Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de simulatione et hypocrisi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | In due sequence we must consider dissimulation and hypocrisy. Under this head there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum omnis simulatio sit peccatum. | (1) Whether all dissimulation is a sin? |
| Secundo, utrum hypocrisis sit simulatio. | (2) Whether hypocrisy is dissimulation? |
| Tertio, utrum opponatur veritati. | (3) Whether it is opposed to truth? |
| Quarto, utrum sit peccatum mortale. | (4) Whether it is a mortal sin? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnis simulatio sit peccatum. Dicitur enim Luc. ult., quod dominus se finxit longius ire. Et Ambrosius dicit de Abraham, in libro de patriarchis, quod captiose loquebatur cum servulis cum dixit, Gen. XXII, ego et puer, illuc usque properantes, postquam adoraverimus, revertemur ad vos. Fingere autem et captiose loqui ad simulationem pertinet. Non est autem dicendum quod in Christo et in Abraham fuerit peccatum. Ergo non omnis simulatio est peccatum. |
Objection 1: It seems that not all dissimulation is a sin. For it is written (Lk. 24:28) that our Lord "pretended [Douay: 'made as though'] he would go farther"; and Ambrose in his book on the Patriarchs (De Abraham i) says of Abraham that he "spoke craftily to his servants, when he said" (Gn. 22:5): "I and the boy will go with speed as far as yonder, and after we have worshipped, will return to you." Now to pretend and to speak craftily savor of dissimulation: and yet it is not to be said that there was sin in Christ or Abraham. Therefore not all dissimulation is a sin. |
| Praeterea, nullum peccatum est utile. Sed sicut Hieronymus dicit, utilem simulationem, et in tempore assumendam, Iehu, regis Israel, nos doceat exemplum, qui interfecit sacerdotes Baal fingens se idola colere velle, ut habetur IV Reg. X. Et David immutavit faciem suam coram Achis, rege Geth, ut habetur I Reg. XXI. Ergo non omnis simulatio est peccatum. |
Objection 2: Further, no sin is profitable. But according to Jerome, in his commentary on Gal. 2:11, "When Peter [Vulg.: 'Cephas'] was come to Antioch:—The example of Jehu, king of Israel, who slew the priest of Baal, pretending that he desired to worship idols, should teach us that dissimulation is useful and sometimes to be employed"; and David "changed his countenance before" Achis, king of Geth (1 Kgs. 21:13). Therefore not all dissimulation is a sin. |
| Praeterea, bonum malo est contrarium. Si ergo simulare bonum est malum, simulare malum erit bonum. | Objection 3: Further, good is contrary to evil. Therefore if it is evil to simulate good, it is good to simulate evil. |
| Praeterea, Isaiae III, contra quosdam dicitur, peccatum suum quasi Sodoma praedicaverunt, nec absconderunt. Sed abscondere peccatum ad simulationem pertinet. Ergo non uti simulatione interdum est reprehensibile. Vitare autem peccatum nunquam est reprehensibile. Ergo simulatio non semper est peccatum. |
Objection 4: Further, it is written in condemnation of certain people (Is. 3:9): "They have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom, and they have not hid it." Now it pertains to dissimulation to hide one's sin. Therefore it is reprehensible sometimes not to simulate. But it is never reprehensible to avoid sin. Therefore dissimulation is not a sin. |
| Sed contra est quod Isaiae XVI, super illud, in tribus annis etc., dicit Glossa, in comparatione duorum malorum, levius est aperte peccare quam sanctitatem simulare. Sed aperte peccare semper est peccatum. Ergo simulatio semper est peccatum. | On the contrary, A gloss on Is. 16:14, "In three years," etc., says: "Of the two evils it is less to sin openly than to simulate holiness." But to sin openly is always a sin. Therefore dissimulation is always a sin. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad virtutem veritatis pertinet ut aliquis talem se exhibeat exterius per signa exteriora qualis est. Signa autem exteriora non solum sunt verba, sed etiam facta. Sicut ergo veritati opponitur quod aliquis per verba exteriora aliud significet quam quod habet apud se, quod ad mendacium pertinet; ita etiam veritati opponitur quod aliquis per aliqua signa factorum vel rerum aliquid de se significet contrarium eius quod in eo est, quod proprie simulatio dicitur. Unde simulatio proprie est mendacium quoddam in exteriorum signis factorum consistens. Non refert autem utrum aliquis mentiatur verbo, vel quocumque alio facto, ut supra dictum est. Unde, cum omne mendacium sit peccatum, ut supra habitum est, consequens est etiam quod omnis simulatio est peccatum. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [109], Article [3]; Question [110], Article [1]), it belongs to the virtue of truth to show oneself outwardly by outward signs to be such as one is. Now outward signs are not only words, but also deeds. Accordingly just as it is contrary to truth to signify by words something different from that which is in one's mind, so also is it contrary to truth to employ signs of deeds or things to signify the contrary of what is in oneself, and this is what is properly denoted by dissimulation. Consequently dissimulation is properly a lie told by the signs of outward deeds. Now it matters not whether one lie in word or in any other way, as stated above (Question [110], Article [1], Objection [2]). Wherefore, since every lie is a sin, as stated above (Question [110], Article [3]), it follows that also all dissimulation is a sin. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de quaest. Evang., non omne quod fingimus mendacium est. Sed quando id fingimus quod nihil significat, tunc est mendacium, cum autem fictio nostra refertur ad aliquam significationem, non est mendacium, sed aliqua figura veritatis. Et subiungit exemplum de figurativis locutionibus, in quibus fingitur quaedam res non ut asseratur ita esse, sed eam proponimus ut figuram alterius quod asserere volumus. Sic igitur dominus se finxit longius ire, quia composuit motum suum quasi volentis longius ire, ad aliquid figurate significandum, scilicet quod ipse ab eorum fide longe erat, ut Gregorius dicit; vel, ut Augustinus dicit, quia, cum longius recessurus esset ascendendo in caelum, per hospitalitatem quodammodo retinebatur in terra. | Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Questions. Evang. ii), "To pretend is not always a lie: but only when the pretense has no signification, then it is a lie. When, however, our pretense refers to some signification, there is no lie, but a representation of the truth." And he cites figures of speech as an example, where a thing is "pretended," for we do not mean it to be taken literally but as a figure of something else that we wish to say. In this way our Lord "pretended He would go farther," because He acted as if wishing to go farther; in order to signify something figuratively either because He was far from their faith, according to Gregory (Hom. xxiii in Ev.); or, as Augustine says (De Questions. Evang. ii), because, "as He was about to go farther away from them by ascending into heaven, He was, so to speak, held back on earth by their hospitality." |
| Abraham etiam figurate locutus est. Unde Ambrosius dicit de Abraham quod prophetavit quod ignorabat. Ipse enim solus disponebat redire, immolato filio, sed dominus per os eius locutus est quod parabat. Unde patet quod neuter simulavit. | Abraham also spoke figuratively. Wherefore Ambrose (De Abraham i) says that Abraham "foretold what he knew not": for he intended to return alone after sacrificing his son: but by his mouth the Lord expressed what He was about to do. It is evident therefore that neither dissembled. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Hieronymus large utitur nomine simulationis pro quacumque fictione. Commutatio autem faciei David fuit fictio figuralis, sicut Glossa exponit in titulo illius Psalmi, benedicam dominum in omni tempore. Simulationem vero Iehu non est necesse excusari a peccato vel mendacio, quia malus fuit, utpote ab idololatria Ieroboam non recedens. Commendatur tamen et temporaliter remuneratur a Deo, non pro simulatione, sed pro zelo quo destruxit cultum Baal. |
Reply to Objection 2: Jerome employs the term "simulation" in a broad sense for any kind of pretense. David's change of countenance was a figurative pretense, as a gloss observes in commenting on the title of Ps. 33, "I will bless the Lord at all times." There is no need to excuse Jehu's dissimulation from sin or lie, because he was a wicked man, since he departed not from the idolatry of Jeroboam (4 Kgs. 10:29,31). And yet he is praised withal and received an earthly reward from God, not for his dissimulation, but for his zeal in destroying the worship of Baal. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod quidam dicunt quod nullus potest se simulare esse malum, quia per opera bona nullus se simulat malum; si autem opera mala faciat, malus est. Sed haec ratio non cogit. Potest enim aliquis se simulare malum per opera quae in se non sunt mala, sed habent quandam speciem mali. Et tamen ipsa simulatio est mala, tum ratione mendacii; tum ratione scandali. Et quamvis per hoc fiat malus, non tamen fit malus illa malitia quam simulat. Et quia ipsa simulatio secundum se mala est, non ratione eius de quo est; sive sit de bono sive de malo, peccatum est. | Reply to Objection 3: Some say that no one may pretend to be wicked, because no one pretends to be wicked by doing good deeds, and if he do evil deeds, he is evil. But this argument proves nothing. Because a man might pretend to be evil, by doing what is not evil in itself but has some appearance of evil: and nevertheless this dissimulation is evil, both because it is a lie, and because it gives scandal; and although he is wicked on this account, yet his wickedness is not the wickedness he simulates. And because dissimulation is evil in itself, its sinfulness is not derived from the thing simulated, whether this be good or evil. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod sicut aliquis verbo mentitur quando significat quod non est, non autem quando tacet quod est, quod aliquando licet; ita etiam simulatio est quando aliquis per exteriora signa factorum vel rerum significat aliquid quod non est, non autem si aliquis praetermittat significare quod est. Unde aliquis potest peccatum suum occultare absque simulatione. Et secundum hoc intelligendum est quod Hieronymus dicit ibidem, quod secundum remedium post naufragium est peccatum abscondere, ne scilicet exinde aliis scandalum generetur. | Reply to Objection 4: Just as a man lies when he signifies by word that which he is not, yet lies not when he refrains from saying what he is, for this is sometimes lawful; so also does a man dissemble, when by outward signs of deeds or things he signifies that which he is not, yet he dissembles not if he omits to signify what he is. Hence one may hide one's sin without being guilty of dissimulation. It is thus that we must understand the saying of Jerome on the words of Isaias 3:9, that the "second remedy after shipwreck is to hide one's sin," lest, to wit, others be scandalized thereby. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hypocrisis non sit idem quod simulatio. Simulatio enim consistit in quodam factorum mendacio. Sed hypocrisis potest esse etiam si aliquis ostendat exterius quae interius agit, secundum illud Matth. VI, cum facis eleemosynam, noli tuba canere ante te, sicut hypocritae faciunt. Ergo hypocrisis non est idem simulationi. | Objection 1: It seems that hypocrisy is not the same as dissimulation. For dissimulation consists in lying by deeds. But there may be hypocrisy in showing outwardly what one does inwardly, according to Mt. 6:2, "When thou dost an alms-deed sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do." Therefore hypocrisy is not the same as dissimulation. |
| Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral., sunt nonnulli qui et sanctitatis habitum tenent, et perfectionis meritum exequi non valent. Hos nequaquam credendum est in hypocritarum numerum currere, quia aliud est infirmitate, aliud malitia peccare. Sed illi qui tenent habitum sanctitatis et meritum perfectionis non exequuntur, sunt simulatores, quia exterior habitus sanctitatis opera perfectionis significat. Non ergo simulatio est idem quod hypocrisis. 43696] II-I | Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 7): "Some there are who wear the habit of holiness, yet are unable to attain the merit of perfection. We must by no means deem these to have joined the ranks of the hypocrites, since it is one thing to sin from weakness, and another to sin from malice." Now those who wear the habit of holiness, without attaining the merit of perfection, are dissemblers, since the outward habit signifies works of perfection. Therefore dissimulation is not the same as hypocrisy. |
| Praeterea, hypocrisis in sola intentione consistit, dicit enim dominus de hypocritis, Matth. XXIII, quod omnia opera sua faciunt ut ab hominibus videantur; et Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral., quod nunquam quid agant, sed quomodo de actione qualibet hominibus possint placere, considerant. Sed simulatio non consistit in sola intentione, sed in exteriori operatione, unde super illud Iob XXXVI, simulatores et callidi provocant iram Dei, dicit Glossa quod simulator aliud simulat, aliud agit, castitatem praefert, et lasciviam sequitur; ostentat paupertatem, et marsupium replet. Ergo hypocrisis non est idem quod simulatio. |
Objection 3: Further, hypocrisy consists in the mere intention. For our Lord says of hypocrites (Mt. 23:5) that "all their works they do for to be seen of men": and Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 7) that "they never consider what it is that they do, but how by their every action they may please men." But dissimulation consists, not in the mere intention, but in the outward action: wherefore a gloss on Job 36:13, "Dissemblers and crafty men prove the wrath of God," says that "the dissembler simulates one thing and does another: he pretends chastity, and delights in lewdness, he makes a show of poverty and fills his purse." Therefore hypocrisy is not the same as dissimulation. |
| Sed contra est quod Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., hypocrita Graeco sermone in Latino simulator interpretatur, qui, dum intus malus sit, bonum se palam ostendit, hypo enim falsum, crisis iudicium interpretatur. | On the contrary, Isidore says (Etym. x): "'Hypocrite' is a Greek word corresponding to the Latin 'simulator,' for whereas he is evil within," he "shows himself outwardly as being good; {hypo} denoting falsehood, and {krisis}, judgment." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Isidorus dicit, ibidem, nomen hypocritae tractum est a specie eorum qui in spectaculis contecta facie incedunt, distinguentes vultum vario colore ut ad personae quam simulant colorem perveniant, modo in specie viri, modo in specie feminae, ut in ludis populum fallant. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, quod sicut hypocritae simulatores personarum aliarum, agunt partes illius quod non sunt (non enim qui agit partes Agamemnonis, vere ipse est, sed simulat eum); sic in Ecclesiis et in omni vita humana quisquis se vult videri quod non est, hypocrita est, simulat enim se iustum, non exhibet. | I answer that, As Isidore says (Etym. x), "the word hypocrite is derived from the appearance of those who come on to the stage with a disguised face, by changing the color of their complexion, so as to imitate the complexion of the person they simulate, at one time under the guise of a man, at another under the guise of a woman, so as to deceive the people in their acting." Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. ii) that "just as hypocrites by simulating other persons act the parts of those they are not (since he that acts the part of Agamemnon is not that man himself but pretends to be), so too in the Church and in every department of human life, whoever wishes to seem what he is not is a hypocrite: for he pretends to be just without being so in reality." |
| Sic dicendum est quod hypocrisis simulatio est, non autem omnis simulatio, sed solum illa qua quis simulat personam alterius; sicut cum peccator simulat personam iusti. | We must conclude, therefore, that hypocrisy is dissimulation, not, however, any form of dissimulation, but only when one person simulates another, as when a sinner simulates the person of a just man. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod opus exterius naturaliter significat intentionem. Quando ergo aliquis per bona opera quae facit, ex suo genere ad Dei servitium pertinentia, non quaerit Deo placere, sed hominibus, simulat rectam intentionem, quam non habet. Unde Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral., quod hypocritae per causas Dei intentioni deserviunt saeculi, quia per ipsa quoque quae se agere sancta ostendunt, non conversionem quaerunt hominum, sed auras favorum. Et ita simulant mendaciter intentionem rectam, quam non habent, quamvis non simulent aliquod rectum opus quod non agant. | Reply to Objection 1: The outward deed is a natural sign of the intention. Accordingly when a man does good works pertaining by their genus to the service of God, and seeks by their means to please, not God but man, he simulates a right intention which he has not. Wherefore Gregory says (Moral.) that "hypocrites make God's interests subservient to worldly purposes, since by making a show of saintly conduct they seek, not to turn men to God, but to draw to themselves the applause of their approval:" and so they make a lying pretense of having a good intention, which they have not, although they do not pretend to do a good deed without doing it. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod habitus sanctitatis, puta religionis vel clericatus, significat statum quo quis obligatur ad opera perfectionis. Et ideo cum quis habitum sanctitatis assumit intendens se ad statum perfectionis transferre, si per infirmitatem deficiat, non est simulator vel hypocrita, quia non tenetur manifestare suum peccatum sanctitatis habitum deponendo. Si autem ad hoc sanctitatis habitum assumeret ut se iustum ostentaret, esset hypocrita et simulator. | Reply to Objection 2: The habit of holiness, for instance the religious or the clerical habit, signifies a state whereby one is bound to perform works of perfection. And so when a man puts on the habit of holiness, with the intention of entering the state of perfection, if he fail through weakness, he is not a dissembler or a hypocrite, because he is not bound to disclose his sin by laying aside the habit of holiness. If, however, he were to put on the habit of holiness in order to make a show of righteousness, he would be a hypocrite and a dissembler. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in simulatione, sicut in mendacio, duo sunt, unum quidem sicut signum, et aliud sicut signatum. Mala ergo intentio in hypocrisi consideratur sicut signatum, quod non respondet signo. Exteriora autem vel verba vel opera, vel quaecumque sensibilia, considerantur in omni simulatione et mendacio sicut signa. | Reply to Objection 3: In dissimulation, as in a lie, there are two things: one by way of sign, the other by way of thing signified. Accordingly the evil intention in hypocrisy is considered as a thing signified, which does not tally with the sign: and the outward words, or deeds, or any sensible objects are considered in every dissimulation and lie as a sign. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod hypocrisis non opponatur virtuti veritatis. In simulatione enim sive hypocrisi est signum et signatum. Sed quantum ad utrumque, non videtur opponi alicui speciali virtuti, hypocrita enim simulat quamcumque virtutem; et etiam per quaecumque virtutis opera, puta per ieiunium, orationem et eleemosynam, ut habetur Matth. VI. Ergo hypocrisis non opponitur specialiter virtuti veritatis. | Objection 1: It seems that hypocrisy is not contrary to the virtue of truth. For in dissimulation or hypocrisy there is a sign and a thing signified. Now with regard to neither of these does it seem to be opposed to any special virtue: for a hypocrite simulates any virtue, and by means of any virtuous deeds, such as fasting, prayer and alms deeds, as stated in Mt. 6:1-18. Therefore hypocrisy is not specially opposed to the virtue of truth. |
| Praeterea, omnis simulatio ex aliquo dolo procedere videtur, unde et simplicitati opponitur. Dolus autem opponitur prudentiae, ut supra habitum est. Ergo hypocrisis, quae est simulatio. Non opponitur veritati, sed magis prudentiae vel simplicitati. |
Objection 2: Further, all dissimulation seems to proceed from guile, wherefore it is opposed to simplicity. Now guile is opposed to prudence as above stated (Question [55], Article [4]). Therefore, hypocrisy which is dissimulation is not opposed to truth, but rather to prudence or simplicity. |
| Praeterea, species moralium considerantur ex fine. Sed finis hypocrisis est acquisitio lucri vel inanis gloriae, unde super illud Iob XXVII, quae est spes hypocritae, si avare rapiat etc., dicit Glossa, hypocrita, qui Latine dicitur simulator, avarus raptor est, qui dum inique agens desiderat de sanctitate venerari, laudem vitae rapit alienae. Cum ergo avaritia, vel inanis gloria, non directe opponatur veritati, videtur quod nec simulatio sive hypocrisis. | Objection 3: Further, the species of moral acts is taken from their end. Now the end of hypocrisy is the acquisition of gain or vainglory: wherefore a gloss on Job 27:8, "What is the hope of the hypocrite, if through covetousness he take by violence," says: "A hypocrite or, as the Latin has it, a dissimulator, is a covetous thief: for through desire of being honored for holiness, though guilty of wickedness, he steals praise for a life which is not his." [*The quotation is from St. Gregory's Moralia, Bk XVIII.] Therefore since covetousness or vainglory is not directly opposed to truth, it seems that neither is hypocrisy or dissimulation. |
| Sed contra est quia omnis simulatio est mendacium quoddam, ut dictum est. Mendacium autem directe opponitur veritati. Ergo et simulatio sive hypocrisis. |
On the contrary, All dissimulation is a lie, as stated above (Article [1]). Now a lie is directly opposed to truth. Therefore dissimulation or hypocrisy is also. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in X Metaphys., contrarietas est oppositio secundum formam, a qua scilicet res speciem habet. Et ideo dicendum est quod simulatio sive hypocrisis potest opponi alicui virtuti dupliciter, uno modo, directe; et alio modo, indirecte. Directa quidem oppositio eius sive contrarietas est attendenda secundum ipsam speciem actus, quae accipitur secundum proprium obiectum. Unde cum hypocrisis sit quaedam simulatio qua quis simulat se habere personam quam non habet, ut dictum est, consequens est quod directe opponatur veritati, per quam aliquis exhibet se talem vita et sermone qualis est, ut dicitur in IV Ethic. | I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. text. 13, 24, x), "contrariety is opposition as regards form," i.e. the specific form. Accordingly we must reply that dissimulation or hypocrisy may be opposed to a virtue in two ways, in one way directly, in another way indirectly. Its direct opposition or contrariety is to be considered with regard to the very species of the act, and this species depends on that act's proper object. Wherefore since hypocrisy is a kind of dissimulation, whereby a man simulates a character which is not his, as stated in the preceding article, it follows that it is directly opposed to truth whereby a man shows himself in life and speech to be what he is, as stated in Ethic. iv, 7. |
| Indirecta autem oppositio vel contrarietas hypocrisis potest attendi secundum quodcumque accidens, puta secundum aliquem finem remotum, vel secundum aliquod instrumentum actus, vel quodcumque aliud huiusmodi. | The indirect opposition or contrariety of hypocrisy may be considered in relation to any accident, for instance a remote end, or an instrument of action, or anything else of that kind. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hypocrita simulans aliquam virtutem, assumit eam ut finem non quidem secundum existentiam, quasi volens eam habere; sed secundum apparentiam, quasi volens videri eam habere. Ex quo non habet quod opponatur illi virtuti, sed quod opponatur veritati, inquantum vult decipere homines circa illam virtutem. Opera autem illius virtutis non assumit quasi per se intenta, sed instrumentaliter, quasi signa illius virtutis. Unde ex hoc non habet directam oppositionem ad illam virtutem. | Reply to Objection 1: The hypocrite in simulating a virtue regards it as his end, not in respect of its existence, as though he wished to have it, but in respect of appearance, since he wishes to seem to have it. Hence his hypocrisy is not opposed to that virtue, but to truth, inasmuch as he wishes to deceive men with regard to that virtue. And he performs acts of that virtue, not as intending them for their own sake, but instrumentally, as signs of that virtue, wherefore his hypocrisy has not, on that account, a direct opposition to that virtue. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, prudentiae directe opponitur astutia, ad quam pertinet adinvenire quasdam vias apparentes et non existentes ad propositum consequendum. Executio autem astutiae est proprie per dolum in verbis, per fraudem autem in factis. Et sicut astutia se habet ad prudentiam, ita dolus et fraus ad simplicitatem. Dolus autem vel fraus ordinatur ad decipiendum principaliter, et quandoque secundario ad nocendum. Unde ad simplicitatem pertinet directe se praeservare a deceptione. Et secundum hoc, ut supra dictum est, virtus simplicitatis est eadem virtuti veritatis, sed differt sola ratione, quia veritas dicitur secundum quod signa concordant signatis; simplicitas autem dicitur secundum quod non tendit in diversa, ut scilicet aliud intendat interius, aliud praetendat exterius. |
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [55], Articles [3],4,5), the vice directly opposed to prudence is cunning, to which it belongs to discover ways of achieving a purpose, that are apparent and not real: while it accomplishes that purpose, by guile in words, and by fraud in deeds: and it stands in relation to prudence, as guile and fraud to simplicity. Now guile and fraud are directed chiefly to deception, and sometimes secondarily to injury. Wherefore it belongs directly to simplicity to guard oneself from deception, and in this way the virtue of simplicity is the same as the virtue of truth as stated above (Question [109], Article [2], ad 4). There is, however, a mere logical difference between them, because by truth we mean the concordance between sign and thing signified, while simplicity indicates that one does not tend to different things, by intending one thing inwardly, and pretending another outwardly. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod lucrum vel gloria est finis remotus simulatoris, sicut et mendacis. Unde ex hoc fine speciem non sortitur, sed ex fine proximo, qui est ostendere se alium quam sit. Unde quandoque contingit quod aliquis fingit de se magna, nullius alterius gratia, sed sola libidine simulandi, sicut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., et sicut etiam supra de mendacio dictum est. |
Reply to Objection 3: Gain or glory is the remote end of the dissembler as also of the liar. Hence it does not take its species from this end, but from the proximate end, which is to show oneself other than one is. Wherefore it sometimes happens to a man to pretend great things of himself, for no further purpose than the mere lust of hypocrisy, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7), and as also we have said above with regard to lying (Question [110], Article [2]). |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hypocrisis semper sit peccatum mortale. Dicit enim Hieronymus, Isaiae XVI, in Glossa, quod in comparatione duorum malorum, levius est aperte peccare quam sanctitatem simulare. Et super illud Iob I, sicut autem domino placuit etc., dicit Glossa quod simulata aequitas non est aequitas, sed duplicatum peccatum. Et super illud Thren. IV, maior effecta est iniquitas populi mei peccato Sodomorum, dicit Glossa, scelera animae planguntur quae in hypocrisim labitur, cuius maior est iniquitas peccato Sodomorum. Peccata autem Sodomorum sunt peccata mortalia. Ergo et hypocrisis semper est peccatum mortale. | Objection 1: It seems that hypocrisy is always a mortal sin. For Jerome says on Is. 16:14: "Of the two evils it is less to sin openly than to simulate holiness": and a gloss on Job 1:21 [*St. Augustine on Ps. 63:7], "As it hath pleased the Lord," etc., says that "pretended justice is no justice, but a twofold sin": and again a gloss on Lam. 4:6, "The iniquity... of my people is made greater than the sin of Sodom," says: "He deplores the sins of the soul that falls into hypocrisy, which is a greater iniquity than the sin of Sodom." Now the sins of Sodom are mortal sin. Therefore hypocrisy is always a mortal sin. |
| Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral., quod hypocritae ex malitia peccant. Sed hoc est gravissimum, quod pertinet ad peccatum in spiritum sanctum. Ergo hypocrita semper mortaliter peccat. | Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 8) that hypocrites sin out of malice. But this is most grievous, for it pertains to the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore a hypocrite always sins mortally. |
| Praeterea, nullus meretur iram Dei et exclusionem a Dei visione nisi propter peccatum mortale. Sed per hypocrisim aliquis meretur iram Dei, secundum illud Iob XXXVI, simulatores et callidi provocant iram Dei. Excluditur etiam hypocrita a visione Dei, secundum illud Iob XIII, non veniet in conspectu eius omnis hypocrita. Ergo hypocrisis semper est peccatum mortale. | Objection 3: Further, no one deserves the anger of God and exclusion from seeing God, save on account of mortal sin. Now the anger of God is deserved through hypocrisy according to Job 36:13, "Dissemblers and crafty men prove the wrath of God": and the hypocrite is excluded from seeing God, according to Job 13:16, "No hypocrite shall come before His presence." Therefore hypocrisy is always a mortal sin. |
| Sed contra est quia hypocrisis est mendacium operis, cum sit simulatio quaedam. Non autem omne mendacium oris est peccatum mortale. Ergo nec omnis hypocrisis. | On the contrary, Hypocrisy is lying by deed since it is a kind of dissimulation. But it is not always a mortal sin to lie by deed. Neither therefore is all hypocrisy a mortal sin. |
| Praeterea, intentio hypocritae est ad hoc quod videatur bonus. Sed hoc non opponitur caritati. Ergo hypocrisis non est secundum se peccatum mortale. | Further, the intention of a hypocrite is to appear to be good. But this is not contrary to charity. Therefore hypocrisy is not of itself a mortal sin. |
| Praeterea, hypocrisis nascitur ex inani gloria, ut Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral. Sed inanis gloria non semper est peccatum mortale. Ergo neque hypocrisis. | Further, hypocrisy is born of vainglory, as Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 17). But vainglory is not always a mortal sin. Neither therefore is hypocrisy. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in hypocrisi duo sunt, scilicet defectus sanctitatis, et simulatio ipsius. Si ergo hypocrita dicatur ille cuius intentio fertur ad utrumque, ut scilicet aliquis non curet sanctitatem habere, sed solum sanctus apparere, sicut consuevit accipi in sacra Scriptura, sic manifestum est quod est peccatum mortale. Nullus enim privatur totaliter sanctitate nisi per peccatum mortale. Si autem dicatur hypocrita ille qui intendit simulare sanctitatem, a qua deficit per peccatum mortale, tunc, quamvis sit in peccato mortali, ex quo privatur sanctitate; non tamen semper ipsa simulatio est ei in peccatum mortale, sed quandoque veniale. Quod discernendum est ex fine. Qui si repugnat caritati Dei vel proximi, erit peccatum mortale, puta cum simulat sanctitatem ut falsam doctrinam disseminet, vel ut adipiscatur ecclesiasticam dignitatem indignus, vel quaecumque alia temporalia bona in quibus finem constituit. Si vero finis intentus non repugnet caritati, erit peccatum veniale, puta cum aliquis in ipsa fictione delectatur, de quo philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod magis videtur vanus quam malus. Eadem enim ratio est de mendacio et simulatione. | I answer that, There are two things in hypocrisy, lack of holiness, and simulation thereof. Accordingly if by a hypocrite we mean a person whose intention is directed to both the above, one, namely, who cares not to be holy but only to appear so, in which sense Sacred Scripture is wont to use the term, it is evident that hypocrisy is a mortal sin: for no one is entirely deprived of holiness save through mortal sin. But if by a hypocrite we mean one who intends to simulate holiness, which he lacks through mortal sin, then, although he is in mortal sin, whereby he is deprived of holiness, yet, in his case, the dissimulation itself is not always a mortal sin, but sometimes a venial sin. This will depend on the end in view; for if this be contrary to the love of God or of his neighbor, it will be a mortal sin: for instance if he were to simulate holiness in order to disseminate false doctrine, or that he may obtain ecclesiastical preferment, though unworthy, or that he may obtain any temporal good in which he fixes his end. If, however, the end intended be not contrary to charity, it will be a venial sin, as for instance when a man takes pleasure in the pretense itself: of such a man it is said in Ethic. iv, 7 that "he would seem to be vain rather than evil"; for the same applies to simulation as to a lie. |
| Contingit tamen quandoque quod aliquis simulat perfectionem sanctitatis, quae non est de necessitate salutis. Et talis simulatio nec semper est peccatum mortale, nec semper est cum peccato mortali. | It happens also sometimes that a man simulates the perfection of holiness which is not necessary for spiritual welfare. Simulation of this kind is neither a mortal sin always, nor is it always associated with mortal sin. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta | This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. |