I know that Roman Catholics will bravely and squarely deny what I now say. I am aware also that a great many Protestants, too easily deceived by the fine whitewashing of the exterior walls of Rome, will refuse to believe me. Nevertheless they may rest assured it is true, and my proof will be irrefutable. The truth may be denied by many, but my witnesses cannot be contradicted by any one. My witnesses are even infallible. They are none other than the Roman Catholic theologians themselves, approved by infallible Popes! These very men who corrupted my heart, perverted my intelligence and poisoned my soul, as they have done with each and every priest of their Church, will be my witnesses, my only witnesses. I will just now forcibly bring them before the world to testify against themselves!
Liguori, in his treatise on oaths, Question 4, asks if it is allowable to use ambiguity, or equivocal words, to deceive the judge when under oath, and at No. 151 he answers: “It is certain, and the opinion of all theologians, that for good reasons one may be permitted to use equivocations and to maintain them by oath; and by ‘good reasons’ we mean all that can do any good to the body or the soul.”
Here is the Latin text:
“Certum est, et commune apud omnes quod, ex justa causa, licitum sit uti aequivocatione, et cum juvamento affirmare: Et justa causa esse potest quicunque fines honestus ad servanda bona spiritui vel corporali utilia” (Sal: Nos. 109 and vol. sauch).
“A culprit, or a witness, questioned by a judge, but in an illegal manner, may swear that he knows nothing of the crime about which he is questioned, though he knows it well, mentally meaning that he knows nothing in such a manner as to answer.”
When the crime is very secret and unknown to all, Liguori says the culprit or the witness must deny it under oath. Here are his own words:
“Idem si testis ex alio capite, non teneatur deponere: Nempe si ipsi conotet crimen caruisse culpa, vel si sciat crimen, sed sub secreto, cum nulla proccesserit infamia.”
“He may swear that he knows nothing, when he knows that the person who committed the crime committed it without malice (as affir. Salm. to c. 2, No. 259, and Elb. No. 145); or again, if he knows the crime, but secretly, and that there has been no scandal” (as we are assured by Card. No. 51.)
“When a crime is well concealed, the witness, and even the criminal, may and even must swear that the crime has not been committed!
“The guilty party may yet do likewise, when a half proof cannot be brought against him.”