Hincmar of Rheims, De Divortio, Interrogatio/Responsio 14

Hincmar of Rheims, De Divortio, Interrogatio/Responsio 14

Written in 860 CE.

Source: Hincmar of Rheims "The Divorce of King Lothar and Queen Theutberga. Hincmar of Rheims’s De Divortio. Trans: Rachel Stone and Charles West." Manchester University Press (2016). pp. 232-235.

Question 14 and Response 14

Let the words of St Gregory in his book 33 [32] on the Morals, be read for the question raised about the oath (sacramentum). For he says:

‘Behold someone who seeks friendships of this world, who binds himself by an oath to someone leading a life similar to his, that he will cover over his secrets in total silence; but the one to whom this was sworn is discovered to be committing adultery, and may even try to kill the husband of the adulteress. The man who swore the oath comes back to his senses and is buffeted about by various thoughts: he fears to keep silent about it, lest by keeping silent about the adultery he may also become a participant in the murder; but he trembles also to betray, lest he render himself guilty of perjury. He is tied by the entwined sinews of his testicles, fearing to come down on either side, lest he not be free of the taint of transgression.’

 And a little later:

‘There is, however, a principle which may be useful for eliminating these trickeries, which is that when the mind is compelled between lesser and greater sins, then if there is really no path of escape open without sin, the lesser sins should always be chosen. For he who is enclosed on all sides by a circuit of walls so that he might not escape, jumps off in flight there where the walls are found to be lower.’

And the venerable priest Bede says thus in his homily on the Gospel according to Matthew, in which Herod’s foolish oath is described:

‘How greatly we should avoid the rashness of taking an oath, both the Lord in the Gospel and James in his letter teach, saying “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath. But let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into judgment” [James 5:12]. Clearly this is the judgement to which Herod fell victim, so that he had either to commit perjury, or, fearing to perjure, to carry out another sin. But if it should happen perhaps that we swear incautiously, that is, an oath which if kept would incline to a worse result, then we should openly recognise that the oath can be changed by more healthy counsel. By force of necessity, we shall have to perjure, rather than fall into a more serious crime in order to avoid perjury. For David swore by the Lord to kill Nabal, a foolish and impious man, and to destroy all that belonged to him. But at the first intercession of his [Nabal’s] prudent wife Abigail, he revoked his threats, sheathed his sword, and did not grieve that he had committed something sinful by such perjury. And Herod swore to give to the dancer whatever she demanded of him, and, lest he be called a perjurer by the banqueters, he defiled the banquet itself with blood, making the death of a prophet into a dancer’s reward. Moderation is to be carefully observed not just in swearing, but in all things that we do.

So if perhaps we fall into the traps of the wily enemy, from which we cannot escape without some stain of sin, let us seek to escape it rather by seeking the approach in which we bear less risk. And so, following the example of those shut in by enemy walls, and who, desiring to escape, see all exits forbidden to them: it is necessary that they chose some place from which to jump down, a place where the wall is lower, so they run the least risk in falling.’

And in the Council of Lérida it is decreed:

‘whoever obliges himself by an oath that he will in no way return to peace with someone with whom he is in contention, he will be separated from the communion of the body and blood of the Lord for one year for his perjury, and let him absolve his guilt with alms, tears and as much as he can, with fasting, and let him hurry to return quickly to love, which “covers a multitude of sins.”[1 Peter 4:8]’

And since the questioners wished to ask about an oath of this sort, we thought it not irrelevant to write about such things, which are accustomed to happen to human frailty. We do not target anyone in particular with what we write, but rather in case there is such a person whom this advice would be able to help, mindful of the Scripture saying “whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee” [Luke 10:35]. And so, although we were not asked about it, we thought we should include [advice] for someone who must choose between two things and wavers. For no one will easily find, indeed no one is able to find, someone who is holier than David, wiser than Solomon, and stronger than Samson. And these, captured by love of a woman, which tames iron wills by lust, and neither shrinks back from the rags of the poor nor fears the royal purple, did things which were not befitting.

And women often come to us complaining that young men made them a pledge (fidem promiserint) and then left them, scorned. And it has sometimes been found by us that men have left their legitimate wives and have adhered to adulteresses, in order to keep the faith they promised, to such an extent that they could be separated from these women only with great efforts.

About this business, St Augustine says in his book On the Good of Marriage:

‘There is this further, that in that very debt which married persons pay one to another, even if they demand it with somewhat too great intemperance and incontinence, yet they owe faith (fides) one to each other. To this faith the Apostle allows so great right as to call it "power" (potestas), saying, "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife" [1Corinthians 7:4]. But a violation in the use of this faith is called adultery, when either by instigation of one's own lust, or by consent to the lust of another, there is sexual intercourse with another man or woman against the marriage compact. And so the faith is broken, which is a great good of the soul even in matters that are of the body and low: and therefore it is certain that it ought to be preferred even to the health of the body, in which this life of ours is contained. For, although a little straw in comparison to much gold is almost nothing; yet faith, when it is kept pure in a matter of straw, as in a matter of gold, is not therefore less because it is kept in a lesser matter. But when faith is used to allow sin, it would be amazing that we should call it faith. However, of whatever kind the faith be, if a deed be done against it, it is the worse done; except when faith is abandoned on this account, so that there may be a return to true and lawful faith, that is, that a sin may be amended from perversion by a correct will.

It is as if someone who could not rob a person alone should find a partner in his iniquity, and make an agreement with him to do it together, and to divide the spoil; and, after the crime has been committed, should take off the whole to himself alone. That other man sorrows for himself, and complains that faith has not been kept with him. But in his very complaint he ought to consider, that he himself rather should have kept faith with human society in a good life, and not to make unjust spoil from a person, if he feels how injust it was not to preserve it [faith] with himself in the fellowship of sin. The other man, being faithless in both instances, must assuredly be judged as guilty and the more wicked. But if he had been unwilling to divide the spoil with his partner in crime, so that it might be restored to the person from whom it had been taken, not even a faithless man would call him faithless. Thus if a woman, having broken her marriage faith, keeps faith with her adulterer, she is certainly bad: but if she does not keep faith even with her adulterer, worse. Furthermore, if she should repent her of her sin, and returning to marital chastity, should renounce all adulterous compacts and sentiments, I would be surprised if even the adulterer himself will think of her as a violator of faith.’

And this is equally to be understood about an adulterer, that if he renounces an agreement made with an adulteress, that adulteress herself will not be able justly to say that he is a violator of faith.