemasonry
Given that oaths are no longer necessary in order to give evidence in court, should Catholics cease to swear them altogether?
In another thread, somebody posted:
"In the Masonic oath, members swear to keep things secret that have not even been revealed to us, under symbolic, blood-curdling penalties.
The oaths are immoral because their subject matter is trivial (preserving secret pass words and handshakes). When you invoke God’s name in an oath, the subject matter must be grave; otherwise, the oath is trivial. This is basic moral theology. When you invoke God’s name to witness the trivialities of Freemasonry, you are using God’s name in vain. This amounts to blasphemy, which is a serious sin. This is a violation of the Second Commandment about taking the Lord’s name in vain.
If you want to argue that the subject matter of the oaths are serious, then you will have to still explain why Freemasonry requires oaths, when Jesus Christ never did. The Lord never required His disciples to swear trivial oaths promising to avoid sins such as fornication and adultery. The Scriptures warn against swearing such oaths. So if Jesus and the apostles warned against these oaths, then Freemasonry has no good reason to impose them."
I have done some historical research about trade guilds and various other organisations from which Freemasonry evolved. Often, the oaths that were taken by tradesmen were considered to be extremely grave matter indeed. For example, the original stonemasons building Europe’s great churches and cathedrals were building to the glory of God and the edification of the people, if they were lax in their work, or failed to follow the rules of geometry, their work cold collapse, killing hundreds of worshippers within. That’s pretty grave matter.
In the Balkans, the Greek Orthodox retained control of trade within the Ottoman Empire, and were thus able to secure their status as a religious minority, and feed their families, by maintaining protectionist trade guilds. Oaths to join the guilds were taken kneeling before the Ikonostasis, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Thus Muslims and Jews in the Ottoman Empire were unable to swear the oath. When it comes to feeding your family and avoiding forced conversion to Islam, that seems like valid grounds for an oath.
Of course, as time goes on, these circumstances change, very few Freemasons are architects, and even if they are, their work has to pass safety inspections, tradesmen now don’t have to keep other nations out to avoid starvation. All the same, the oaths remain for historical reasons.
If we are to condemn those oaths because they no longer reflect grave matter, we should also get rid of the oaths in courtrooms.
While at one time in history, invoking the name of God was the only way courts had to ensure the truth was told, nowadays we tell the truth on penalty of perjury and contempt of court. There is a civil penalty for lying in court, and that is enough. Atheists can ‘affirm’, i.e. promise on themselves, rather than swearing by the name of God. If that’s good enough to be able to give evidence, why should Christians swear any other oath above that? Surely, if we are people of honesty, or affirmation should be even more believable than that of an atheist, without the need for an oath on the Holy Bible.
Should Catholics swear oaths in court when they have the option not to?
Given that oaths are no longer necessary in order to give evidence in court, should Catholics cease to swear them altogether?
In another thread, somebody posted:
"In the Masonic oath, members swear to keep things secret that have not even been revealed to us, under symbolic, blood-curdling penalties.
The oaths are immoral because their subject matter is trivial (preserving secret pass words and handshakes). When you invoke God’s name in an oath, the subject matter must be grave; otherwise, the oath is trivial. This is basic moral theology. When you invoke God’s name to witness the trivialities of Freemasonry, you are using God’s name in vain. This amounts to blasphemy, which is a serious sin. This is a violation of the Second Commandment about taking the Lord’s name in vain.
If you want to argue that the subject matter of the oaths are serious, then you will have to still explain why Freemasonry requires oaths, when Jesus Christ never did. The Lord never required His disciples to swear trivial oaths promising to avoid sins such as fornication and adultery. The Scriptures warn against swearing such oaths. So if Jesus and the apostles warned against these oaths, then Freemasonry has no good reason to impose them."
I have done some historical research about trade guilds and various other organisations from which Freemasonry evolved. Often, the oaths that were taken by tradesmen were considered to be extremely grave matter indeed. For example, the original stonemasons building Europe’s great churches and cathedrals were building to the glory of God and the edification of the people, if they were lax in their work, or failed to follow the rules of geometry, their work cold collapse, killing hundreds of worshippers within. That’s pretty grave matter.
In the Balkans, the Greek Orthodox retained control of trade within the Ottoman Empire, and were thus able to secure their status as a religious minority, and feed their families, by maintaining protectionist trade guilds. Oaths to join the guilds were taken kneeling before the Ikonostasis, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Thus Muslims and Jews in the Ottoman Empire were unable to swear the oath. When it comes to feeding your family and avoiding forced conversion to Islam, that seems like valid grounds for an oath.
Of course, as time goes on, these circumstances change, very few Freemasons are architects, and even if they are, their work has to pass safety inspections, tradesmen now don’t have to keep other nations out to avoid starvation. All the same, the oaths remain for historical reasons.
If we are to condemn those oaths because they no longer reflect grave matter, we should also get rid of the oaths in courtrooms.
While at one time in history, invoking the name of God was the only way courts had to ensure the truth was told, nowadays we tell the truth on penalty of perjury and contempt of court. There is a civil penalty for lying in court, and that is enough. Atheists can ‘affirm’, i.e. promise on themselves, rather than swearing by the name of God. If that’s good enough to be able to give evidence, why should Christians swear any other oath above that? Surely, if we are people of honesty, or affirmation should be even more believable than that of an atheist, without the need for an oath on the Holy Bible.
Should Catholics swear oaths in court when they have the option not to?