Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quia homo est animal sociale, naturaliter unus homo debet alteri id sine quo societas humana conservari non posset. Non autem possent homines ad invicem convivere nisi sibi invicem crederent, tanquam sibi invicem veritatem manifestantibus. Et ideo virtus veritatis aliquo modo attendit rationem debiti. Reply Obj. 1: Since man is a social animal, one man naturally owes another whatever is necessary for the preservation of human society. Now it would be impossible for men to live together, unless they believed one another, as declaring the truth one to another. Hence the virtue of truth does, in a manner, regard something as being due. Ad secundum dicendum quod veritas secundum quod est cognita, pertinet ad intellectum. Sed homo per propriam voluntatem, per quam utitur et habitibus et membris, profert exteriora signa ad veritatem manifestandam. Et secundum hoc, manifestatio veritatis est actus voluntatis. Reply Obj. 2: Truth, as known, belongs to the intellect. But man, by his own will, whereby he uses both habits and members, utters external signs in order to manifest the truth, and in this way the manifestation of the truth is an act of the will. Ad tertium dicendum quod veritas de qua nunc loquimur, differt a veritate vitae ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 3: The truth of which we are speaking now differs from the truth of life, as stated in the preceding A. 2, ad 3. Veritas autem iustitiae dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum quod ipsa iustitia est rectitudo quaedam regulata secundum regulam divinae legis. Et secundum hoc, differt veritas iustitiae a veritate vitae, quia veritas vitae est secundum quam aliquis recte vivit in seipso; veritas autem iustitiae est secundum quam aliquis rectitudinem legis in iudiciis, quae sunt ad alterum, servat. Et secundum hoc, veritas iustitiae non pertinet ad veritatem de qua nunc loquimur, sicut nec veritas vitae. Alio modo potest intelligi veritas iustitiae secundum quod aliquis ex iustitia veritatem manifestat, puta cum aliquis in iudicio verum confitetur aut verum testimonium dicit. Et haec veritas est quidam particularis actus iustitiae. Et non pertinet directe ad hanc veritatem de qua nunc loquimur, quia scilicet in hac manifestatione veritatis principaliter homo intendit ius suum alteri reddere. Unde philosophus, in IV Ethic., de hac veritate determinans, dicit, non de veridico in confessionibus dicimus, neque quaecumque ad iustitiam vel iniustitiam contendunt. We speak of the truth of justice in two ways. In one way we refer to the fact that justice itself is a certain rectitude regulated according to the rule of the divine law; and in this way the truth of justice differs from the truth of life, because by the truth of life a man lives aright in himself, whereas by the truth of justice a man observes the rectitude of the law in those judgments which refer to another man: and in this sense the truth of justice has nothing to do with the truth of which we speak now, as neither has the truth of life. In another way the truth of justice may be understood as referring to the fact that, out of justice, a man manifests the truth, as for instance when a man confesses the truth, or gives true evidence in a court of justice. This truth is a particular act of justice, and does not pertain directly to this truth of which we are now speaking, because, to wit, in this manifestation of the truth a man’s chief intention is to give another man his due. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) in describing this virtue: We are not speaking of one who is truthful in his agreements, nor does this apply to matters in which justice or injustice is questioned. Veritas autem doctrinae consistit in quadam manifestatione verorum de quibus est scientia. Unde nec ista veritas directe pertinet ad hanc virtutem, sed solum veritas qua aliquis et vita et sermone talem se demonstrat qualis est, et non alia quam circa ipsum sint, nec maiora nec minora. Veruntamen quia vera scibilia, inquantum sunt a nobis cognita, circa nos sunt et ad nos pertinent; secundum hoc veritas doctrinae potest ad hanc virtutem pertinere, et quaecumque alia veritas qua quis manifestat verbo vel facto quod cognoscit. The truth of doctrine consists in a certain manifestation of truths relating to science wherefore neither does this truth directly pertain to this virtue, but only that truth whereby a man, both in life and in speech, shows himself to be such as he is, and the things that concern him, not other, and neither greater nor less, than they are. Nevertheless since truths of science, as known by us, are something concerning us, and pertain to this virtue, in this sense the truth of doctrine may pertain to this virtue, as well as any other kind of truth whereby a man manifests, by word or deed, what he knows. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum virtus veritatis declinet in minus Whether the virtue of truth inclines rather to that which is less? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtus veritatis non declinet in minus. Sicut enim aliquis dicendo maius incurrit falsitatem, ita et dicendo minus, non enim magis est falsum quatuor esse quinque quam quatuor esse tria. Sed omne falsum est secundum se malum et fugiendum, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic. Ergo veritatis virtus non plus declinat in minus quam in maius. Objection 1: It seems that the virtue of truth does not incline to that which is less. For as one incurs falsehood by saying more, so does one by saying less: thus it is no more false that four are five, than that four are three. But every falsehood is in itself evil, and to be avoided, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. iv, 7). Therefore the virtue of truth does not incline to that which is less rather than to that which is greater. Praeterea, quod una virtus magis declinet ad unum extremum quam ad aliud, contingit ex hoc quod virtutis medium est propinquius uni extremo quam alteri, sicut fortitudo est propinquior audaciae quam timiditati. Sed veritatis medium non est propinquius uni extremo quam alteri, quia veritas, cum sit aequalitas quaedam, in medio punctali consistit. Ergo veritas non magis declinat in minus. Obj. 2: Further, that a virtue inclines to the one extreme rather than to the other, is owing to the fact that the virtue’s mean is nearer to the one extreme than to the other: thus fortitude is nearer to daring than to timidity. But the mean of truth is not nearer to one extreme than to the other; because truth, since it is a kind of equality, holds to the exact mean. Therefore truth does not more incline to that which is less. Praeterea, in minus videtur a veritate recedere qui veritatem negat, in maius autem qui veritati aliquid superaddit. Sed magis repugnat veritati qui veritatem negat quam qui superaddit, quia veritas non compatitur secum negationem veritatis, compatitur autem secum superadditionem. Ergo videtur quod veritas magis debeat declinare in maius quam in minus. Obj. 3: Further, to forsake the truth for that which is less seems to amount to a denial of the truth, since this is to subtract therefrom; and to forsake the truth for that which is greater seems to amount to an addition thereto. Now to deny the truth is more repugnant to truth than to add something to it, because truth is incompatible with the denial of truth, whereas it is compatible with addition. Therefore it seems that truth should incline to that which is greater rather than to that which is less. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod homo secundum hanc virtutem magis a vero declinat in minus. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that by this virtue a man declines rather from the truth towards that which is less. Respondeo dicendum quod declinare in minus a veritate contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, affirmando, puta cum aliquis non manifestat totum bonum quod in ipso est, puta scientiam vel sanctitatem vel aliquid huiusmodi. Quod fit sine praeiudicio veritatis, quia in maiori est etiam minus. Et secundum hoc, haec virtus declinat in minus. Hoc enim, ut philosophus dicit ibidem, videtur esse prudentius, propter onerosas superabundantias esse. Homines enim qui maiora de seipsis dicunt quam sint, sunt aliis onerosi, quasi excellere alios volentes, homines autem qui minora de seipsis dicunt, gratiosi sunt, quasi aliis condescendentes per quandam moderationem. Unde apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. XII, si voluero gloriari, non ero insipiens, veritatem enim dicam. Parco autem, ne quis me existimet supra id quod videt in me, aut audit aliquid ex me. I answer that, There are two ways of declining from the truth to that which is less. First, by affirming, as when a man does not show the whole good that is in him, for instance science, holiness and so forth. This is done without prejudice to truth, since the lesser is contained in the greater: and in this way this virtue inclines to what is less. For, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7), this seems to be more prudent because exaggerations give annoyance. For those who represent themselves as being greater than they are, are a source of annoyance to others, since they seem to wish to surpass others: whereas those who make less account of themselves are a source of pleasure, since they seem to defer to others by their moderation. Hence the Apostle says (2 Cor 12:6): Though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me or anything he heareth from me. Alio modo potest aliquis declinare in minus negando, scilicet ut neget sibi inesse quod inest. Et sic non pertinet ad hanc virtutem declinare in minus, quia per hoc incurret falsum. Et tamen hoc ipsum esset minus repugnans virtuti, non quidem secundum propriam rationem veritatis, sed secundum rationem prudentiae, quam oportet salvari in omnibus virtutibus. Magis enim repugnat prudentiae, quia periculosius est et onerosius aliis, quod aliquis existimet vel iactet se habere quod non habet, quam quod non existimet, vel dicat se non habere quod habet. Second, one may incline to what is less by denying, so as to say that what is in us is not. In this way it does not belong to this virtue to incline to what is less, because this would imply falsehood. And yet this would be less repugnant to the truth, not indeed as regards the proper aspect of truth, but as regards the aspect of prudence, which should be safeguarded in all the virtues. For since it is fraught with greater danger and is more annoying to others, it is more repugnant to prudence to think or boast that one has what one has not, than to think or say that one has not what one has. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. Quaestio 110 Question 110 De mendacio Lying Deinde considerandum est de vitiis oppositis veritati. Et primo, de mendacio; secundo, de simulatione sive hypocrisi; tertio, de iactantia et opposito vitio. Circa mendacium quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider the vices opposed to truth, and (1) lying: (2) dissimulation or hypocrisy: (3) boasting and the opposite vice. Concerning lying there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum mendacium semper opponatur veritati, quasi continens falsitatem. (1) Whether lying, as containing falsehood, is always opposed to truth? Secundo, de speciebus mendacii. (2) Of the species of lying; Tertio, utrum mendacium semper sit peccatum. (3) Whether lying is always a sin? Quarto, utrum semper sit peccatum mortale. (4) Whether it is always a mortal sin? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum mendacium semper opponatur veritati Whether lying is always opposed to truth? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mendacium non semper opponatur veritati. Opposita enim non possunt esse simul. Sed mendacium simul potest esse cum veritate, qui enim verum loquitur quod falsum esse credit, mentitur, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro contra mendacium. Ergo mendacium non opponitur veritati. Objection 1: It seems that lying is not always opposed to truth. For opposites are incompatible with one another. But lying is compatible with truth, since he that speaks the truth, thinking it to be false, lies, according to Augustine (Lib. De Mendac. iii). Therefore lying is not opposed to truth. Praeterea, virtus veritatis non solum consistit in verbis, sed etiam in factis, quia secundum philosophum, in IV Ethic., secundum hanc virtutem aliquis verum dicit et in sermone et in vita. Sed mendacium consistit solum in verbis, dicitur enim quod mendacium est falsa vocis significatio. Ergo videtur quod mendacium non directe opponatur virtuti veritatis. Obj. 2: Further, the virtue of truth applies not only to words but also to deeds, since according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 7) by this virtue one tells the truth both in one’s speech and in one’s life. But lying applies only to words, for Augustine says (Contra Mend. xii) that a lie is a false signification by words. Accordingly, it seems that lying is not directly opposed to the virtue of truth. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro contra mendacium, quod culpa mentientis est fallendi cupiditas. Sed hoc non opponitur veritati, sed magis benevolentiae vel iustitiae. Ergo mendacium non opponitur veritati. Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Lib. De Mendac. iii) that the liar’s sin is the desire to deceive. But this is not opposed to truth, but rather to benevolence or justice. Therefore lying is not opposed to truth. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro contra mendacium, nemo dubitet mentiri eum qui falsum enuntiat causa fallendi. Quapropter enuntiationem falsi cum voluntate ad fallendum prolatam, manifestum est esse mendacium. Sed hoc opponitur veritati. Ergo mendacium veritati opponitur. On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Mend. x): Let no one doubt that it is a lie to tell a falsehood in order to deceive. Wherefore a false statement uttered with intent to deceive is a manifest lie. But this is opposed to truth. Therefore lying is opposed to truth. Respondeo dicendum quod actus moralis ex duobus speciem sortitur, scilicet ex obiecto, et ex fine. Nam finis est obiectum voluntatis, quae est primum movens in moralibus actibus. Potentia autem a voluntate mota habet suum obiectum, quod est proximum obiectum voluntarii actus, et se habet in actu voluntatis ad finem sicut materiale ad formale, ut ex supra dictis patet. I answer that, A moral act takes its species from two things, its object, and its end: for the end is the object of the will, which is the first mover in moral acts. And the power moved by the will has its own object, which is the proximate object of the voluntary act, and stands in relation to the will’s act towards the end, as material to formal, as stated above (I-II, Q. 18, AA. 6, 7). Dictum est autem quod virtus veritatis, et per consequens opposita vitia, in manifestatione consistit, quae fit per aliqua signa. Quae quidem manifestatio, sive enuntiatio, est rationis actus conferentis signum ad signatum, omnis enim repraesentatio consistit in quadam collatione, quae proprie pertinet ad rationem; unde etsi bruta animalia aliquid manifestent, non tamen manifestationem intendunt, sed naturali instinctu aliquid agunt ad quod manifestatio sequitur. Inquantum tamen huiusmodi manifestatio sive enuntiatio est actus moralis, oportet quod sit voluntarius et ex intentione voluntatis dependens. Obiectum autem proprium manifestationis sive enuntiationis est verum vel falsum. Intentio vero voluntatis inordinatae potest ad duo ferri, quorum unum est ut falsum enuntietur; aliud quidem est effectus proprius falsae enuntiationis, ut scilicet aliquis fallatur. Now it has been said above (Q. 109, A. 1, ad 3) that the virtue of truth—and consequently the opposite vices—regards a manifestation made by certain signs: and this manifestation or statement is an act of reason comparing sign with the thing signified; because every representation consists in comparison, which is the proper act of the reason. Wherefore though dumb animals manifest something, yet they do not intend to manifest anything: but they do something by natural instinct, and a manifestation is the result. But when this manifestation or statement is a moral act, it must needs be voluntary, and dependent on the intention of the will. Now the proper object of a manifestation or statement is the true or the false. And the intention of a bad will may bear on two things: one of which is that a falsehood may be told; while the other is the proper effect of a false statement, namely, that someone may be deceived. Si ergo ista tria concurrant, scilicet quod falsum sit id quod enuntiatur, et quod adsit voluntas falsum enuntiandi, et iterum intentio fallendi, tunc est falsitas materialiter, quia falsum dicitur; et formaliter, propter voluntatem falsum dicendi; et effective, propter voluntatem falsitatem imprimendi. Accordingly if these three things concur, namely, falsehood of what is said, the will to tell a falsehood, and finally the intention to deceive, then there is falsehood—materially, since what is said is false, formally, on account of the will to tell an untruth, and effectively, on account of the will to impart a falsehood. Sed tamen ratio mendacii sumitur a formali falsitate, ex hoc scilicet quod aliquis habet voluntatem falsum enuntiandi. Unde et mendacium nominatur ex eo quod contra mentem dicitur. Et ideo si quis falsum enuntiet credens illud verum esse, est quidem falsum materialiter, sed non formaliter, quia falsitas est praeter intentionem dicentis. Unde non habet perfectam rationem mendacii, id enim quod praeter intentionem est, per accidens est; unde non potest esse specifica differentia. Si vero formaliter aliquis falsum dicat, habens voluntatem falsum dicendi, licet sit verum id quod dicitur, inquantum tamen huiusmodi actus est voluntarius et moralis, habet per se falsitatem, et per accidens veritatem. Unde ad speciem mendacii pertingit. However, the essential notion of a lie is taken from formal falsehood, from the fact namely, that a person intends to say what is false; wherefore also the word mendacium (lie) is derived from its being in opposition to the mind. Consequently if one says what is false, thinking it to be true, it is false materially, but not formally, because the falseness is beside the intention of the speaker so that it is not a perfect lie, since what is beside the speaker’s intention is accidental for which reason it cannot be a specific difference. If, on the other hand, one utters falsehood formally, through having the will to speak falsehood, even if what one says be true, yet inasmuch as this is a voluntary and moral act, it contains falseness essentially and truth accidentally, and attains the specific nature of a lie. Quod autem aliquis intendat falsitatem in opinione alterius constituere fallendo ipsum, non pertinet ad speciem mendacii, sed ad quandam perfectionem ipsius, sicut et in rebus naturalibus aliquid speciem sortitur si formam habeat, etiam si desit formae effectus; sicut patet in gravi quod violenter sursum detinetur, ne descendat secundum exigentiam suae formae. Sic ergo patet quod mendacium directe et formaliter opponitur virtuti veritatis. That a person intends to cause another to have a false opinion, by deceiving him, does not belong to the species of lying, but to perfection thereof, even as in the physical order, a thing acquires its species if it has its form, even though the form’s effect be lacking; for instance a heavy body which is held up aloft by force, lest it come down in accordance with the exigency of its form. Therefore it is evident that lying is directly and formally opposed to the virtue of truth. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod unumquodque magis iudicatur secundum id quod est in eo formaliter et per se, quam secundum id quod est in eo materialiter et per accidens. Et ideo magis opponitur veritati, inquantum est virtus moralis, quod aliquis dicat verum intendens dicere falsum, quam quod dicat falsum intendens dicere verum. Reply Obj. 1: We judge of a thing according to what is in it formally and essentially rather than according to what is in it materially and accidentally. Hence it is more in opposition to truth, considered as a moral virtue, to tell the truth with the intention of telling a falsehood than to tell a falsehood with the intention of telling the truth. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in II de Doctr. Christ., voces praecipuum locum tenent inter alia signa. Et ideo cum dicitur quod mendacium est falsa vocis significatio, nomine vocis intelligitur omne signum. Unde ille qui aliquod falsum nutibus significare intenderet, non esset a mendacio immunis. Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii), words hold the chief place among other signs. And so when it is said that a lie is a false signification by words, the term words denotes every kind of sign. Wherefore if a person intended to signify something false by means of signs, he would not be excused from lying. Ad tertium dicendum quod cupiditas fallendi pertinet ad perfectionem mendacii, non autem ad speciem ipsius, sicut nec aliquis effectus pertinet ad speciem suae causae. Reply Obj. 3: The desire to deceive belongs to the perfection of lying, but not to its species, as neither does any effect belong to the species of its cause. Articulus 2 Article 2