p. 39The Oath in Secret Societies

Webster defines oath as “A solemn affirmation or declaration made with appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath implies that the person imprecates His vengeance and renounces His favor if the declaration is false, or, if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.”

Whatever the form of an oath may be the significance is the same, viz.: calling upon Almighty God to witness, i. e., take notice of what we say. In order that an oath should be valid it must be administered by a person having the authority to do so, and to a person competent, mentally and morally, to take it. Now there is no authority in this world except it comes from God, and the two authorities established by Almighty God are the Church and the State.

In order that an oath be lawful there must be something in the nature of the case demanding the solemnity of an oath, and the oath itself must be lawfully administered, either by an officer of the Church, or of the State, in his official capacity, and the person swearing must swear intelligently, knowing what he declares to be true, and what he binds himself to perform to be right and proper for him to do. The maxim is: “Whoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is persuaded is the truth. Neither can any man bind himself by oath to do anything but what is good and just, and what he believes to be so, and what he is able and resolved to perform.”

Secret societies have no right whatsoever, nor any authority whatsoever to administer the oath and by so doing usurp rights which do not belong to them.

The nature of the oaths in secret societies is in itself sinful:

1st—It is unlawfully administered and taken because God has not constituted secret societies.

2d—There is nothing in the nature of the case to warrant the solemnity of an oath, and God’s name is taken in vain.

3d—Such oaths are unnatural, because the person binds himself to do he knows not what; he swears to keep secret things not yet made known to him, and to obey rules and regulations of which he knows absolutely nothing.

4th—These oaths place the taker under unlawful penalties, and bind him to execute these penalties, which is a crime, both against the State and the individual as well as against the Church.

5th—To swear to keep the secrets of others, whether such be for the benefit or injury of other people, is a crime against society.

Daniel Webster said in a letter dated Boston, November 20, 1835, “I have no hesitation in saying that however unobjectionable may have been the original objects of the institution, or however pure may be the motives and purposes of the individual members, and notwithstanding the many great and good men who have from time to time belonged to the order, yet, nevertheless, it is an institution which in my judgment is essentially wrong in the principle of its formation, that from its very nature it is liable to great abuses; that among the obligations which are found to be imposed upon its members there are such as are entirely incompatible with the duty of good citizens, and that all secret associations, the members of which take upon themselves extraordinary obligations to one another, and are bound together by secret oaths, are naturally sources of jealousy and just alarm to others, are especially unfavorable to harmony and mutual confidence among men living together under popular institutions, and are dangerous to the general cause of civil liberty and good government. Under the influence of this conviction it is my opinion that the future administration of all such oaths and the formation of all such obligations should be prohibited by law.”

Inefficiency of the Oath.—We clipped the following from the Chicago Chronicle of Sept. 25th, 1901, and it is too significant to be lost:

“Today the oath is no longer efficacious as a conscience binder. If a man would deliberately lie to gain a point without being under oath, there is little reason to hope he would not dodge the oath if a mere future punishment were in store for him. All that an oath is good for is to put the witness within the pale of the law. Man will punish him for perjury if he swears falsely and is detected. The old notion of a religious test upon the secret conscience is worthless now. If he can escape perjury he will reel off his yarn as glibly under oath as without it. Punishment in this life by imprisonment at hard labor is the real restraining influence. That it is very effective is the belief of most practitioners. It is common comment that false testimony is injected into the majority of cases.”

The Catholic Church teaches that God has placed the twofold authority of Church and State in this world to watch over the actions of man for the good of society; and these two authorities, namely, Church and State, are sovereign and that it is dangerous (not to say treasonable) to Church and State, therefore wicked, by pledge or promise or oath, to bind one’s self to any organization, to any man or set of men in higher allegiance. A Catholic on becoming a member of any secret society may no longer openly or confidentially communicate to his confessor, spiritual advisor, bishop or pastor what the lodge forbids him to communicate, no matter how closely related to affairs of conscience and religion the case may be.

As a citizen he may not without violating his oath or promise reveal in court the doings in the lodge-room.

So members of secret societies may pay outward allegiance to Church and State, but they pay higher allegiance to the lodge.