Q. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus strongly opposes the taking of oaths, but what about a person in a courtroom who swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? — K.E.R., Connecticut.
A. First of all, here are the words of Jesus: “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” (Matt. 5:34-37).
In other words, Jesus would prefer that we not take oaths at all, that our adherence to the truth would make oaths unnecessary. And He certainly is opposed to false oaths because they call on God to be witness to a lie, which is contrary to the Second Commandment. “Jesus teaches,” says the Catechism, “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” (n. 2153).
However, says the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 2154-2155), the tradition of the Church, following St. Paul, “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 the truth, cannot be taken unless in truth, in judgment, and in justice’ [CIC, canon 1199 §1]. 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.”
The references from St. Paul are 2 Cor. 1:23, where the apostle says, “But I call upon God as witness, on my life, that it is to spare you that I have not yet gone to Corinth,” and Gal. 1:20, where he says, “(As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying).”
Q. A young relative of mine and her boyfriend are planning on getting married next year. Neither one has ever been married before, and neither one has ever been baptized. Regrettably, like many young couples, they are living together now. What will be their status once they get married? Will it be a valid marriage, but not sacramental? If one of them were baptized at one of those storefront Protestant churches, would that change the status? May I attend the marriage ceremony? — J.S., Ohio.
A. A marriage between two unbaptized persons is valid, but it is not sacramental. Both parties must be baptized to make the union sacramental. If one of them were baptized in a Protestant church, and the ceremony used water and the trinitarian formula (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”), the Baptism would be recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. But the Baptism of only one party would not change the status of the marriage to sacramental.
We see no reason for you not to attend this upcoming marriage since the parties are not baptized Catholics who are defying the marriage laws of the Catholic Church.
Q. Of what value are the words, thoughts, and statements of a person who has been declared a saint by the Catholic Church? Are they free from error? What in a person’s life has to be considered and evaluated before they are declared a saint?
I ask this because I recently read a statement attributed to St. Peter Damian on sodomy. A copy is enclosed. If only all of our Church leaders would speak so succinctly on the subject. — G.M., Michigan.
A. Among other things, St. Peter Damian (1001-1072) said this about sodomy:
“In fact, this vice is absolutely not comparable to any others because its enormity supersedes them all. Indeed, this vice produces the death of bodies and the destruction of souls. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of reason, expels the Holy Ghost from His temple in man’s heart, and introduces into it the Devil, who is the instigator of lust.
“It leads into error, totally expels truth from the deceived soul, sets up traps for those who fall into it, then caps the well to prevent those who fall into it from getting out, opens the gates of Hell and closes the door of Heaven to them, turns a former citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem into an heir of the infernal Babylon, transforming him from a heavenly star into a straw for the eternal fire, wrenches a member away from the Church, and plunges him into the voracious fire of the ardent Gehenna.”
The words, thoughts, and statements of saints like Peter Damian are not necessarily free from error; only the Pope has that charism from the Holy Spirit. But the writings of many saints are recognized by the Church as reliable and worthy of belief. See, for example, the dozens of saints whose names are mentioned at the back of the Catechism and whose writings are sprinkled throughout that compendium of Catholic teaching. While the Catechism does not mention the word “sodomy,” it does say this:
“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [cf. Gen. 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:10; 1 Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ [CDF, Persona Humana, n. 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (n. 2357).
This language is not nearly as colorful as that of Peter Damian, but it leaves no doubt about the immorality of homosexual acts.
As for what characteristics the Church expects to find when it canonizes a person, Michael Freze, in his book The Making of Saints, defined a saint as “a privileged or chosen soul who, because of his or her total faith and love for God and neighbor, lived a life of heroic virtue in a constant and persevering manner (or who died a martyr’s death through another’s hatred of the faith), and who imitated Christ’s life and teaching according to the letter of the Gospel” (pp. 18-19).
Freze also said that “the saint has lived a life of such single-mindedness and determination that he or she has become totally selfless, completely giving for God and for others….Another rarity in the quest for sanctity concerns the qualities of humility and purity of heart. Those who truly possess these characteristics have reached a level of wholeness and completeness that only a select number ever achieve” (p. 20).
If you have been reading Carole Breslin’s wonderful sketches of the saints each week in The Wanderer, you will know exactly what Michael Freze was talking about.
Q. I know May is considered the month of Mary, but do you know why May was chosen? — A.C., Florida.
A. May was chosen as the month of Mary during the Middle Ages to counteract pagan festivals that were common at that time of year. King Alphonsus X of Spain (died in 1284) appears to have been the first person to link Mary with the month of May, and the idea gained popularity over the next few centuries.
The practice spread rapidly in the 18th century due to the publication of several handbooks or manuals with chapters on the life of the Blessed Mother, her virtues and privileges, and suggestions for decorating her altar or statue, reciting the rosary, and singing her litany.
By the 19th century, May was celebrated as Mary’s month throughout Europe and the United States, and Popes Pius VII and Pius IX attached indulgences to the May devotions.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress