Chapter LVI: Part II: SPECIAL MORAL THEOLOGY (Continued) (19)

(b) By reason of the object, formal disobedience is contempt either for the law or for the superior. In the former case the transgressor despises the commandment given him and vents his dislike in disobedience; in the latter case the transgressor belittles the authority of the lawmaker or superior who made the law or who gave the precept; or scorns his sinfulness, ignorance, or low birth; or hates or envies him, and therefore proceeds to break his laws or precepts. If contempt moves one to rebel against every command, it is perfect; if it extends to only one or another matter, it is imperfect.

2368. It is not sinful contempt of a person in authority, however, if the subject does not admire his character, or agree with his opinions, or approve of his courses, when the subject has good reason for his view and does not forget the respect and obedience due to authority and law.

2369. Theological Sinfulness of Formal Disobedience.--(a) From its nature formal disobedience is a grave sin, since it is contrary to charity, which is the life of the soul and the end of the law. Love of God demands that we keep His commandments and be submissive to His representatives (Rom., xiii. 2; John, xiv, 21; Rom., ii. 23, xiii. 2; Luke, X. 16). Disobedience is classed by St. Paul with the worst sins of the ancient pagans (Rom., i. 30) and of the sinners of the last days (II Tim, iii. 1), with witchcraft and idolatry (I Kings, xv. 23).

(b) From the imperfection of the act formal disobedience is sometimes only a venial sin, as when in a sudden fit of anger against his superiors a child refuses to obey his teachers or parents.

(c) From the lightness of the matter, formal disobedience is only a venial sin, if the contempt is imperfect and not directed against God, and the matter of the command or transgression is not serious (e.g., if one gets up a few minutes late in the morning once or twice as a protest against a regulation). But, even though the matter is not serious in itself, formal disobedience is a grave sin, when the contempt is perfect (e.g., if in a spirit of defiance and of anarchistic contempt for all his laws one pays no heed to some minor regulation of a superior), and perhaps also when contempt is directed against a divine precept (e.g., if with the feeling that the eighth commandment is foolish or useless, one tells small lies); for in the former case there is grave contempt, in the latter case blasphemy.

2370. Moral Species of Disobedience.--(a) In formal disobedience, if the command belongs to some special virtue, there are two sins, namely, that against obedience and that against the virtue intended by the lawgiver (e.g., when out of contempt one violates the third commandment); but, if the command was given for the sake of obedience only, there is but the one sin of formal disobedience (e.g., when out of stubbornness a child refuses to do the study or other work imposed by parents or teachers).

(b) In material disobedience, if the command was given for the sake of some special virtue, there is but the one sin against that virtue, as when one breaks the fifth or sixth commandment to satisfy passion; but if the command was given for the exercise of submission only, there is but the one general sin of disobedience, as when a child eats between meals against the command given by his mother.

2371. Circumstances that Aggravate Formal Disobedience.--One act of formal disobedience can be worse than another such act in two ways:

(a) by reason of the rank of the person who gave the command. Thus, it is more serious to disobey God than to disobey man, and more serious to disobey a higher than a lower superior;

(b) by reason of the rank which the thing commanded has in the intention of the superior. Thus, when disobeying God it is more serious to transgress against the higher than against the lower good, for God always prefers the better good; but in disobeying man alone it is more serious to transgress against the good, higher or lower, which the lawgiver has more at heart.

2372. Comparison of Formal Disobedience with Other Sins.--(a) Disobedience against God (e.g., contempt for His law) is worse than sins against the neighbor (e.g., murder, theft, adultery). This is true when these latter sins do not include formal disobedience against God, for, _per se_ and other things being equal, a sin against God is more serious than a sin against a creature; it is also true when sins against creatures include formal disobedience against God but offend a less important commandment, as when the one sin is perjury and the other theft.

(b) Contempt for the lawgiver, even without disobedience, is worse than contempt for the law with disobedience, since the lawgiver is of greater importance than his precept. Thus, it is worse to blaspheme God than to despise His commandment; it is worse to hold a superior in contempt than to disregard his precept.

2373. The Virtue of Gratitude.--Religion, piety, reverence and obedience are annexed to justice on account of a legal debt; the virtues that remain, beginning with gratitude, are assigned to justice on account of a moral debt only (see 2143). Gratitude is defined as “a moral virtue that inclines one to acknowledge with appreciation and to repay with gladness the favors one has received.”

(a) The object of gratitude is favors received, that is, some good useful and acceptable to the recipient and gratuitously bestowed. Thus, gratitude is not owed for a thing that is harmful (e.g., for aid in the commission of sin, for gifts offered with purpose of bribery or simony) or useless (e.g., for old articles which the giver only wished to get rid of and forced one to take). Neither is gratitude owed for presents made with the purpose of ridicule or offense. Finally, no thanks are due for what was owed in justice (e.g., wages for work performed), though courtesy demands a pleasant response to every good one receives, even when it is not a favor.

(b) The offices of gratitude are acknowledgment and repayment. The former consists in thoughts or words, such as remembrance of benefactors, praise of their good deeds, words of thanks; the latter consists in acts or things, such as honor, service, assistance, and gifts (Tob., xii. 2, 4).

2374. Two Kinds of Gratitude.--(a) In a wide sense, gratitude is the recognition of favors received from superiors, and does not differ from religion, piety and reverence, by which one gives due acknowledgment to God as the first cause of all benefits, to parents as the second cause of life and training, and to rulers as the second cause of direction or guidance or of public and common benefits. (b) In its strict sense, gratitude refers only to special and private benefits distinct from those mentioned above. Gratitude, then, is a distinct virtue and follows in order after reverence.

2375. Is greater gratitude due to God for the gift of innocence or for the gift of repentance?

(a) If we consider only the greatness of the favor, the one who has been preserved from sin owes more gratitude to God; for, _per se_ and other things being equal, it is a greater favor to be kept from sin than to be rescued from it.

(b) If we consider the liberality of the favor, the one who has received the gift of repentance should be more thankful, for God is more generous when He bestows His grace on one who deserved punishment.

2376. Circumstances of Gratitude.--(a) To Whom Gratitude Should Be Shown.--Every benefactor should be repaid internally (e.g., by kind remembrance and prayers) and also externally, unless this is impossible (e.g., when he has become so depraved that one can have no dealings with him). The internal debt is lessened if the benefactor was less benevolent (e.g., if he gave grudgingly, or in an unkind manner, or only with a view to self-advertisement), for the gift is esteemed chiefly from the good will of the giver; the external debt is lessened if the benefactor stands less in need of external help (e.g., if he is wealthy or famous).

(b) By Whom Gratitude Should Be Shown.--Every person who is favored should be thankful. There is no one so high that another cannot be his benefactor, and the greatest or wealthiest person should not feel it beneath his dignity to repay even small favors sincerely given. Neither is there anyone so low, whether child or pauper, that he cannot to some extent, by his respect, affection, prayers, etc., recompense his benefactors.

(c) The Time for Gratitude.--Internal gratitude should be immediate, and should be shown by the kindly manner in which a favor is received; but external repayment should await a suitable time, as it seems forced or unappreciative to give a favor in return as soon as one is received.

(d) The Degree of Gratitude Owed.--If the favor was bestowed by reason of a friendship of utility, the gratitude should correspond with the benefit received; but, if it was bestowed out of pure friendship or liberality, the gratitude should be measured by the benevolence that prompted the favor. Hence, as Seneca remarks, gratitude is sometimes more due to one who bestows small favors, but with liberality and willingness and disinterestedness.

[e] The Amount of Recompense for Favors.--It is suitable that one repay benefactors by giving more than was received from them, if this is possible; for otherwise one will seem only to give back all or part of what was received. But in gratitude, as in benefits, the good will counts for more than the favor; and hence if one cannot hope to surpass the favor (e.g., the case of children in relation to parents), one can at least surpass in desire and internal benevolence.

2377. The Sins against Gratitude.--(a) Since gratitude is a moral virtue, the sins against it are either by excess (e.g., if one is grateful for things one should not desire), or by defect (that is, by ingratitude). Since gratitude inclines to surpass favors received, it is more offended by lack of thanks or ingratitude than by excessive thanks.

(b) As to its motive, ingratitude is twofold, material and formal. Formal ingratitude consists in contempt for the benefit or the benefactor, as when the person favored disdains what has been done for him, and therefore omits to give thanks or commits some injury against the benefactor. Material ingratitude is any injury done a benefactor without contempt for him or his favor.

(c) As to its mode, formal ingratitude is also twofold, that by omission and that by commission. The former is the culpable neglect of the grateful act of repaying a benefactor, or of the grateful word of thanking him, or of the grateful thought of remembering him with affection; the latter is the culpable return of evil for good (Jerem., xviii. 20; Exod., xviii. 3) by an injurious act, or by a word in contempt of the favor, or by a thought that it is a disfavor.

2378. The Moral Species of Ingratitude.--(a) Material ingratitude is not a special sin, since it may be found in all kinds of sins committed against a benefactor; for example, every violation of a commandment is an act of ingratitude to God, and every injury done a human benefactor is an act of ingratitude to man. But material ingratitude is an aggravating circumstance, since it is worse to harm those to whom we owe thanks than to harm others.

(b) Formal ingratitude is a special sin, for it is the denial of a special debt owed in decency, and which a special virtue requires one to pay (see 2374). St. Paul lists ingratitude with other special classes of sin (II Tim., iii. 2).

2379. The Theological Species of Ingratitude.--(a) Formal ingratitude from its nature seems to be a mortal sin, since it is against charity, which bids us love our benefactors. It may be venial, however, on account of the imperfection of the act or the smallness of the matter. Thus, to offend a benefactor in some trifling matter would not be mortal, even though there be some slight contempt in the act.

(b) Material ingratitude is venial or mortal according to the nature of the injury done the benefactor. Thus, a small injury is done when one gives a cheap present to a benefactor from whom one had received a valuable gift, for his right to more was not strict, and hence the sin is venial; but a grave injury is done when one seriously calumniates a benefactor, and the sin is then mortal.

2380. Is It Right to Confer Favors on the Ungrateful?--(a) If the favors will be of benefit, one should not desist merely because of the ingratitude with which they are received. It is not always certain that the beneficiary is ungrateful, and there may be reason to hope for his improvement (Luke, vi. 35).

(b) If the favors are not beneficial, because the recipient is made worse (e.g., arrogant, lazy) through them, they should be discontinued.

2381. The Virtue of Vengeance.--Just as gratitude returns good for evil, so does vengeance (_vindicatio_) return evil for evil, that is, the evil of punishment for the evil of sin. Vengeance is defined as “a moral virtue that inclines a private person to use lawful means for the punishment of wrongdoing, with a view to the satisfaction of public or private justice.”

(a) Vengeance is a virtue of private persons; that is, it belongs to those who are not charged officially with the punishment of offenses. The duty of public persons, such as judges, is a much stricter one and pertains to the virtue of vindictive justice, which is a form of commutative justice; whereas vengeance is only a virtue annexed to justice (see above, 2141 sqq.). Vindictive justice attends to the equality between fault and punishment, vengeance to the protection of the person who has been injured.

(b) Vengeance is concerned with the punishment of wrongdoing, or the infliction of some painful retribution upon one who has already committed an injury. Thus, this virtue is not strictly identical with lawful self-defense, which is directed against an evil that is not past but present, though self-defense may be rated as a secondary act of the virtue of vengeance.

(c) Vengeance uses only lawful means; that is, it seeks redress or reparation from the authorities who have the right to give it and follows due process of law. This virtue differs, then, from private revenge, vendetta, lynch law, exercise of the “unwritten law,” etc., which are acts of sinful violence, though sometimes subjectively excusable on account of ignorance. The virtue of vengeance is also exercised by those who desire that justice may be done against malefactors, or who visit upon them with moderation such punishments as are not forbidden to private persons (e.g., denial of friendship). Parents also exercise this virtue whenever they properly correct and chastise their children.

(d) Vengeance has for its ends public and private justice, that is, the vindication of the right order of society or the compensation or satisfaction of an injured person. If some other good motive causes one to desire requital of evil deeds, the act will pertain to another virtue: thus, if one aims at the amendment of the evil-doer, one’s act pertains to charity; if one desires by the deterrent of punishment to secure the peace and prosperity of the commonwealth, the act is one of legal justice; if one seeks the honor of God, the act is one of religion, etc. If an evil motive prompts the desire of punishment, the wish is not virtuous at all, but sinful. Thus, he who labors to have a criminal captured, sentenced and executed, and whose intention is not the vindication of justice but the gratification of jealousy, hatred, cruelty or other like passion, sins grievously and perhaps makes himself worse than the criminal. To return evil for evil in this way is to be overcome by evil (Rom., xii. 17-21).

2382. The Morality of Vengeance.--(a) Vengeance is lawful, since it pertains to justice, and Our Lord declares that it is found in the just and is approved by God (Luke, xviii. 7). It is, moreover, a special virtue, for it regulates the special natural inclination which moves man to attack what is harmful and injurious and has its own distinctive ends (see 2381). It is closely related to fortitude and zeal, which prepare the way for it; zeal, being a fervent love of God and man, inspires indignation against injustice, while fortitude removes the fear that might keep one back from attack on injustice. Accidentally, however, on account of greater evils, vengeance is sometimes unlawful, as when it would involve the innocent with the guilty, or fall more heavily upon the less guilty (Matt., xiii. 29, 30).

(b) Vengeance is obligatory when an injury to oneself is also an injury to a public or other necessary good (e.g., to the rights of God or of the Church). Hence it was that Elias and Eliseus punished those who maltreated them (IV Kings, i. 9 sqq., ii. 23, 24), that inspired writers pray God to punish the wicked (Psalms xviii, xxxiv, lxviii, cviii, lxxviii, cxxxvi; Jeremias, xi. 20, xvii, 18, xviii. 21, xx. 12), and Pope Sylvester excommunicated those who sent him into exile. If an injury to oneself is merely personal, one should be willing to forego punishment of the guilty person, and should actually do so when this course is expedient, as Our Lord teaches in Matthew, vi. 14, 15 (see 1198 sqq.). When no necessity requires one to vindicate a personal wrong, the more perfect course is to pardon the wrong for the sake of God; for in avenging injuries to self there is always the danger of such evils as selfish motive, arrogance, hatred, scandal, and the loss of such goods as peace of mind, conversion of the other party, edification, and greater claim on God’s forgiveness of self. Hence, vengeance is called “a little virtue,” since it is so often the less perfect way.

2383. Excess and Defect.--Punitive justice is a moral virtue and hence should be characterized by moderation as to all its circumstances. It should avoid the extremes of excess and defect.

(a) The sin of excess here is cruelty, which in the quality or the quantity of the punishment offends human rights or surpasses the measure of the crime or the custom of the law. Thus, it is immoral to associate young prisoners with hardened criminals, to deprive an offender of religious opportunities; it is inhuman to treat a human being as if he were a brute or less than a brute (e.g., by confinement in a loathsome dungeon, by overwork with starvation, by torture); it is unfair to use severe punishments unknown to law or custom, or whose rigor far surpasses the degree of offense. There is excess even in medicinal or reformatory penalties, if a higher good is sacrificed for a lower (e.g., the spiritual for the temporal, a major for a minor good quality), for then the remedy is worse than the disease.

(b) The sin of defect in punishments is laxity, which rewards crime, or allows it to go unpunished, or imposes penalties which are agreeable to offenders, or not a deterrent, or not at all equal to the offense. Scripture condemns this lenity when it declares that the parent who spares the rod spoils the child (Prov., xiii. 24). In weighing the gravity of a delinquency account should be taken of the fault itself, of the injury done and the scandal given. In the fault consideration must be had of the objective element (i.e., the nature and importance of the law violated), of the subjective element (i.e., the age, instruction, education, sex, and state of mind of the offender), of the circumstances (e.g., the time, the place, the persons involved, and the frequency). See Canon 2218.

2384. Circumstances of Punitive Justice.--(a) Punishments that May Be Used.--Punishment is virtuous only in so far as it restrains from evil those who cannot be restrained by love of virtue, but only by fear of penalty. Hence, penalties should consist in the deprivation of goods that are more prized than the satisfactions obtained through delinquencies. Both divine and human laws, therefore, have established as punishments the loss of a bodily good (e.g., by death, flogging, imprisonment) or of an external good (e.g., by exile, fine, infamy), the chief inducements to crime being found in bodily or external things. The extreme penalty of death should be reserved for extreme cases, and the other penalties should be suited to the crime, so as to remove the incentive or means (e.g., dishonesty should be punished by loss of goods, calumny by infamy, lust by pain, etc.).

(b) Persons Who May Be Punished.--Punishment again is virtuous only because it pertains to justice and rights the inequality caused by sin. Accordingly, no one should be punished unless he has sinned or voluntarily transgressed. It is unlawful to punish the innocent for the guilty, or to punish an innocent person in order to keep him from future sins. It should be noted, however, that God inflicts temporal evils on the just for the sake of spiritual goods (e.g., that they may not become attached to this world, may have opportunities of merit, and may give good example); that one person may be punished for the sin of another when he associates himself with or approves of that sin, as when careless parents have bad children or careless subjects bad rulers (Job, xxxiv. 30; Exod, xx. 5); that for a sufficient reason an innocent person may be deprived of a good for which he is unfitted (e.g., ordination when one is irregular by defect) or to which he has no personal or absolute claim (e.g., the family property when it is lost to the children because the father is fined).

2385. The Virtue of Truthfulness.--Having treated the virtues of gratitude and vengeance, which deal with moral obligations caused by an act of the one owed, we now pass on to truthfulness, which is a moral obligation arising from the acts of the one owing in which he communicates with others. For he who speaks, writes, or otherwise manifests his mind to others puts himself under a duty of not deceiving. Truthfulness or veracity is defined as “a moral virtue that inclines one duly and faithfully to express what is in one’s mind.”

(a) It is a virtue, that is, a good habit, and so it differs from truth, which is the object of intellectual habits. Thus, the First Truth or God is the object of faith. Truthfulness is not the object of a virtue, but it is a virtue.

(b) It is a moral virtue. It deals with external things (viz., the words or signs by which we express our thoughts), and so it is not a theological virtue; moreover, though the knowledge of truth belongs to the intellect, the right manifestation of truth depends on a good will, and so truthfulness is not an intellectual virtue: the truthful man may be unlearned, but he loves honesty.

(c) It regulates the expression of the mind, that is, the words, writing, gestures, conduct, and other external signs, so as to make them conformable to the mind which they stand for. Truthfulness deals with internal things (e.g., when the speaker says that he has good health or is well disposed towards another) and with external things as they appear to the speaker (e.g., when he says that he is certain or believes that a report is accurate).

(d) It is a faithful expression of what is in the mind or belief. Hence, one may be truthful while making statements contrary to fact, or untruthful while making statements agreeable to facts, for truthfulness is sincerity, not correctness.

(e) It is a due expression of one’s mind or belief; that is, it is given when and where and as it should be given. A person who speaks out his mind on all occasions, with no regard for results, is not a liar, but he is at least imprudent, and he cannot be said to possess the virtue of truthfulness, for every virtue is prudent. Examples of this are persons who unnecessarily indulge self-praise by telling their true virtues or perfections (Prov., xxvii. 2), or who vaingloriously or otherwise foolishly publish their true sins or imperfections (Is. iii. 9).

2386. The Excellence of Truthfulness.--(a) Truthfulness is a virtue, since it makes right use of language and other signs by employing them for the truth, and also serves society, which rests on the trust that men have in the words and promises of their fellow-men. St. Paul admonishes the Ephesians (iv. 25) that each one speak the truth to his neighbor, since all are members of the other.

(b) It is a moral virtue, preserving moderation in conversations and other interchanges of thought. This virtue sees that facts are neither exaggerated nor understated, that truth is not manifested when it should be concealed, nor concealed when it should be spoken.

(c) It is a special virtue, for, while the other moral virtues regulate actions and external things, none of them except truthfulness regulates those objects precisely in their character of media or instruments for signifying and conveying thoughts, opinions, and decisions. And since a great part of human life is occupied in conference or correspondence with others, truthfulness is one of the most useful of the virtues and one whose exercise is most frequently called for.

(d) It is a virtue annexed to justice. On the one hand, it is like justice, since it pays a debt which one social being owes another of speaking the truth; on the other hand, it falls short of justice, since the debt is moral, not legal. This is said of truthfulness in ordinary intercourse, for in judicial process and in contracts there is also a legal obligation of justice to tell the truth.

2387. Sincerity and Fidelity.--Two virtues that pertain to truthfulness are sincerity and fidelity.

(a) Sincerity (simplicity) is the virtue of one who is consistent with himself, avoiding duplicity and double dealing of every kind, such as lies, equivocations, sophistries, specious excuses, quibbles, dishonest shifts, distractions, concealments, and the like.

(b) Fidelity (loyalty) is the virtue of one who fulfills promises that are obligatory only in virtue of his word freely given. It differs from constancy, which is concerned not with promises but resolutions, and from virtues concerned with promises that are obligatory in virtue of legal debt, such as contracts, promissory oaths (see 1692, 1749, 1753, 1888). Fidelity makes an honest man’s word as good as his bond, and it is therefore one of the most appreciated of virtues (Matt., xxv. 21; Psalm xiv). Horace calls it the sister of justice.

2388. Vices Opposed to Truthfulness.--(a) By defect one sins against truth through lying and breach of promise; (b) by excess one sins against truthfulness in violation of secret or other unjustifiable disclosures.

2389. Lying.--A lie is a word spoken with the purpose of stating what is not true.

(a) It is said to be a word, by which is meant any external sign consisting in speech or its equivalent. A lie may be expressed by language, oral or written, by signs, by gestures, by insinuation, by expressive silence, by actions or conduct (see 2012, 2028).

(b) A lie is spoken, that is, expressed externally. But the guilt is found in the will, and hence those who plan lies are guilty of mendacity, even though they do not carry out their plans.

(c) A lie is told with purpose; that is, there is a comparison by the intellect of the sign with the thing signified and a voluntary choice of the insufficient sign to be used. An infant or an unconscious person, therefore, may tell an untruth, but he cannot tell a lie. Moreover, a person who has no good command of language or no clear understanding of a subject is not guilty of lying when in spite of his efforts to the contrary he gives misleading impressions. But those who do not think before they speak, or who use language carelessly or inaccurately, may be guilty of injustice and deception, or even of indirect lying.

(d) The purpose of a lie is the statement of what is not true, or the pretense that what is not in one’s mind is in one’s mind. Just as truth is the agreement of the word with the thought, so a lie is the disagreement of word with thought. But a lie need not be entirely false, and indeed one of the most dangerous of lies is what is known as a half-truth, in which some real facts are told in order to give support to pretended facts, or in which valid arguments are adduced to throw dust in the eyes as regards other arguments that are sophistical.

2390. Statements Liable to Misunderstanding or Misinterpretation.--A word that sufficiently expresses one’s idea is not a lie or a deception, even though another idea will be taken from it by a listener or is conveyed by its mere letter.

(a) Thus, misunderstanding due to defect, not of the speaker, but of the listener, does not make one’s words untruthful, any more than it makes them scandalous (see 1462), as when the listener has not given attention to what was said (John, xxi. 23). Even a speech worded obscurely because the matter is obscure, or because the listener would be harmed by plainer speech (see 1001), is not mendacious but prudent.

(b) Misinterpretation to which a statement is open on account of its wording does not make the statement untruthful, if the context or circumstances sufficiently disclose the true meaning of the words. Examples: hyperbolical, ironical or other metaphorical speech; words spoken in jest or in terms of customary politeness, such as “your most obedient servant”, statements made inquiringly or hypothetically (e.g., when a judge or prosecutor accuses a defendant of crime in order to discover the truth; cfr. Gen., xiii. 9), or by way of mere quotation or of fictitious narrative (e.g., fairy tales, stories, reveries), or of disputation as in school debates exercised for the sake of practice in argumentation. It is not a lie to write under a pen-name, to speak according to the personality one represents (Gen., xxxi. 13; Tob., v. 18), to answer according to the mind of a questioner, as when A says to B: “Have you seen your father?” meaning, “Do you know where he is?” and B replies: “I have not seen him,” meaning “I do not know where he is.” Lying contests, in which fishermen, sportsmen, etc., vie with one another to see who can tell the most incredible yarn or tall tale, are not in themselves sinful, but there may be circumstances (for example, scandal, deception, danger) that make them reprehensible.

2391. Divisions of Lies.--(a) Intrinsically, or in respect to its nature as a departure from the speaker’s mind, every lie is either an exaggeration, which tells more than the truth, or a suppression, which tells less than the whole truth. He who affirms what he does not believe, or who states as certain what he thinks is uncertain, exaggerates; he who denies what he believes, or who states as doubtful what he holds as certain, is guilty of suppression.

(b) Extrinsically, or in respect to purpose, mode, and result, lies are of many kinds. As to mode, a lie is either spoken or acted, the former being a falsehood and the latter a simulation or hypocrisy. As to its immediate purpose, a lie is meant either to express falsehood only or to deceive, the former being misrepresentation and the latter deceit (e.g., if Claudius knows that he calumniated and that Sempronius heard the calumny, and yet brazenly denies the calumny to Sempronius, there is misrepresentation); if Claudius tries to mislead others who only suspect him and gives false alibis, there is deceit. As to its ulterior purpose, a lie is meant for good (an officious or jocose lie) or for evil (a pernicious lie), or is directed to both good and evil. As to its result, a lie sometimes produces and sometimes does not produce a statement at variance with fact; it sometimes deceives and sometimes does not deceive the auditors.

2392. Classification of Lies.--Every lie is harmful from its nature, since it tends to deceive others and so to disturb the good order of society. But the reason that moves persons to lie is not always evil, and hence we have the following classes of lies.

(a) Some lies are told for a good purpose, as when one lies in order to please (jocose lie) or to serve another (officious lie). Jocose lies include all kinds of humorous and interesting narrations and descriptions meant only to afford pleasure, but given out as facts by one who does not believe them to be facts. Untruths told in such a way (e.g., with a laugh or in a playful tone, especially if the auditors have a sense of humor) that it is clear they are not meant to be taken seriously, are not jocose lies or lies of any kind. Officious lies are told with a view to assisting or accommodating a neighbor, that he may receive some good (e.g., to hold out false promises as an inducement to good conduct) or escape some evil (e.g., to fill the ears of a despondent man with false reports of good news in order to revive his spirits). It seems that we should regard as officious lies various statements made by Jacob (Gen., xxvii. 35), David (I Kings, xx. 6, xxi. 2, xxvii. 10), and Judith (X. xi. xii).

(b) Some lies are told for an evil purpose, as when one lies merely to indulge a propensity for falsehood or for the sheer pleasure of lying (lies of inclination), or when one lies to injure another person (pernicious lies).

2393. Motives for Lying.--The motives for lying are not always simple, and it may happen that in one and the same lie there are several motives of different character.

(a) Thus, an officious lie is not always dictated by pure benevolence. It may be selfish (e.g., when one lies to conceal the delinquency of another in which one was involved), as well as altruistic (e.g., when the liar derives no benefit from the lie), or self-sacrificing (e.g., when the liar is put to expense, trouble or loss through his lie).

(b) An officious lie may also be pernicious and jocose, for it may affect different persons in different ways. Thus, if Claudius calumniates Julius in order to shield Balbus from the bad opinion of Caius, who does not know Balbus, and to amuse Sempronius who knows the truth, the lie is pernicious as regards Julius, officious as regards Balbus, and jocose as regards Sempronius.

2394. Comparison of the Gravity of Various Lies.--(a) Lies of exaggeration are not worse as lies than lies of suppression, for in both cases the truth is departed from. But it is more imprudent to overstate than to understate, and in this sense the lie of exaggeration is worse.

(b) Lies are aggravated by the purpose to harm, and the greater the harm, the greater the sin. Thus, the worst of all pernicious lies is that which is directed against God, as in false religious doctrine; and the lie that harms a man in spiritual goods is worse than a lie that harms in temporal things only.

(c) Lies are mitigated by the purpose to help, and the greater the good intended the less the sin. In other words, lies that are not pernicious are not so bad as pernicious lies, officious lies are less sinful than jocose lies, officious lies told for the sake of some great good are not so grave as those told for the sake of a lesser good. Thus, it is a less evil to lie in order to save a man’s life than to lie in order to take his life; it is less sinful to lie in order to spare another the shock of bad news than to lie for the sake of embellishing a tale; it is a less offense to lie in order to ward off a bodily harm than to lie in order to prevent a financial loss.

2395. Sinfulness of All Lies.--But though lies are unequal in sinfulness, it remains that no lie, even the smallest (such as are called fibs or white lies), is ever justified, even by the greatest good (Job, xiii. 7), for a lie is intrinsically evil, and the end does not justify the means.

(a) A lie is a sin, because it is an abuse of speech and other signs given by God for the manifestation of truth; because it is an unfriendly and unsocial act, tending to the disruption of kindly relations between men; because it is directly opposed to truth, the proper and distinctive good of the human mind. Even the pagans have regarded liars with contempt and considered lies as disgraceful, and even those who lay no claim to virtue feel gravely insulted if called liars. In many places the Scriptures forbid lying (Exod., xxiii. 7; Levit., Xix. 11; Prov., xii. 22; Ecclus., xx. 26; Col., iii. 9), and St. Paul especially (Eph., iv. 25) is very clear on this point: “Putting away lying, speak ye the truth every man with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.” The Fathers and the theologians are generally agreed that no necessity, not even the danger of death, excuses a lie, any more than it excuses theft or adultery. If God could approve of even one lie, would not that approval undermine our faith in His own veracity? Surely we have no implicit confidence in one who helps to deceive us even in a small matter.

(b) A lie, considered precisely as a lie, seems from its nature to be only a venial sin, for the disorder of using signs against one’s mind is not serious, and the harm done society by mere denial of truth is not necessarily grave (the case would be otherwise if truth could be denied on principle as a lawful thing). Even pious persons do not regard harmless lies as very sinful (see 2143, 2386). Hence, as jocose and officious lies have no other malice than that of untruthfulness and as the malice is lessened by the intention, they are generally venial; but some extrinsic circumstance (such as scandal, the fact that one lies habitually and without scruple, or disastrous results) may render them mortal. Pernicious lies have another malice besides that of untruthfulness, and accordingly the case with them is different.

2396. When Lying Entails No Formal Sin.--Lies are sometimes free from all formal sin on account of ignorance (as in the case of children or uninstructed persons, who think they may use lies in case of great difficulty) or on account of irresponsibility (as in the case of certain defectives who seem to be born liars).

2397. Pernicious Lies.--Pernicious lies are mortal sins from their nature, but may become venial from the imperfection of the act or the lightness of the matter. For a pernicious lie sins not against truth only, but also against justice or charity. Hence, it is said that the liar destroys his own soul (Wis., i. 11), that a lie is abominated and hated by the Lord (Prov., vi. 17, xii. 22), that it has the devil for its father (John, viii. 44), that it brings down divine vengeance (Ps. v. 7) and will receive its portion in the pool of fire and brimstone (Apoc., xxi. 8). This sin is committed in two ways, as follows:

(a) a lie is pernicious when its matter is harmful, as being contrary to sound doctrine, good morals or true science. Hence, a preacher sins gravely if the substance of his pulpit teaching is mendacious (e.g., if in a sermon he enunciates or defends erroneous principles of conduct), venially if he lies about accidentals (e.g., if he gives the wrong chapter or verse for a text); a scientist, a physician, a jurist, or the like is similarly guilty of a pernicious lie when he misleads the public by unreliable information. A penitent in the confessional and a witness in court lie perniciously if their statements about relevant matters are untrue, for the one injures the Sacrament and the other injures public justice; but if the lie is about some matter of slight importance, the sin is venial, unless there is no other matter in the confession, or the testimony is under oath;

(b) a lie is also pernicious when the intention of the liar is to injure God or his neighbor, even though the matter itself is not opposed to true doctrine or is not official testimony. Examples are found in those who lie in a humorous way in order to injure or sadden others.

2398. Concealment of the Truth.--Truthfulness is offended not only by the declaration of falsity (i.e., of what is not in the mind), but also by the unlawful concealment of the truth (i.e., of what is in the mind). The truth is concealed either negatively or positively.

(a) There is negative concealment of the truth, when one has recourse to silence or evasion. Everyone admits that this kind of concealment is lawful when there is no obligation to give information, or when there is an obligation not to give it. Thus, a person who is besieged by newspaper reporters does not feel obligated to answer all their questions; a person who is interrogated by curious individuals about his business or financial affairs, does not feel guilty if he evades their questions by changing the subject, or by asking them similar questions, or by putting them off till a more convenient time, etc.

(b) There is positive concealment of the truth, when one gives a reply in language that is obscure to the listener or obscure in itself. If the listener has no right to the truth, it is not wrong to speak to him in words which he will not understand (e.g., in technical or scientific terms); for if he is deceived, he can blame only his own impertinence or dullness. The case is more difficult, however, if the reply is obscure in itself, that is, if use is made of ambiguity or mental reservation.

2399. Mental Reservation.--Mental reservation is an act of the mind by which a speaker restricts or limits his words to a meaning which they do not naturally or clearly convey; or it is an internal modification of an external speech delivered without any or without clear external modification. There are two kinds of mental reservation.

(a) Strict mental reservation is that in which the internal modification is manifested by nothing external, neither by the natural sense of the words (i.e., the meaning that ordinarily attaches to them) nor by their accidental sense (i.e., the meaning they receive from their context, such as the circumstances of time, place, usage, person who questions, person who is questioned, etc.). Example: Titus, who struck Balbus with a club, denies that he hit him, meaning that it was the club which hit Balbus directly.

(b) Broad mental reservation is that in which the internal modification can be perceived, at least by a prudent person, either from the natural sense of the words (because they are known to be capable of different meanings), or from the context (because circumstances indicate that the words are not to be taken in their obvious sense). Example: Claudius accidentally ran against and wounded Sempronius and the latter thinks that someone struck him a blow. Claudius denies that he struck Sempronius, or declares to those who have no right to ask that he knows nothing about the matter.

2400. Lawfulness of Mental Reservation.--(a) Strict mental reservation is unlawful and has been condemned by the Church (see Denzinger, nn. 1174-1178). The reasons are, first, that it is a lie, since it employs words that do not at all express what the speaker has in mind, and his mental reservation cannot give them a significance they do not possess; secondly, that, if it were lawful, every dishonest person could easily escape the guilt of lying and yet deceive at will. According to Scripture the sophistical speaker is hateful (Ecclus., xxxvii. 23), but the just man speaks and swears without guile (Ps. xxxiii. 14, xxiii. 4).

(b) Broad mental reservation is unlawful when there is a reason that forbids its use, or when there is no sufficient reason to justify its use. Reservation is forbidden when a questioner has the right to an answer free from all ambiguity, for example, when a pastor questions parties preparing for marriage, when a person who is about to be inducted into office is asked about his freedom from disqualifications, when a witness in court is interrogated about matters on which he can testify, when one party to a contract seeks from the other necessary knowledge about the contract; for in all these cases injury is done by concealment of the truth. Reservation is not justified, unless it is necessary in order to secure some good or avoid some evil, whether spiritual or temporal, whether for self or for another, and the end compensates by its importance for the deception that may be caused. Apart from such necessity mental reservation is, to say the least, a departure from the virtue of Christian sincerity or simplicity, which pertains to truthfulness and which forbids one to conceal the truth from others when there is no good reason for concealment (Matt, v. 37). Moreover, the friendly relations of mankind would be impaired if it were lawful to speak equivocally even when trifling things are discussed or when there is no reason to be secretive.

(c) Broad mental reservation is lawful when there is a sufficient reason for it, such as the public welfare (e. g., the preservation of state secrets or of military plans), spiritual welfare (e.g., the prevention of blasphemy or intoxication), bodily welfare (e.g., the prevention of death or murder), or financial welfare (e.g., the prevention of robbery). But the reservation must be necessary, as being the only lawful means that will secure the end (e.g., one should not use reservation when evasion or silence will suffice); and it should not be injurious to the rights of another (e.g., it should not be employed against the common good, in favor of a private good). The reason for the present conclusion is found in the principle of double result (see 103 sqq.) and in the fact that a broad mental reservation is not intrinsically evil, since it contains no lie or insincerity and causes no injury to individuals or society. There is no lie, because the words correspond with the thought, either from their natural signification (in case of double-meaning words), or from their accidental signification (in case of words whose meaning is varied by the context); there is no insincerity, for the aim is only to conceal a truth that should not be made known; there is no injury to the listener or questioner, since, if he is deceived, this is due to his own heedlessness or dullness or unjustified curiosity; there is no injury to society, since the general welfare demands that there be some honest means of eluding unjust inquiries and of protecting important secrets. Our Lord Himself, who is infinitely above all suspicion of duplicity or insincerity, may have used broad mental reservations when He declared (John, vii. 8-10) that He would not go up to Jerusalem, that the daughter of Jairus was not dead but sleeping (Matt., ix. 24). Other cases of mental reservation in Scripture are found in Eliseus (IV Kings, vi. 19).

2401. When Is Broad Mental Reservation Lawful?--There is general agreement that broad mental reservation is lawful in the following cases:

(a) it is lawful and obligatory when one is bound to keep the truth from the person who asks it. Hence, those who are questioned about secrets which sacramental or professional confidence forbids them to disclose (e.g., confessors, doctors, lawyers, statesmen, and secretaries) should deny knowledge, or, if hard-pressed, even the facts. The answer, “I do not know” or “No,” in these cases simply means: “I have no personal or communicable knowledge.” In war time a government has the right to censor the news in order to keep information from the enemy. A reason of charity might also make it obligatory to disguise the truth by mental reservation (e.g., when a clear reply given to the question of a sick person would only weaken a slender hope of saving his life, or when exact information given to a gunman would enable him to overtake an intended victim);

(b) it is lawful when a reasonable local custom permits one to withhold the truth. Thus, an accused person, even though guilty, has the right to plead not guilty, which means that he does not confess guilt; a person who has a visitor at an unseasonable hour may send word that he is not at home, which means that she is not at home to visitors, a person who is asked for an alms or a loan which he cannot conveniently grant may answer, according to many, that he has not the money, which means that he has no money to spare for those purposes (see 2251).

2402. Ambiguous Answers.--Are ambiguous answers which are not given according to the questioner’s mind, and for which there are no reasonable justifications, to be classed as lies?

(a) If the answer, even in the setting of its context, retains its ambiguity or can be interpreted in two ways, there is not strictly speaking a lie, for the words signify, though obscurely, what is in the speaker’s mind. But this is a form of insincerity known as equivocation or quibbling, which many regard almost as disreputable as plain lying. The pagan oracles that made predictions that would suit any turn of events and politicians who so word themselves as to be on opposite sides at the same time are examples of equivocation.

(b) If the answer, though verbally susceptible of two senses, is contextually limited to one sense, it is a lie; for it does not express the speaker’s mind. Thus, if Titus knows that Balbus is good physically or mentally but not morally, he equivocates by answering that Balbus is good, if from the circumstances this indicates only that in some way or other Balbus is good; but Titus lies by answering that Balbus is good and restricting his meaning to physical goodness or industry, if the question propounded referred to moral goodness.

2403. Simulation or Pretence.--A special form of untruthfulness is simulation or pretence, which uses external deeds or things to signify the contrary of what one thinks or intends internally.

(a) Simulation uses external deeds or things, and thus there is an accidental difference between lying and simulation, the one being untruthfulness in word and the other untruthfulness in deed (see 1678 sqq.).

(b) It employs deeds or things to signify. Unlike words, deeds and things were not meant principally to signify, and hence not all conduct at variance with one’s ideas is simulation. One may act without any thought of the impression the act makes on others (e.g., when one keeps sober, not from wish, but from necessity). And even when an act is done with the intention to influence others by it, the purpose may be, not to signify, but to conceal something (e.g., Josue fled from the troops of Hai to keep them from a knowledge of his plans, Jos., viii. 1 sqq.; David feigned insanity to conceal his identity, I Kings, xxi. 11. sqq.). Thus, simulation teaches error, and dissimulation hides truth from those who have no right to it. That dissimulation is generally recognized as lawful is seen from such examples as stratagems, ambushes, camouflage in war, disguises in detective work, and concealment of marriage by couples not ready for housekeeping.

(c) It signifies the contrary of what one has in mind, as when one who is sad laughs and jokes to make others think he is happy, or one who is well apes the actions of a sick man so as to appear unwell, or when one who hates his neighbor treats him as a friend in public. A special form of simulation is hypocrisy, which makes a show of virtue that one does not possess at all or in the degree pretended. There is no simulation if the exterior corresponds with what one has is mind, for example, at Emmaus Christ made as though He would go farther (Luke, xxiv. 28), but He meant not to stop without an invitation.