211. Слово пред приведением к присяге дворянства Московской губернии, пред его выборами

(Said on December 9; printed in the Works of the Holy Father, 1847, and in the collection, 1861) People swear by great things, and every contradiction they make comes to an end with an oath. (Heb.6:16). Whoever begins an important task, it is useful for him to first think about it, even if it does not seem unfamiliar; because inattention can produce just as unfavorable consequences as ignorance. You, noble men, are embarking on an important task - to swear an oath before God that you will use discretion and impartiality in electing those worthy to various positions of leadership and court. So enter, or allow yourself to be led into, some reflection on what you are about to undertake. An “oath” or “oath” is a confirmation in the name of God of the pure truth of what is declared and the faithful fulfillment of what is promised. The Apostle spoke somewhat vaguely about the oath: “men swear by great things,” that is, they swear by what is higher and more important than man. Probably, by this he had in mind the custom of his time to swear not only by the name of God, but also by heaven and earth, church and altar. But all these types of oaths, as explained by Christ the Savior himself, have one true meaning, according to which they directly or indirectly relate to God, and in Him and His name they have their strength and importance. “Whoever swears by the church, swears by it, and by those who dwell in it: and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by Him who sits on it” (Matthew 23:21-22). But how dare we use the holy and terrible name of God in our assurances and promises? Is this boldness permissible? In what cases is it permissible? The resolution of all these questions can be found in one Apostolic saying: “An oath is the end of every controversy,” that is, an oath is the final, extreme means of certification in any case when it is necessary to stop the controversy or eliminate doubt. Therefore, if controversy or doubt encountered in relations between people is not so important that it requires enhanced measures to eliminate it; or, if there are simple and immediate means for this, found in the properties and circumstances of affairs and relationships; if one can be content with incomplete identification, without great harm, especially to the public: in such cases, ordinary prudence does not advise resorting to extreme means of identification, and pious feeling should not allow swearing in the name of God. For example, you want them to believe your word in a conversation, your promise in a hostel; in many cases of this kind, most of them unimportant, resorting to an oath would be as daring as it would be unnecessary. For the degree of identification that is needed here, there are simple immediate means. Always tell the truth with accuracy and without evasiveness: and your simple word will be believed as an oath. Do not make promises that you are not sure can be fulfilled, but keep your promises without fail: they will believe your simple promise as if it were an oath. Such cases include the ancient commandment: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7), and the commandment of Christ: “You shall not swear in any way” (Matthew 5:34), and the admonition of the Apostle: “Do not swear by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other oath; you will fall into hypocrisy” (James 5:12). But there are other types of cases in which ordinary means are insufficient to eliminate doubt and achieve confirmation; and failure to obtain certification would be accompanied by extreme harm, not only private, but also public. Hence comes the necessity, and from the necessity the obligation, with extreme effort to achieve “death on notice”, to resort to the extreme means of identification that is possible. The sovereign and the state require loyalty from their subjects in general, and in special ministries, positions and assignments. This loyalty needs firm confirmation: because without this, public order would not be ensured, and there would not even be public safety. How to ensure loyalty? Laws? – But for the laws to have full force and effect, this requires strict fidelity in their use. Consequently, the proposed question is not resolved here, but only receives a special form: how to ensure fidelity in the use of laws? So what? Is it not honesty, previously known? For this purpose, it is more convenient to find time and methods in a small circle of private relations than in the vast space of state relations. Power uses its closest and most important tools, no doubt, with preliminary testing and inquiry, as far as the limited human gaze reaches and penetrates: but is it possible, through testing and inquiry, to decisively determine the honesty of each of thousands of people, before using them as instruments of the state? The question returns again: how to ensure fidelity? Isn't it fair? An honest word can only be accepted as security from the lips of a person of proven honesty: and where a preliminary full investigation of honesty is not feasible, there a word that declares itself honest does not provide security. Who doesn’t know that the so-called word of honor is also given by those who have not ensured its fulfillment for themselves, and do not even think about fulfilling it? How to ensure loyalty? Is it not fear of punishment? How unpleasant it would be, even if it were possible, to base general peace on one common fear! But this is not possible; because there may be breaches of fidelity which human discernment cannot discover, and human justice cannot prosecute. Fear of punishment is necessary and useful for curbing those prone to crime, but it is not sufficient for developing the quality of loyal subjects. Thus, the unsatisfactory nature of closer and more ordinary means of ensuring fidelity leads to an extreme means, to seal the promised fidelity with the great and terrible name of God, so that everyone respects fidelity as much as he reveres God; so that anyone who would boldly touch his promise would inevitably encounter the name of God, which is not only a pronounced sound, but the invoked power of God, penetrating souls, testing hearts, blessing the faithful and punishing the unfaithful. That this “death for notice,” this extreme means of authentication between people is not just a human institution, that the oath is not just an invention of the art of government, that this support of the earthly kingdom is accepted, affirmed and sanctified by the heavenly kingdom itself, this is not difficult to discern from the fact that God himself swears. “By myself he swore, saith the Lord” (Gen. 22:16) to Abraham. And the Apostle explains this word of the Lord exactly as an example of God’s oath. “The God who promised Abraham, because he swears by no one great, they swear by themselves” (Heb. 6:13). There is no doubt that, out of condescension, God gives here to His promise an image of human confirmation: but there is also no doubt that God accepts into His hands only those earthly instruments that are pure and worthy of heaven. An oath in the name of God in the faithful performance of public service, or in the faithful execution of a public task, is necessary both to certify the authorities and society, and to confirm the fidelity of the obligor himself. Doesn’t fidelity often require not only self-denial, but also self-sacrifice? Are you not faced with temptations, sometimes gross ones, which, however, are not always as easy to repel as they are easy to notice, sometimes subtle ones, in which you can get entangled almost imperceptibly? The arrogant person will rely on himself for this: but he will hardly make an exception from the prophetic judgment that “every man is a lie” (Ps. 116:2), that is, outside the help of God. And he who has more self-knowledge would not have calmed down from doubting himself if he had not resorted to God and confirmed his hope in Him. “Lord, faithful in His words, and holy in all His deeds” (Ps. 144:13)! Bless the faithfulness of my word and the honor of my deed. Show me truth and righteousness; Grant me the readiness to self-sacrifice for them, the firmness to resist the attacks of strong untruth, the foresight so as not to get entangled in the networks of cunning or partiality. – This is what is characteristic of the heart of a person who sincerely wants to remain faithful in a ministry or public matter: so the sample oath prescribed by law from the days of our ancestors commands to say: “May the Lord God help me mentally and physically!” May the thought of unfaithfulness to the oath be removed from us! But in order for him to be more likely to be removed, strike him like an arrow with the formidable word of God: “The Lord will not atone for him who takes His name in vain” (Ex. 20:7). If “the Lord does not purify him who takes His name” in vain, in vain, frivolously, needlessly, then what should he expect who, taking an oath before God, would use the name of God unintentionally, sacrilegiously, in order to cover up the impurity of his infidelity with its holiness? “Destroy all who speak lies” (Ps. 5:7): but will you not, first of all, destroy, O Lord, those who speak lies in Your name and before Your face, who lie, like Ananias and Sapphira, not by man, but by You God? When the Apostle Peter denounced Ananias with these exact words: “Thou didst not lie to man, but to God; When Ananias heard these words, he fell down”; and then Sapphira, after a similar reproof, “fell at his feet, and departed” (Acts 5:4, 10). This example, and many examples outside of sacred history, show that a lie in the name of God and before the face of God, a lie perjured, seems to impair heavenly Justice, and attracts formidable and sudden blows of fate. To these reflections on the importance of an oath, I hope, even without my assistance, add a reflection on the importance of the cause for which you are taking an oath. Not a small share of public order, the tranquility of many, the tranquility of those who actually depend on you and are entrusted to your care, and sometimes, perhaps even the tranquility of some of you, and the maintenance of the dignity of your exalted class will depend on those you choose. Choose so as not to reproach yourself later, so as not to anger God. Find dignity if it is hidden; know how to attract if it evades. On the contrary, put a barrier to the harassment of unworthiness. Do not place yourself below the unworthy by allowing them to outwit your actions. Justify the generous trust to the autocratic authorities towards you. May purity of intention and action attract the blessing of God on the voters, and on the election, and on those elected, and on the consequences of the election. Amen. You might be interested in: