33. The obligation to keep secrets
Sin
If you object to what was said about perjury being against a precept of the first table of the law, because it seems that according to the Master [Peter Lombard) perjury is a kind of lie and hence against that commandment of the second table, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" [Exodus
20:16], one could reply that in perjury there is a double sin, namely, [i) a lie
(as the material aspect) and [ii) taking God's name in vain, that is to say, not just uselessly, but irreverently, which is a sin against reverence. The first pertains to the second table, but the second pertains formally to the first table, because irreverence is prohibited there.
To show that it is the second or formal aspect (irreverence) rather than the material aspect of lying that is essential to perjury, Scotus shows how one can commit perjury without lying, namely, by swearing to something one has doubts about, for such a solemn appeal to God as an oath involves should not be made lightly, in accord with Christ's exhortation against taking an oath. Unlike the Catholic
Church, certain other Christian sects have interpreted Christ's words to imply an absolute prohibition against taking an oath, even when called as a witness in a judicial court case. Agnostics and atheists may likewise object to calling God as witness. Positive law usually respects the conscientious objector in such a case by allowing him or her not to swear, e.g., on the Bible, but, at the same time, treats any lie given by such a person on the witness stand as equivalent to perjury and punishable by the same penalty.
The third article deals with various types of oaths, and what Scotus says there reflects the common juridical distinctions of his day. What he says in respect to each is clear enough, as are his replies to the initial arguments against his thesis.
The Latin original is from the supplement to the Ordinatio 1II, dist.
39, revised from the Wadding edition on the basis of Codices A (ff.
18Iva-82va) and S (ff. 223va-24va).
33. The obligation to keep secrets The discussion of the sin of telling secrets is an excerpt from Scotus' discussion of the obligation of the priest to keep the seal of confession.
This he develops in the form of five conclusions, which reveal a manifold obligation: one stemming from the law of nature itself; the second from divine positive law; the third from positive Church law, which imposed the most severe penalties upon any priest guilty of violating the seal. In his day, Scotus tells us, this entailed not only suspension from the priesthood and any office the guilty party held, but (by decree of the Lateran Council) confinement for the remainder of his life to some monastery where this was possible, and if it was not possiblesays Scotus-the earlier punishment was not to be omitted, namely,