Moral Theology / A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities

by John A. McHugh; Charles J. Callan

Art. 6: THE REMAINING POTENTIAL PARTS OF JUSTICE; THE VIRTUE OF PIETY; THE COMMANDMENTS

(_Summa Theologica_, II-II, qq. 101-122.)

2344. Having treated of religion, the chief potential part of justice, we shall new consider the remaining subsidiary virtues of the present group, namely, piety, reverence, truthfulness, gratitude, vindication, friendship, liberality, equity (see 2141-2143).

2345. The Virtue of Piety.—In general, piety is the virtue that inclines one to show due recognition of indebtedness to those from whom one has received life and existence. There are three senses of the word:

(a) in its strictest meaning, it refers to the dutifulness owed to the immediate or secondary causes of our being, namely, parents and country;

(b) in a derived meaning, it is applied to the religious duties owed to God, who is our Heavenly Father and the First Author of our being. Hence, those who are faithful to the worship of God are called pious and the divine services are known as works of piety;

(c) in its widest meaning, piety is applied to works of mercy, since they are most pleasing to God as a tribute of filial devotion. The merciful man has pity (piety), because his kindness to the unfortunate honors God more than victims or sacrifices. Hence, since God is merciful, He Himself is sometimes called pious: “The Lord is compassionate (_pius_) and merciful” (Ecclus., ii. 13).

2346. Definition of Piety.—Piety in the strictest sense is defined as “a moral virtue that inclines one to pay to father and fatherland the duty of respect and assistance that is owed them as the authors and sustainers of our being.”

(a) It is a moral virtue, one pertaining to justice, and hence it differs from the special duty of charity owed to parents and country (see 1158, 1171 sqq.). Charity loves parents and country out of love for God whose creatures they are; piety honors them in recognition of the benefits received from them and the authority vested in them.

(b) Piety is shown to father and fatherland; that is, just as religion gives worship to God in acknowledgment of His excellence and our dependence upon Him, so does piety show due respect to those who hold the place of God in our respect on earth. Filial piety is owed to the mother as well as to the father, and in a less degree to other relatives, inasmuch as they share or continue the blood of one’s parents and may be regarded as representing them (e.g., brothers and sisters, husband or wife). Patriotism belongs to one’s native land or the country, nation, state, city, etc., of which one is a citizen; and it should include, not only fellow-citizens, but also the friends and allies of one’s country. He who is the adopted citizen of a country should love the place of his birth, but loyalty and obedience are owed to the nation to which he has transferred his allegiance.

(c) Piety offers respect and assistance. The first duty is owed to parents on account of their position of progenitors and superiors; the second is owed to their condition when they are infirm or destitute or otherwise in need. It is more probable that filial piety is violated only when the personal goods (e.g., life, health, body, fame, honor) of parents are injured, and that injury to their real goods pertains to fraud, theft or damage, rather than to impiety. Moreover, on account of the community of goods that exists between parents and children, real injuries between them are not rigorously acts of injustice and require more than the ordinary grave matter for serious sin (see 1902).

(d) Piety is owed to parents and country as the authors and sustainers of our being. Thus, it differs from legal justice, which is the duty owed the State or community, precisely as it is the whole of which one is a part. It differs likewise from commutative justice, which is obligatory in agreements with parents or other superiors, for the duty is then owed them as partners to a free contract. On account of this nobility of the formal object, filial piety and patriotism are very like to religion and rank next after it in the catalogue of virtues.

2347. The Reverence Required by Piety.—(a) Parents should be honored internally by the esteem in which their parental dignity and merits (not their personal failings) are held; externally, by the marks of respect customarily shown to parents.

(b) Relatives should receive a lower degree of respect commensurate with the nearness and quality of the kinship. Thus, parents should treat their children with the consideration owed to members of the family, and not as servants or strangers, brothers and sisters and relatives of remoter degree should give one another that courtesy and regard which respect for common parents or ancestors calls for. Lineal relatives are nearer than collaterals, and elder relatives (such as grandparents, uncles and aunts) are more entitled to respect than younger relatives (such as grandchildren, nephews and nieces).

(e) Country should be honored, not merely by the admiration one feels for its greatness in the past or present, but also and primarily by the tender feeling of veneration one has for the land that has given one birth, nurture and education. Even though a country be poor and humble, it should be patriotically revered (Ps. cxxxvi). External manifestations of piety towards country are the honors given its flag and symbols, marks of appreciation of its citizenship (Acts, xxi. 39), and efforts to promote its true glory at home and abroad.

2348. The Assistance Required by Piety.—(a) Parents should be helped in their needs, spiritual or temporal. If they are sick, they should be visited; if they are poor, they should be assisted; if they are in need of the Sacraments or prayers or suffrages, these spiritual means should be provided. But a son is not bound to pay the debts of his deceased father who left him nothing, since the debt was a personal one.

(b) Relatives should also be assisted in their needs, especially if the necessity is urgent and the relationship close (as in the case of brothers and sisters). But this duty is not as strict as that owed to parents, and, if the relationship is distant, there is no special obligation of piety.

(c) Country is helped by the aid given to fellow-countrymen who are in moral, mental or corporal need. The noblest patriots are those who devote their lives, labors or substance to the promotion of religion, education and contentment among their people, to the correction of real evils that threaten decay or disaster to the national life, and to the preservation of those special ideals and institutions that constitute what is characteristic and best in the nation.

2349. Sins against Piety.—(a) By Excess.—Exaggerated respect for relatives or country is a sin, since it is not according to order or reason. Thus, while children should not dishonor their parents under the pretext of religion (Matt., xv. 3-9), neither should they be more devoted to their parents than to God (Luke, xiv. 26; Matt., viii. 22), nor neglect God’s call when their parents do not need them (Matt., iv. 22). Thus also, patriotism should not degenerate into patriolatry, in which country is enshrined as a god, all-perfect and all-powerful, nor into jingoism or chauvinism, with their boastfulness or contempt for other nations and their disregard for international justice or charity.

(b) By Defect.—Disrespect for parents is felt when they are despised on account of their poverty, ignorance, or feebleness; it is shown by word (e.g., when they are addressed in bitter, reproachful, or contemptuous speech; or when they are ill spoken of to others), by signs (e.g., when mocking gestures or mimicry are used to ridicule them), by deeds (e.g., when they are threatened or struck), and by omissions (e.g., when their children are too proud to recognize them or to give them tokens of honor). Disrespect for one’s country is felt when one is imbued with anti-nationalistic doctrines (e.g., the principles of Internationalism which hold that loyalty is due to a class, namely, the workers of the world or a capitalistic group, and that country should be sacrificed to selfish interests; the principle of Humanitarianism, which holds that patriotism is incompatible with love of the race; the principle of Egoism which holds that the individual has no obligations to society); it is practised when one speaks contemptuously about country, disregards its good name or prestige, subordinates its rightful pre-eminence to a class, section, party, personal ambition, or greed, etc.

2350. Malice of Sins against Piety.—(a) The moral malice is distinct from that of other sins, since injustice committed against the debt owed to the human principle of existence has a special character of wrong, as being opposed to a special kind of right. Parricide and matricide have always been looked on as having a peculiar enormity among sins of homicide; and similarly, disrespect to father and mother are greater evils than disrespect to persons who have no like claim to honor. Hence, he who has struck his father must mention the circumstance of relationship in confession, since it is a circumstance that changes the species of the sin. But he who has struck his fourth cousin need not confess the relationship, for distant kinship, though an aggravating circumstance, does not give the injury the character of impiety.

(b) The theological malice of the sin is grave from the sin’s nature, since piety ranks next to religion and is the object of a special commandment and promise from God. But the sin may be venial on account of lightness of the offense (e.g., when young children answer back or speak saucily to their parents, but without contempt) or on account of the lesser importance of the person offended (e.g., when a brother slaps his brother, the sin is not as serious as when a child strikes his parent). Children who have been seriously disrespectful to their parents are obliged to beg pardon; but to impose the obligation regularly in confession is deemed unwise, since insistence may only lead the penitent to new sins, and moreover the forgiveness of parents may generally be presumed when there is amendment.

2351. The Virtue of Reverence.—This virtue is known in Latin as _observantia_, because its object is persons of authority, whom it carefully observes in order to revere their dignity and to learn their commands. It is defined as “a moral virtue which inclines one to render to persons of higher position the tribute of honor and obedience that is due their authority.”

(a) It is a moral virtue, that is, one concerned immediately with the direction of human acts. Reverence belongs to justice because it renders to others what is due them.

(b) The persons to whom it does justice are those of higher position, that is, superiors who rule over us or over others, and men distinguished for virtue, knowledge or other excellent qualities that make them fit to govern. Superior here does not mean that the person who receives reverence must be in every way better than the person who shows reverence (e.g., he who is superior in jurisdiction owes some reverence to a subject who is more learned or virtuous than himself), or that there must be inequality between the one who gives and the one who receives reverence (e.g., two distinguished persons of equal rank and merit owe mutual reverence to each other on account of the superiority which each has to many others).

(c) The reason for reverence is the authority vested in these persons, that is, the excellence of their state, which gives them a higher dignity than others, and their office of ruling, which empowers them to direct a subject to his proper end. Here we see that reverence is a distinct virtue, for, while piety and reverence are both forms of veneration, the motive of each is different. Thus, a child owes to his father piety, because from the father was received the beginning of his life, and reverence, because from the father is received direction to his end. Again, a subject owes the rulers of his country both piety and reverence: piety, as regards their relation to the common good and the nation (e.g., when the ruler is given his special salute), reverence, as regards their personal rank and glory (e.g., when assistance is given the ruler to lessen the burden of his office).

(d) The first tribute paid by reverence is honor, which is a testimony given to worth, and is offered to the dignity or rank of the superior. Honor differs from reverence as the effect differs from the cause, or the means from the end; for it is reverence that prompts one to show honor, and honor is meant to excite in others reverence for the person honored. The debt of honor is due those who are superior in jurisdiction, from legal justice; it is due to those who are superiors, but not in jurisdiction, not from legal justice, since the law does not enforce it, but from moral obligation, since it is decent and becoming.

(e) The second tribute of reverence is obedience, which is submission to law, and is offered to the ruling power of the superior. This tribute of reverence is paid only to one’s own ruling superior, since others have no power to impose upon one their will or precept.

2352. Species of Honor.—(a) As to kinds, there is common honor which is shown to all and by all (e.g., God honors the Saints, and Tobias and Mardochaeus were honored by their sovereigns), and the special honor of homage which includes submission and is shown only by inferiors or servants to their superiors or masters.

(b) As to modes, there is honor in general and praise, which is a special form of honor; Praise is given in speech or writing; honor is shown not only by words, but also by deeds (e.g., by salutations, prostrations) and things (e.g., by monuments, presents, banquets, titles).

(c) As to motives, there is civil honor (i.e., the respect shown to the temporal authority of rulers, teachers, employers, etc.), religious honor (i.e., the respect shown to the spiritual authority of the Pope, bishops, priests, etc.), and supernatural honor (i.e., the respect given to the virtue of holy men). This last honor is known as _dulia_ (service) when offered to the Saints who reign with Christ in heaven, as _hyperdulia_ (superior service) when offered to the Mother of God.

2353. Obligation of Showing Honor to Deserving Excellence.—(a) Common honor should be given to all who are not irrevocably evil and malignant, that is, it should be shown to all creatures, the damned excepted. For, as was said above, there is no one who is not possessed of superiority in some respect, and it is even reasonable to believe that the most unpromising person is better than oneself in some quality or other. Hence, the Scriptures admonish us to honor all (I Peter, ii. 17), to be beforehand in giving honor to one another (Rom., xii. 10), and humbly to believe that others are superior (Phil., ii. 3). But in bestowing honor, while one should have at least in general an honorable opinion of others, the duty of external honor does not oblige at all times or in all circumstances; and the same kind of honor is not to be given by or to all persons. Those who show the ordinary signs of charity (as they should) in greetings, salutations, courtesies, and the like, comply sufficiently with the duty of common honor.

(b) Special honor should be given all those who have a right to it: “Tribute to whom tribute is due, honor to whom honor is due” (Rom., xiii. 7). Thus, rulers and prelates should be given the respect due their station, even though personally they are wicked, for in the honor given their rank reverence is shown to God, whose ministers they are, and to the community which they represent. There is a moral, though not a legal, obligation to honor men distinguished for holiness for their own sakes since, while honor is not a sufficient reward of virtue, it is a distinguished mark of recognition, and for the sake of others, since virtue in honor is like a lamp placed upon a stand and shining for many (Matt., v. 15).

2354. Obligation of the Religious Cult of Dulia.—(a) There is no strict duty of giving veneration to the Blessed Virgin, the Angels, Saints, images, or relics, for absolutely speaking it suffices for salvation to adore God. But it is of faith that the cult of these holy persons and things is lawful and useful; hence he who should neglect it would not merely disregard the earnest advice of the Church, but he would also deny to God’s friends and heroes the honors they deserve (Ecclus., xliv. 1; Heb., xi), and would deprive himself of precious helps of intercession and inspiration. Some believe it is at least venially sinful never to invoke the Blessed Virgin, and surely there would be sin—and perhaps even grave sin, _per accidens_—if the neglect was scandalous or perilous to salvation.

(b) There is an obligation in performing acts of cult to make the veneration suitable to the dignity of the object (e.g., to the Mother of God belongs _hyperdulia_, to the Saints of God _dulia_; to holy persons is given absolute cult, to holy objects relative cult) and conformable to the laws of the Church (e.g., the titles of Venerable, Blessed, Saint are conferred only by the Church; public cult may be performed only by those authorized to act in the name of the Church and only by such rites as have been approved). It is lawful privately to pray to infants who died after Baptism, and, according to many, to the souls in Purgatory; but it would be superstitious to give to the damned or false saints the cult that belongs only to the canonized Saints.

2355. Obedience.—Obedience is a moral virtue annexed to justice which inclines one to comply promptly and willingly with the command of one’s superior, because it is a command and obligatory.

(a) Obedience is prompt and willing, and so it differs from forced or unwilling or tardy submission and from servile and politic obedience (which would not obey were it not for fear or self-interest), for these lack either the good will or the good motive required by virtue. Note also that the virtue of obedience differs from the vow of obedience in this, that the vow obliges to the external performance of a command, while the virtue includes also internal submission.

(b) It is shown to a superior. Between equals there is not obedience in the strict sense, though one of them may out of charity or friendship yield to what the other desires.

(c) It is compliance with a command, that is, with a law or precept imposed by authority. Some authorities hold that it is an act of obedience to fulfill the known will of a superior, even though it has not been imposed as obligatory; but others see in such a fulfillment, not obedience, but the perfection or spirit of obedience. Thus, if a son knows that his father wishes him to perform a certain work, but has received no orders to do it and leaves it undone, this omission according to the first opinion is disobedience, while according to the second it is a want of the spirit of obedience.

(d) It obeys precisely because the superior’s will has been expressed as a command. It is this intention that sets off obedience from other acts of virtue about commanded matters. There is a material obedience which is a circumstance of other virtues and may be called a general virtue (e.g., when one keeps the first commandment out of love for God, there is charity; when one keeps the seventh commandment out of love of honesty, there is justice). The formal obedience of which we now speak is a peculiar and distinct virtue, because it keeps the law simply because it is law and as such should be kept.

2356. Power of Jurisdiction and Dominative Power.—There are two kinds of power that confer moral authority to impose a command—the power of jurisdiction and dominative power.

(a) The power of jurisdiction is had by one who rules in a perfect society (Church or State), which has supreme authority and the right to impose laws.

(b) Dominative power is had by one who rules in an imperfect society, which has dependent authority and the right to impose precepts only. This power arises either from the very nature of society as a body composed of superior and subjects (e.g., in the family the children are necessarily subject to the father), or from agreement between the parties concerned (e.g., the wife by marrying becomes subject to her husband, the servant by taking employment becomes subject to the employer, the religious by entering a community or by vowing obedience becomes subject to the superior).

2357. Degrees of Obedience.—Ascetical authors distinguish three degrees of obedience: (a) external obedience, which performs with exactness the thing commanded though there is no heart or willingness in its act; (b) internal obedience, which joins willingness to external submission though the judgment doubts the wisdom or value or good faith of the command; (c) blind obedience, which submits the judgment itself to the superior’s judgment, provided of course the thing ordered is not clearly sinful (Matt, ix. 9; Gen., xxii. 3 sqq.; Matt., ii. 13 sqq.).

2358. Comparison of Obedience with the Other Virtues.—(a) Obedience, as was explained above (2355), is distinct from the other virtues on account of its different formal object. Its act is found sometimes joined with other virtues (e.g., to fast during Lent in order to keep the law is an act of obedience, but it is also an act of temperance if actuated by love of moderation, or an act of religion if offered as homage to God); but obedience may be separate from other virtues, as when a superior commands or forbids something indifferent in order to try a subject’s obedience (e.g., to take a walk solely because it has been commanded is an act of obedience only).

(b) Obedience is less perfect than the theological virtues, since it belongs to the moral virtues, which are not directly concerned with God Himself but with the means to union with Him (I Tim., i. 5). Among those moral virtues that consist in contempt of temporal things, obedience which serves God in all things has a certain preeminence, inasmuch as it contemns for God’s sake the noblest human good, one’s own will, whereas the other virtues contemn lower goods (those of the body and external things); on the other hand, obedience is inferior to religion, since, while obedience consists in veneration of the law, religion consists in veneration of God Himself. But acts of worship performed without devotion or without regard for God’s will are not to be compared with respectful obedience, since the former are sins and the latter is both religious and obedient; hence, it is said that obedience is better than sacrifice (I Kings, xv. 22), which means that internal devotion is to be preferred to mere external worship. Spiritual writers praise obedience as the guardian of all the virtues and the safe road in which they walk (Prov., xxi. 28).

2359. Comparison of Acts of Obedience.—(a) All acts of obedience are of the same species, since in spite of diversity of superiors or of laws there is always in obedience the same essential character on account of the motive. Whoever may be the superior or whatever may be the law, the reason for obedience is always the authority that commands and the obligation that it imposes. Thus, whether one obeys God, or the Church, or the State, or parents, the virtue is always one and the same.

(b) All acts of obedience are not of the same perfection, for circumstances (e.g., the willingness, the duration, the difficulty) add to the merit of obedience. It should be noted, however, that to obey by performing what one likes is not necessarily less virtuous than to obey by performing what one dislikes; for the thing liked may be something hard that appeals to few and may be performed from a spirit of willing obedience, whereas the thing that is disliked may be something easy and may be performed with less willingness.

2360. The Duty of Obedience.—Since obedience is obligatory because a superior has the right to command, the extent of the duty depends on the extent of the superior’s authority.

(a) Thus, God must be obeyed in all things that He commands, for He is Lord of all and cannot command what is unlawful: “Let us do all that the Lord has spoken and we shall be obedient” (Exod., xxiv. 7). Man is not bound, however, to wish all that God wishes in particular, since God wishes things from the viewpoint of the universal good, and the creature from the viewpoint of the limited good known to him (e.g., it is not lawful for man to wish the damnation or the misfortune of those whom God will permit to suffer these evils); but man is bound to wish that which God desires him to wish (e.g., that his neighbor will not be lost, that his father will not now die). Neither is man bound to perform what God proposed to him as a counsel. In certain instances (Gen., xxii. 2; Exod., xii. 36; Osee, i. 2) it appears that God commanded sin, but only a foolish or blasphemous person would interpret the facts in that impossible sense. In the physical order, a miracle wrought by God is not contrary to the law of nature established by Him, but to the usual course of nature; and similarly the commands referred to were not contrary to the laws of virtue, but to the usual manner of virtue, as was explained in 308 sqq.

(b) Man must be obeyed in all those things in which he has lawful authority to command, first, because God Himself requires this and he who resists resists God (Rom, xii. 2); next, because without obedience the peaceful order of society cannot be maintained. Even though the superior be wicked or an infidel, obedience is due him, for it is given him, not in his personal, but in his official capacity (Matt, xxiii. 2, 3). The Scriptures command obedience to all classes of lawful superiors, whether ecclesiastical (Heb, xiii. 17), civil (Titus, iii. 1; I Peter, ii. 13), or domestic (Eph, vi. 1, v. 22-24, vi. 5-8).

2361. When Obedience Is Not Lawful or Obligatory.—Obedience to a human superior is not lawful or not obligatory in those matters in which the superior has no authority to command.

(a) It is not lawful to obey a human superior when his command is clearly contrary to the command of a higher superior, and therefore unlawful. Thus, one may not obey any human superior when he orders sin, even a venial sin, for we must obey God rather than man (Acts, v. 29; Rom., iii. 8); neither may one obey a subordinate official who commands something clearly opposed to the law or to the regulations of his own superior. It does not belong to the subject, however, to sit in judgment on his superior, and hence, unless the unlawfulness of a command is manifest, the subject must presume that it is lawful.

(b) It is not necessary to obey a human superior when his command exceeds his competency, or when he orders things over which he has no control. Thus, God alone has authority over the internal action of the soul and over the natural state of the body; and as regards these things all men are equal, one indeed being less perfect mentally or bodily than another, but none being subject to another in these matters. Divine law regulates the interior (e.g., the command to believe, the prohibition to covet), but human law is confined to external acts; divine law can regulate things pertaining to the nature of the body (e.g., God could command an individual to marry, or to observe virginity, or to abstain from all food), but human law is concerned with external things, in which men are unequal, and it cannot take away natural rights to life or the means thereto (see 292 on Inalienable Rights). Moreover, even as regards external acts and things, the authority of a superior is limited by the bounds which its nature gives it; for example, temporal authority cannot command spiritual acts, a ruler placed over one territory or group cannot command for others, a constitutional body cannot make laws beyond the powers conferred by its constitution, ecclesiastical laws or customs rejected by the Code cannot be enforced, etc. It is clear, too, that no superior may command the execution of what is physically or morally impossible, and generally a subject should not be required to practise heroic virtue (e.g., to expose his life to danger; see 374). If a command is plainly ridiculous (that is, if it lacks a reasonable motive), it would be more perfect to obey, but it seems it would not be a sin to disregard it.

2362. Obedience in Cases Where There Is Normally No Obligation.—If a superior oversteps his authority, the subject may obey when the matter is lawful and the motive of submission is good. In certain cases it is even obligatory to obey a superior in matters over which normally he would not have authority. Such cases are the following:

(a) on account of a vow or other free and moral agreement, a subject is held to obedience in matters pertaining to the nature of the body (e.g., when he has made a vow of virginity). The Church cannot impose virginity, but he who has vowed to observe it, must fulfill the conditions and precautions necessary for its observance, and can be ordered so to do;

(b) on account of circumstances, such as scandal or danger of great evils, it is sometimes necessary to yield submission to a command that is not of itself obligatory (see 376, 377).

2363. Internal Actions and Human Superiors.—Internal actions in themselves do not fall under human authority, and hence the Apostle says: “Judge not before the time until the Lord come, who will make manifest the counsels of the heart” (I Cor., iv. 5). But in two ways these actions may be dealt with authoritatively by human superiors.

(a) Thus, in the internal forum and there alone, internal acts themselves are subject to a human superior; for the confessor knows and acts there, not as man, but as the representative of God, and hence he may pass on and prescribe internal thoughts and desires just as God may pass on them and prescribe them.

(b) In the external forum, the Church deals with internal acts in so far as they enter into an external act as a necessary ingredient of its goodness or malice, as when she commands a devout communion or pronounces censure against judges who are swayed by fear or favor. This question was treated above in 426.

2364. Obligation of the Vow of Obedience.—(a) The vow obliges a religious to observe the commands of superiors that are given according to the rule which the religious professed. Hence, there would be no obligation in virtue of the vow of performing commands that are not authorized explicitly or implicitly in the rule (e.g., if a cloistered religious were bidden to engage in hospital work), nor, unless otherwise vowed, of keeping each prescription of the rule or constitutions. A command to accept a relaxation from the rule is obligatory, unless the dispensation is clearly invalid (cfr. 2225, 2237).

(b) The obligation is grave only when superiors command in a grave matter and with the intention of imposing a grave precept. The intention of a superior is indicated by a form of words and other circumstances which the rule or constitutions prescribe for the imposition of a grave precept.

2365. Sins against Obedience.—Since obedience is a moral virtue and therefore observes a mean, there is both an excess and a defect that it avoids.

(a) Thus, the sin of excess is not found in the quantity of obedience, for the more obedient a subject is, the more is he worthy of praise. It is found, therefore, in other circumstances of the act of submission, as when one obeys a person or a command which one should not obey. Sinful submission is just as foreign to obedience as superstition is to religion; cringing submission or servility in matters where one should think and judge for oneself is only a simulacrum of obedience.

(b) The sin of defect is found in disobedience to a lawful command. This sin may also be said to include both excess and defect—the former because the subject follows his own desires more than he should, and the latter because the superior does not receive what he is entitled to (see 1711 sqq.).

2366. Definition of Disobedience.—Disobedience is the transgression of the lawful command of a superior.

(a) It is a transgression, that is, a voluntary neglect or refusal to perform what is ordered or to omit what is forbidden, or to perform or omit at the time or in the manner ordered. Thus, there is no disobedience if fulfillment is impossible—for example, if a subject who is summoned to present himself at a certain place does not receive the notice or becomes too ill to make the journey, or if he is asked to give what he cannot give, or if he is burdened with so many laws or regulations that he cannot even know what they are, much less attempt to observe them.

(b) Disobedience transgresses a lawful command, that is, one which is morally good and issues from competent authority. It is not disobedience to refuse to do what is evidently illicit (e.g., to lie or steal), or what is illegally ordered (e.g., to submit to arrest blindly, to perform what the law forbids the superior to order).

(c) It is violation of a command, that is, of a law or precept. Hence, it is not disobedience to neglect advice or exhortations or requests made by superiors, if the subject-matter is not otherwise obligatory (e.g., a daughter is not disobedient if she does not choose the husband picked out for her by her parents).

(d) It is against the command of a superior, and hence, if there is opposition between laws or precepts, the higher law and the higher superior prevails (288 sqq.).

2367. The Kinds of Disobedience.—(a) By reason of the subject, disobedience is either material or formal, according as the transgressor intends only the satisfaction of his sinful desire against some other virtue, or intends the violation of obedience itself. Material disobedience is found in every sin, since every sin is a transgression, and in this sense the pride of the original sin is called disobedience (Rom., v. 19); but formal disobedience is a special sin, and it is committed only when the sinner transgresses purposely in order not to submit.

(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.

2404. The Sinfulness of Simulation.—(a) In general, simulation is a sin, since it is nothing else than an acted lie. But deeds, with the few exceptions of bows, nods, gestures and the like, are not from their nature signs of thoughts, and those employed to serve as signs are more indeterminate and equivocal than words; hence, it is not always as easy to decide that an act is simulatory as to decide that a word is a lie. Thus, it is not simulation to make use of false hair, false teeth, or false jewelry as means of protection or of adornment, there being no intention to mislead; neither is it simulation for a wicked cleric to wear the clerical garb, for the dress signifies primarily his state, and not necessarily his personal moral character.

(b) In particular, simulation by hypocrisy and treachery is detestable; for hypocrisy prostitutes works of virtue to the ignoble ends of applause or lucre or worse, while treachery uses the intimacy or marks of friendship as means for betrayal. The most stinging rebukes of Our Lord were given the hypocritical Pharisees (“Blind guides, whited sepulchres, serpents, generation of vipers,” Matt., xxiii. 23 sqq.), and among the saddest words of Christ are those addressed to Judas (“Dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?” Luke, xxii. 48). Against the former he pronounced woes, and He declared that it were better if the latter had never been born (Matt., xxvi. 24).

2405. Sinfulness of Hypocrisy.—(a) Hypocrisy in its strictest sense is the simulation of one who wishes to seem but not to be virtuous. This sin is mortal, since it cares nothing for virtue, and its external pretense is but a mockery. It is this hypocrisy that is so scathingly denounced in Scripture.

(b) Hypocrisy in a less strict sense is the simulation of one who is in mortal sin, but wishes for some reason to appear virtuous or to lead a double life. The sin is mortal or venial according to the motive; for example, to act the hypocrite in order to seduce another is a mortal sin, though, if the motive is only vanity, the sin is venial. It should be noted that it is not hypocrisy for a just cause to conceal one’s sin by dissimulation; indeed, Isaias severely blames those who scandalize others by flaunting their wickedness before the public (Is, iii. 9).

(c) Hypocrisy in the widest sense assumes the appearance of a high degree of sanctity above that requisite for salvation, as when a person of ordinary goodness tries to gain the reputation of miracle-worker, or to pass as one better than others in faith, zeal, humility, etc. This sin is not mortal in itself, but it may become mortal on account of some motive, some means, or some other circumstance. There is no hypocrisy at all, however, in showing oneself for the virtue one really has; on the contrary, he lies, who being good pretends that he is not good, or who being free of a vice pretends that he is guilty of it.

2406. Self-Glorification and Self-Depreciation.—Two forms of lying about self are self-glorification and self-depreciation.

(a) Braggadocio is untruthful self-glorification, as when one pretends to be of royal descent, or makes a display of wealth beyond one’s means, or poses as an authority on matters of which one is ignorant, or tries by bluff to make one’s defects seem perfections. This sin is mortal when the lie is seriously injurious to God or others (Ezech., xxviii. 2, Luke, xviii. 11), or when the motive is gravely sinful, such as grave arrogance, ambition, or avarice.

(b) Feigning of defects (irony) is untruthful self-depreciation, as when one falsely denies a good quality which one possesses (e.g., an excessively humble man denies the good deeds that others ascribe to him, though he knows they are real), or when one falsely admits a bad quality which one lacks (e.g., a person who wishes to curry favor accuses himself of misdeeds which he knows never happened). This sin is usually less than braggadocio, since as a rule its purpose is to avoid offense to others; but it may be serious sin on account of some circumstance, as when one speaks ill of self in order to scandalize or seduce another. At times the feigning of defects is a concealed braggadocio, as when one dresses in rags, hoping by this expedient to acquire repute as a person of great spirituality (Prov., xxvi, 25; Matt., vi. 16; Ecclus., xix. 23).

2407. Infidelity and Violation of a Secret.—It remains to speak of the vices of infidelity and violation of secret (see 2388 a). As to the former, since it has been discussed elsewhere (1877 sqq., 1888, 1889; see also the matter on Promissory Oaths), it will suffice here to ask the question: Is the breach of a promise freely given a sin?

(a) If observance of the promise is due from fidelity only, there is no legal fault, but there is moral fault, and hence the breach of the promise is a sin. The malice is essentially the same as that of untruthfulness (see 2395), for both the liar and the promise-breaker show themselves unreliable, the former because his words do not square with his mind and the latter because his deeds do not live up to his plighted word. Breach of promise, then, seems _per se_ to be a venial sin, though there are often circumstances (such as damage done) that make it mortal.

(b) If observance of the promise is not due even from fidelity, on account of the presence of some defect, there is no moral obligation to keep the promise and no sin is committed by not keeping it. The defects referred to are such as make the promise lack force from the beginning (e.g., if it was immoral or extorted by force), or deprive it of the force it had (i.e., inability on the part of the promisor or loss of right on the part of the promisee). The promisor is unable to keep the promise, if the thing promised has become physically impossible (e.g., he no longer has the strength or the means to perform what he promised), or morally impossible (e.g., the thing promised has become unlawful, or a notable change has taken place which, could it have been foreseen, would have prevented the promise). The promisee loses his right if the sole or principal reason that dictated the promise has ceased, or if the promise has become useless to the promisee, or if the promisor has been released, or if the promisee forfeits his claim by his own perfidy towards the promisor (see 2256 sqq., 1889).

2408. Definition of a Secret.—A secret is a matter (e.g., an invention, valuable information, concealed virtues, the fact that a crime has been committed) known privately by only one person or by so few that it is neither public property nor notorious. Moralists distinguish the following kinds of secrets:

(a) a natural secret, which is one that cannot be revealed without causing injury or annoyance to another, as when the revelation will harm a person in his reputation, honor, influence property. It is called natural for it arises from the very nature of the matter of the secret and not from any promise or contract.

(b) a promised secret, which is one that a person has promised, but only after he had already learned it, to guard inviolate. It makes no difference whether the promisor learned the secret from the promisee or from some other source;

(c) an entrusted or committed secret, which is one that a person promised (and before he learned it) to keep from others. The promise here is either implicit or explicit. An implicit promise of secrecy is one that is demanded by the confidential nature of communications between two parties (professional secret), as when physicians, lawyers, priests, parents, or friends are told of private matters on account of their position or relationship. An explicit promise is one that is given in express terms, as when A says to B: “I have a matter of great importance to tell you, but you must first promise that you will keep it secret”; and on B promising, A confides to him the secret.

2409. Sinfulness of Violating a. Secret.—A secret is the property of its owner, and to it he has a strict right; for if it is a good secret (such as an original idea or discovery), it is the product of his labor or at least a possession which he has lawfully come by; if it is an evil secret (such as a crime of which he has been guilty), it may not be made known without infringing on his right of reputation. It is no more lawful to violate the right to a secret than to violate the right to property, and, as there are three kinds of injuries to property, so there are three kinds of injuries to a secret.

(a) Thus, the right of possession is injured by those who by fraud or force or other illegal means deprive another of his secret (e.g., by secretly intercepting private letters, by making a person drunk in order to learn a secret).

(b) The right of use is injured by those who on acquiring knowledge of a secret guide themselves or others by it to the detriment of the owner’s rights.

(c) The right of disposition is injured by those who reveal a secret which they were obliged not to reveal.

2410. Prying Into Others’ Secrets.—To seek to discover the secrets of others is not lawful unless the following conditions are present:

(a) one must have a right to the knowledge. Hence, if there is question about a crime that has been committed or that is about to be committed, one has a right to investigate in order to prevent harm to public or private good; in war one may try to discover the plans of the enemy. But it is not lawful to pry into purely personal matters, to fish from others natural or confidential secrets which they are bound to keep, to steal from another the thoughts, plans, inventions, etc, which are his own;

(b) one must use only honest means to discover secrets to which one has a right (1504). Thus, it does not seem lawful generally to inebriate another in order to learn his secret, and it is certainly sinful to resort to lies or simulation or immorality.

2411. Reading Another’s Letters or Papers.—When is it lawful to read the letters or other papers of another person?

(a) This is lawful when the writings are not intended to be secret to anyone, as when a circular is meant for public use, when greetings are written on a postcard which all may read, and when a letter is left open and thrown away or otherwise abandoned. But a sealed letter, or one left open in a private room, or one lost in a public place, is secret. If a letter or manuscript has been torn up by its owner and thrown away on the street or other public place, it does not seem lawful to piece the fragments together and read the writing, for, though the paper has been abandoned, the owner by destroying it has indicated his will to keep the contents secret.

(b) It is also lawful to read the writing of others that are not secret as regards oneself, as when one has received a just permission from the writer to peruse a letter written by him, or when one may presume such permission on account of friendship with the writer, or when rule or lawful custom gives the superior of an institution the right to inspect the correspondence of his subjects. Exception must be made for exempted matter for which there is no permission, such as letters containing conscience matters and letters directed to higher religious superiors (see Canon 611).

(c) It is also lawful to read the writings of others that are meant to be secret, if one has a right to know what is in them: for in such a case the owner would be unreasonable if he wished to exclude one from the knowledge. Thus, the public authority (e.g., in time of war) has the right to open and read letters and private papers, when this is necessary for the common good; parents and heads of boarding schools may examine the correspondence of their subjects, though parents should respect conscience matter and others should not read family secrets; private individuals have the natural right, as a measure of self-defense, to read another’s letter, when there is a prudent reason for thinking that it contains something gravely and unjustly harmful to themselves (such as conspiracy, a trap, calumny).

2412. Lawfulness of Utilizing Knowledge of Secret.—One is said to use the knowledge obtained from a secret when one guides one’s conduct by the knowledge, doing or omitting what one would not otherwise do or omit. Is this use of a secret lawful?

(a) If there was a promise not to use the secret, such use is unlawful (see 2414). Breach of promise is then, in case of a merely promised secret, an act of infidelity at least, and in case of an entrusted secret an act of injustice. Thus, when one consults a professional person, there is a tacit understanding that the knowledge communicated will not be used against one’s interests or without one’s consent, and hence a lawyer would be unjust if, on learning in the course of work for a client that the latter’s business was not prosperous, he gave word of this to one of the client’s creditors.

(b) If there was no promise not to use the secret, the use of it is nevertheless unjust, if it infringes a strict right (e.g., to make money from a secret process on which another has a patent, to get knowledge of another’s information and plans through reading his letters and thereby to prevent him from securing a vacant position), or if it is equivalent to unjust revelation of a secret. The use is uneharitable if it harms another person without necessity (e.g., to take away one’s trade from a deserving merchant solely because one has learned that on one occasion he was accidentally intoxicated).

(c) If there was no promise to avoid use and no harm will be done by use, it is lawful to use a secret for a non-necessary good (e.g., to raise the price on one’s property when one accidentally learns through overhearing a secret conversation that the property is worth the higher price), and it is obligatory to use it for a necessary good (e.g., to assist a neighbor when one is told under secret that he is in dire need of one’s charitable help). Even though harm will result to another by use of the secret, use is not sinful if it infringes no right and could be sacrificed only at great inconvenience to oneself, as when one has discovered by one’s own industry some important truth in an art or science which another had previously discovered but had neglected to make his own by exclusive right, or when one learns under secret that another person is one’s enemy and has to be watched and avoided.

2413. The Sin Committed by Stealing or Unduly Using the Secret of Another.—(a) From its nature (cases of mere fidelity excepted) the sin is mortal, as being a violation of commutative justice or of charity. Injury to property rights, whether in goods or in knowledge, is violation of a strict right (see 1890, 1894). The sin is aggravated by the greater import of the secret or by the greater damages or displeasure caused.

(b) From the imperfection of the act or the lightness of the matter the sin may become venial, as when one thoughtlessly reads another person’s letters, or opens correspondence without authority, feeling morally sure that there is nothing confidential in it, or makes use of an unimportant secret without permission.

2414. The Obligation of Keeping a Secret.—(a) The natural secret obliges _per se_ under grave sin; for violation of it offends charity and justice by saddening and harming a neighbor. The sin may become venial on account of lightness of matter, as when little sadness or harm is caused.

(b) The promised secret obliges ordinarily under light sin only; for as a rule the promisor intends to obligate himself in virtue of fidelity alone (1888), and the obligation of fidelity, as said above (see 2407), is not grave. But exceptionally the obligation may be grave, as when the promisor intended to bind himself in virtue of justice and under grave sin, or when the secret is natural as well as promised.

(c) The entrusted secret obliges _per se_ under grave sin; for there is a duty of commutative and of legal justice to keep it, on account of the rights of contract and of the common good that are involved. The violator of an entrusted secret injures private good by disregard for contract, and he injures public good by weakening confidence in officials or professional persons to whom others must go for advice or assistance. Violation of a committed secret may be only a venial sin on account of the lightness of the matter. Thus, some think it is not a serious injustice to reveal a secret to one very discreet person, if the person whose secret is made known is not very much opposed to this and no other damage will result (see 2065).

2415. Comparison of Secrets as Regards Binding Force.—(a) The promised secret obliges less than the natural or the entrusted, as was said in the previous paragraph. (b) The natural secret obliges less _per se_ than the entrusted secret, for the safeguarding of the latter is agreed to in an onerous contract, while no engagement is made to keep the former. (c) Some entrusted secrets are more sacred than others. Thus, a secret confided from necessity is more binding than one confided without necessity; a secret one has sworn to keep is more obligatory than a secret one has given one’s word of honor to keep; a professional secret is more imperious than a private secret; a state secret is far more important than any secret of private individuals. The most inviolable of all secrets is that of the confessional, because its violation is always a sacrilege.

2416. Cases Wherein It Is Not Necessary to Keep a Secret.—(a) If there has been no obligation from the time the secret was learned, it is not necessary to keep it. Thus, if a merely promised secret was accepted under compulsion and revelation will be advantageous and not harmful, it does not seem necessary to keep the secret.

(b) If the obligation of the secret has ceased, it is not necessary to be silent. Examples are cases in which secrecy was promised only for a certain space of time, or in which a matter formerly secret has become public, or in which the owner of the secret wishes it to be divulged, or in which he has not kept faith with the possessor of the secret, provided of course that in these cases no injury or unnecessary harm is done by making known the secret. Similarly, if the recipient of the secret cannot keep it without grave harm (e.g., death) to himself, he is not bound by it, unless charity (see 1165, 1236) or justice calls for the contrary. Commutative justice would demand silence (though many make exception for a most grave reason, regarding a promise to the contrary as prodigal) if there had been an express contract to guard the secret at all risks; legal justice would demand it, if the safety of the republic were involved.

2417. Cases Wherein It Is Not Lawful to Keep a Secret.—(a) If a secret cannot be kept without greater harm to the common good, it may not be kept, for legal justice requires that private good be subordinated to public safety. The violation of secrets is a harm to the public good and a greater harm than ordinary evils against the community (such as the escape of a guilty person); but it is a less harm than serious evils against the people (such as menace to public health, sedition, or treason). The possessor of a natural or promised secret must make it known at the command of lawful authority, as in court; but the superior has no right to question about entrusted secrets of a necessary kind, and this is usually recognized by positive law in the protection extended to professional communications.

(b) If a secret cannot be kept without greater harm to the private good of the owner of the secret, distinction is made between a non-entrusted and an entrusted secret. In the former case the secret may not be kept, for charity bids one to help a neighbor escape a greater evil, and the owner of the secret would be unreasonable if he were opposed to its revelation (see 501 sqq.). In the latter case, some are of the opinion that the secret should be kept, if it is professional (since the public good then takes precedence over the private good of the owner of the secret), but this is denied by others. Example: Titus knows that Balbus is about to marry with a secret impediment that will nullify the marriage, but he cannot persuade Balbus to disclose this impediment to the pastor.

(c) If a secret cannot be kept without greater harm to the private good of a third party (i.e., one other than the owner of the secret), distinction is made between cases, according as injury is or is not done by the owner of the secret to the third party. If no injury is done the third party, the secret should be kept (e.g., if one knows in confidence that Sempronius has made an invention which will supersede an invention made by Claudius, one is not at liberty to make this known to the latter, for Sempronius has done no injury to Claudius). If, however, injury is done the third party by the owner of the secret when the secret is kept, one should not keep the secret; for charity requires that one help an innocent person to escape from harm, even if this has to be done at the expense of harm to the guilty cause of the harm. Examples: If one knows as a secret that A, B and C have conspired to murder D tomorrow night, and one cannot otherwise prevent the murder, one should if possible break the secret, at least by sending warning to D that his life is in danger tomorrow night. If a doctor knows that a man who is about to contract marriage is syphilitic and pretends that he is sound, and if the doctor cannot persuade this man to make the facts known to the intended wife, the doctor himself should give notice to the woman, according to some authorities, unless the laws of the country forbid such use of professional knowledge.

2418. What should the possessor of an entrusted secret do, if from the secret he knows that the one who entrusted it is guilty of a crime for which an innocent third person is about to be convicted and sentenced?

(a) If the guilty party is responsible for the plight of the innocent party (e.g., because he falsely accused him or threw suspicion on him), natural law would require the possessor of the secret to make known the true state of affairs; for the guilty party is then the unjust cause of damage and is bound to accuse himself (see 1763). Revelation of the true culprit would not be necessary, however, if there was some other way of saving the innocent person.

(b) If the guilty person is not responsible for the difficulty in which the innocent person finds himself, not having used any means to bring the latter into suspicion, some believe that the secret should be kept, since the guilty person has then the right to keep his secret and therefore has also the right that his confidants keep it (see 1968). But others, while granting that the guilty person is not obliged to accuse himself, deny that the confidant is not obliged to accuse him; for the right of the guilty that his secret be kept and the right of the innocent that he be not deprived of life or liberty are in conflict and unequal, and he who prefers the former right does an injury to the innocent person (see 288).

2419. The previous question was concerned with an innocent third party. If the holder of the secret is also the accused, it seems he is not obliged, unless perhaps when he agreed to it, to prefer the inviolability of the secret to his own justification; for the acceptance of a secret does not mean that one binds oneself to grave hardship for its preservation (see 2418). The thing to do would be to warn the guilty person to escape in time, and then to exculpate oneself by making known the truth.

2420. Lawfulness of Revealing a Secret Learned by Stealth or Force.—Is it lawful, in order to avert some great evil, to use or reveal against the interests or wishes of its owner a secret which one has learned by stealth (e.g., by spying, eavesdropping, wiretapping, unauthorized inspection of papers) or by force? Various answers are given to this question, but to us the following seems the best:

(a) if the stealth or force would not be unjust here and now, because the owner of the secret has a duty to disclose it (e.g., on account of the public good, on account of the extreme need of a private person), or the other party has a right to seek after it (e.g., because he cannot otherwise defend himself against the unjust vexation of the owner of the secret), the answer is in the affirmative; for in such a case there is only applied the principle of lawful occupation or of lawful self-defense (see 1920 sqq., 1819). But if the stealth or force is excessive in its manner or productive of unnecessary harm, it is sinful and induces the duty of restitution, nor is there any right to make such use or such revelation of a secret as is sinful in itself (e.g., on account of calumnies, scandals, disorders);

(b) if the stealth or force would be unjust here and now, the answer is in the negative; for in such a case there is real theft of a secret, a person’s most intimate possession, and a continuation of the original injury by the use of the stolen property against its owner, or at least an unlawful conversion of property. Hence, if there is no grave or proportionate reason for the use of the secret, or if other and simpler methods can be employed, the secret may not be used. Those who play the detective ostensibly for other reasons but really for purposes of blackmail or other personal advantage, are therefore in the same class as thieves and are bound to restitution; their sin is _per se_ mortal, for secrets are usually esteemed more highly than money, and it would be seriously detrimental to the public weal if the practice of using secrets unlawfully obtained (e.g., by secretly taking down privileged communications or state secrets) were permissible.

2421. The Virtues of Affability and Liberality.—These two virtues, though they are not so important as those that preceded, are still most useful to human life (see 2143). Affability (friendliness, politeness) is a virtue which inclines a person to show himself in serious matters properly agreeable to others in order thus to fulfill a duty to society.

(a) Affability has for its object to be agreeable to others, that is, in looks, manner, words and deeds to treat them with kindness and consideration, and so to give them pleasure. Affability is more than mere civility, which avoids rudeness and observes necessary proprieties, but does not manifest a gracious spirit. The gentleman, according to Cardinal Newman (“Idea of a University,” Discourse viii, 10), is one who does not inflict pain and whose great concern is to make others at their ease and at home. The true gentleman is considerate for all his company, guards against unseasonable allusions or topics, is seldom prominent in conversation and never wearisome, makes light of his own favors, never speaks of himself except when compelled, avoids personalities and insinuations of evil, and is indulgent towards opponents.

(b) Affability is as agreeable as is becoming, or proper; that is, it observes the golden mean, attending to moderation and circumstances, suiting its deportment to the time, place, occasion, and persons and observing the recognized laws of etiquette for social, official, business, religious, domestic and other relations. Indeed, there are times when affability should not be shown, as when it is necessary to display severity and displeasure, or even to sadden others, for the sake of some higher good (II Cor., vii. 8, 9).

(c) Its purpose is to fulfill a social duty. Without affability the ways of life are made rougher and more difficult for all, and therefore, since man is a social being, it becomes obligatory that each one should so conduct himself towards others as to avoid the displeasing and to cultivate the pleasing. Thus, affability is less than friendship (see 1110), since it does not include special benevolence and is shown to friend and foe alike; but it is more than polish, for it consists not merely in external good manners but chiefly in an internal sense of responsibility to society and of deference to its requirements. Affability is at its best, however, when prompted by friendship and Christian charity. A modicum of courtesy, if accompanied by sincerity and goodness of heart, is more appreciated than profuse compliment and ceremony behind which there is little genuineness or little affection.

(d) Affability regulates conduct in serious matters, for the regulation of amusements or recreations pertain chiefly to modesty and falls under temperance rather than justice. Aristotle calls the virtue directive of games _eutrapelia_, which may also be called reasonable relaxation, urbanity, or pleasantness.

2422. Offices of Affability.—All, and especially the clergy, should practise courtesy, imitating St. Paul, who became all things to all men, in order to gain all to Christ (I Cor., ix. 22), and following his advice to be without offense to Jew or Gentile or to the Church of God (I Cor., x. 32). The offices of affability can be reduced to the negative and the positive, as follows: (a) the negative offices are the avoidance of excess (adulation) and defect (surliness); (b) the positive offices are the observance on special occasions of the appropriate forms and usages and on all occasions the exercise of a gentle and thoughtful regard for the feelings of others.

2423. The Sins against Affability.—(a) Adulation is the vice of those who in the effort to please others go beyond what is proper, of the complaisant man who aims to gratify by merely conventional or extravagant compliments, and of the flatterer who seeks to win favors for himself by expressions of fulsome admiration. Adulation is shown by exaggerated debasement of self (servility, obsequiousness), as well as by exaggerated exaltation of others (toadyism). The sin of adulation is not grave from its nature, being only an excessive will to please; but circumstances sometimes make it grave, such as its matter (e.g., when one compliments another’s sins, Is., v. 20), its effect (e.g., when the person flattered will be made proud), or its purpose (e.g., when the flatterer means to seduce the other person, Prov., xxvii. 6). Like to adulation in its exaggeration, but unlike it in manner, is the display of friendliness by offensive familiarity or boisterous conduct.

(b) Surliness is the sin of those who are ungracious in their manners, not because of hate or anger, but because of a desire to be unpleasant and to make others yield to themselves. The surly man is always ready to contradict or argue, he is hard to please, sensitive, sour in visage, gruff in words, and much given to complaint or sullen silence. Surliness is _per se_ worse than adulation but not a mortal sin; for it is farther removed from affability than adulation, but does not necessarily inflict a severe wound on charity. But the smooth palaverer is usually a more dangerous character than the morose man (Ps. cxl. 5). Like to surliness is the boorishness of those who from cynicism or laziness despise refinement, or from greed neglect proper manners at table. But entirely different from surliness is that dignity which can be reserved without being distant or hard of approach, and that seriousness which can be grave or silent without being ungracious.

2424. Liberality.—Liberality is a virtue that moderates the love of riches and inclines one in ordinary affairs to bestow one’s own goods upon others willingly, when and as right reason may dictate.

(a) It moderates the love of riches; that is, it makes one value and esteem money at its true worth. In this respect it pertains at least improperly to temperance inasmuch as the love of money is a passion. Liberality is thus distinguished from mercy and beneficence. These virtues are open-handed from charity, and give because another is in need or is loved; liberality, on the contrary, may be without charity and its bounty may be shown even to those who are not in need or who are not liked, for it is free in using money precisely because it does not prize external things excessively.

(b) It inclines one to bestow one’s own possessions, or freely to communicate them. In this respect liberality is assigned to justice, since its object is external things as owed by a certain moral debt to others. Since liberality consists primarily in a generous inclination, even the poor may have this virtue; in fact, the poor oftentimes, being less wedded to money, are far more disposed to liberality than the rich.

(c) It functions in ordinary affairs, for there is a special virtue of magnificence that makes wealthy men spend money lavishly in enterprise of the greatest moment.

(d) The beneficiary of liberality is another, for no special virtue is needed to make one use money freely for one’s own needs or comfort.

(e) Liberality bestows gladly, but according to right reason, for there is no merit in unwilling gifts, and no virtue in gifts bestowed unsuitably as to time, place, purpose, person, quantity, quality, etc. Liberality, then, is not inconsistent with prudence about temporal affairs, that is, with economy which adapts expenditures to income, with thrift which puts something by for the future, and with frugality which spares unnecessary expenses on self, especially in the matter of luxuries (see 1681 sqq.).

2425. The Importance of Liberality.—(a) Liberality is not the greatest virtue. It is less than temperance, for temperance regulates the passions in reference to the body, while liberality regulates them in reference to externals; it is less than fortitude and justice, which serve the common good, whereas liberality regards individuals; it is less than the virtues that are concerned with divine things, for liberality has to do directly with temporals.

(b) Liberality is one of the most useful of virtues since it disposes one to use money well in the service of God and humanity, and gives one an influence that can be employed for good (Ecclus., xxxi. 28). According to Aristotle, the virtues that chiefly attract fame are first bravery, next justice, and then liberality. Moreover, this virtue of generosity is one of the surest indexes of internal religion and charity, as being the natural expression of devotion and benevolence (see 2185, 1211), while miserliness is a sign of coldness towards God and man.

2426. Vice of Avarice.—The vice which is opposed to liberality by defect in giving is avarice, which, properly speaking or as distinguished from theft and robbery, is an immoderate desire, love or delight entertained in respect to external corporal goods, such as lands or money.

(a) The Absolute Malice of Avarice.—This sin is _per se_ venial, since it is only an excess in the love of a thing that is in itself indifferent and lawful; but it becomes mortal if the affection for money is so great that one is prepared to sacrifice grave obligations for its sake (e.g., to stay away from church rather than contribute to religion or the suffering poor). It is not merely carnal, since not concerned with bodily pleasure; nor merely spiritual, since riches are not a spiritual object; hence, it stands midway between spiritual and carnal vices.

(b) The Comparative Malice of Avarice.—In regard to deformity, avarice is not worse than other sins, but rather the contrary. The less the good to which a vice is opposed, the less the deprivation caused by the vice; and hence since external goods, to whose proper esteem avarice is opposed, are less important than divine or human goods, it follows that avarice is not so sinful as irreligion, homicide, theft, etc. In regard to shamefulness, however, avarice is worse than other sins. The less valuable the created good that a vice pursues, the more disgraceful the vice; and hence since the miser sets his heart on external things, which are the lowest of all goods, preferring them to goods of body and of soul (e.g., to health, education) and even to divine goods, he is rightly regarded as more contemptible than other sinners. Some forms of avarice, too, are more despicable than others. Thus, in some persons avarice shows itself in their fear to consume or expend for their own necessary uses (parsimony, penuriousness); in others it shows itself by an unwillingness to give to others (stinginess, niggardliness), or a willingness to live at the expense of others (sponging); finally, the most disgusting form of avarice is seen in those who cannot bear to part with their possessions either for their own sake or for the sake of others, and find their happiness in mere possession (miserliness). In regard to influence, avarice has a pre-eminence among sins that causes it to be numbered among the seven capital vices. A capital vice is one of the chief sources of evil attraction that produces other sins, and it is clear that immoderate love of riches is one of the most prolific of sins. All are drawn to happiness, and money seems to secure the requisites for happiness (Ecclus., x. 16); hence we see that for the sake of holding to money men become hard of heart (Matt., xxiii. 14; Luke, xvi. 21), for the sake of acquiring it they become carnal and restless in mind (Ecclus., xiv. 9; Matt., xiii. 22) and have recourse to deeds of violence (III Kings, xxi. 2), of deception (Acts, xxiv. 26), of perjury (Matt., xxviii. 12 sqq.), of fraud (Luke, xvi. 4 sqq.), and of treachery (Matt., xxvi. 15). Avarice is at the same time one of the most dangerous of sins, for it will lead a man to sell even his own soul (Ecclus., X. 10) and to commit any enormity (I Tim., vi. 9), and one of the most incurable, for the miser never has enough (Prov., xxx. 15, 16) and is always able to make believe that his avarice is prudence or some other virtue (Wis., xv. 12).

2427. Vice of Prodigality.—The vice opposed to liberality by excess in giving is prodigality, which is an insufficient regard for temporal things and an extravagant bestowal of them on others.

(a) It is an insufficient care for temporal things: that is, as the miser loves money too much, so the prodigal esteems it too little; as the miser is over-anxious to get and keep money, so the prodigal is careless about earning or saving.

(b) It is an extravagant bestowal of temporal things; that is, the prodigal gives more than he should, or else the circumstances do not call for his gift, as when he gives when or where or to whom he should not give.

2428. The Sinfulness of Prodigality.—(a) From its nature it is venial. The prodigal is not the absolute owner of his goods, but a steward who is held to administer them according to reason. But his sin is not grave, since it does not injure others and the goods of which he deprives himself are of the lowest kind.

(b) From its circumstances it may be mortal. Thus, it is made mortal on account of the purpose (e.g., extravagant presents made with a view to seduction or bribery), or the consequences (e.g., wastefulness which makes one unable to pay debts or assist a relative who is in grave need), or the special obligation of devoting superfluities to charity, as when one squanders the excess revenues of a benefice (see 1252).

2429. Comparison of Avarice and Prodigality.—(a) They are associable, for the same person may be both avaricious and prodigal, though in different respects (e.g., some persons are spendthrifts in giving money away, and are thus forced to be grasping to get money and ready to obtain it by any means, foul or fair). (b) They are unequal in malice. Prodigality is less sinful than avarice, because it is less removed from liberality, less harmful to self and others, and less difficult to cure. It is said that prodigality is the vice of youth, avarice the vice of old age.

2430. The Virtue of Equity.—The virtues that have been so far treated in the present Article are forms of particular justice, and they have the status of adjuncts or potential parts. We shall conclude the list of virtues grouped with justice by discussing equity, which belongs to general (legal) justice and has the rank of a subjective part (see above, 1635, 1636, 1745, 1701, 1704).

2431. Definition of Equity.—In law, equity is any court system of extraordinary justice in which the standard is natural honesty as declared by the conscience of the judge or by a body of rules and procedures that supplement or override the usual rules and procedures where these are too narrow or limited. Thus, in England and in the United States courts of equity are those that take care of defined special cases for which there is no remedy in the usual or common law courts (Robinson, _Elementary Law_, Sec.348). But as here taken equity is a moral virtue, and is of two kinds, particular equity which pertains to particular justice (natural equity) and general equity which belongs to legal justice (legal equity).

(a) Natural equity is a moral virtue that inclines one not to insist unnecessarily on one’s strict or legal rights when to do so will be unpleasant or burdensome to others. It is exemplified in the acts of an employer who freely grants a bonus to deserving employees in addition to the wage promised, and of a creditor who grants an extension of time to a hard-pressed debtor. This virtue partakes of both charity and justice; of charity, since it tempers justice with mercy; of justice, since it is really identical with the virtue of affability or friendliness mentioned above (2421). Its obligation as an act of justice is not grave, since the debt is not of a rigorous kind.

(b) Legal equity is a moral virtue that inclines one to justice beyond the common laws, or it is a correction of the law in that wherein the law by reason of its universality is manifestly deficient. The law is said to be deficient here when its application in a particular case would be prejudicial to the supreme purpose of law (i.e., to the common good or to equal justice). Some precepts of the natural law (e.g., the prohibitions against lying and adultery) cannot be deficient in this way and need no supervising equity. But other precepts of natural law, according to some (e.g., the command that a deposit be returned to the depositor), and also precepts of positive law are found to be unsuitable in exceptional cases. The reason for this defect in a good law lies in the nature of the case; for these laws must be made in view of what happens in the majority of cases, and accordingly they are couched in general terms and permit of exceptions which the lawgiver himself would allow (see on Epieikeia, 411 sqq).

2432. The Greatness of Legal Equity.—(a) It is a distinct virtue, since it inclines the will to do good and avoid iniquity in a matter of special difficulty. It is not a transgression of law, since it upholds the spirit when the letter departs from the spirit, and prizes the lawgiver’s intention to do what is just and right above the lawgiver’s words.

(b) It is a subjective part of common justice, since all that is contained in the concept of justice belongs to equity. Thus, it differs from the potential and integral parts of justice so far treated in Articles 5 and 6.

(c) It pertains to the species, not of particular, but of general or legal justice; for equity extends to all the virtues and is concerned with the debt owed to the common good. Thus, _per se_ its obligation is grave (see 1721).

(d) It is the higher part of legal justice. Just as prudence has two parts—good judgment (_synesis_), which settles ordinary cases of morals according to the usual rules of conduct, and acute judgment (_gnome_), which passes on moral problems that are out of the ordinary run—so legal justice has two acts, a lower which applies the law to usual cases, and a higher (equity) which applies more remote principles (viz., that the common good be not injured, nor injustice done) where the immediate principles of the law are clearly inadequate. Thus, if a madman demands from a depositary the return of his revolver in order to commit murder, the letter of the law would uphold the madman, but equity would decide against him; if the enemy are attacking a city and one cannot repel them except by disregarding an ordinance of the city, the law would forbid one to transgress the ordinance, while equity would command one to transgress it.

(e) Equity is, therefore, the noblest act of strict justice. For legal justice is preferred to particular justice (1703, 1715), and equity is the superior act of legal justice. In will and intention the common good and justice must take precedence over laws and statutes at all times; but in act the supreme ends of law are served, except in extraordinary cases, by obedience to law.

2433. The Complements of Justice.—To each of the various virtues correspond certain complements, namely, Gifts of the Holy Ghost, Fruits of the Holy Ghost, and Beatitudes (see 159).

(a) The Gift that corresponds to justice is piety, for, like justice, piety is exercised towards another, and moreover piety is the completion of the virtue of religion, the highest development of justice. This Gift is defined as “an infused habit that renders the soul well disposed towards God as its kind Father, and makes it quickly responsive to the Holy Spirit when He moves it to acts of filial affection towards God.” As the virtue of piety is shown to earthly fathers, so the Gift of Piety is shown to the Father in heaven: “You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, in which we cry: Abba, Father” (Rom., viii. 15). Religion honors God as Lord, piety as Father; filial fear reveres His majesty, piety His lovingkindness. And as a child tenderly loves all that belongs to a good father, so piety makes the soul rejoice and be glad in the things of God, in the Saints, the Scriptures, the practices of religion, and the like.

(b) The Beatitudes assigned here are the fourth (Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill), which agrees with justice, and the fifth (Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy), which is suitable for piety inasmuch as one who finds his love and joy in God as Father will be compassionate to the suffering creatures of God. Like justice, both of these Beatitudes are exercised in reference to the neighbor (see 164).

(c) The Fruits that seem most appropriate here are good will and kindness, which find a sweet joy in purposing and performing services for others. Like justice, these acts have reference to others (163); like piety, they see in their neighbors the children of the same heavenly Father. Thus, justice when alone is guided by prudence; it pays what is due to God as Lord, to man as neighbor; it acts perhaps with pain, but from a sense of duty. But when justice is supernaturally perfected, it is the Spirit of Piety which guides, and which makes one to see in God one’s Father and in man the child of God; even that which is not owed is given from mercy, and there is a hunger and thirst for justice; and in the payment of duty to others there is at last a joy found in the very difficulty itself.

2434. The Commandments of Justice.—The various precepts regarding justice are contained in the Decalogue. For justice consists in the fulfillment of duties towards others whether they be superiors, equals or inferiors. The Ten Commandments sum up these duties of justice; the first three prescribe the duties owed to God, the fourth the duties owed to human superiors, and the other six the obligations which man has to his equals or to all fellowmen.

2435. The order of the Commandments is most appropriate, for their purpose is to form man to virtue and to lead him to perfection, which consists in the love of God and neighbor (see 1118, 1553 sqq.), and they therefore outline first the service that is owed to God (Commandments of the First Table) and next the service that is owed to man (Commandments of the Second Table).

(a) The Commandments of the First Table lay the foundation of the edifice of justice, for they teach us that our first duty is to render to God the things that are God’s. We must avoid, therefore, the excess of superstition (Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me) and the defect of irreligiousness (Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain); we must practise the virtue of religion (Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath Day).

(b) The Commandments of the Second Table begin with the duties owed to those to whom we are most bound after God, namely, parents, country, superiors (Honor thy father and thy mother). Next follow prohibitions against injuries done to any neighbor by deeds or words, whether the harm be to his person (Thou shalt not kill), or to those who are as one person with him (Thou shalt not commit adultery), or to a neighbor’s external corporal goods (Thou shalt not steal), or to his external incorporeal goods of fame and honor (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor). Finally, there are prohibitions against thoughts or desires injurious to the neighbor, mention being made specially of those internal sins that are most common on account of the utility (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods) or the pleasure (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife) they afford.

2436. We shall not give here any special treatment of the Decalogue. Rather we refer the reader to the excellent explanations that are contained in Part III of The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Moreover, each of the Commandments has been treated in the present work, chiefly in the Articles on justice, and supplementary matter can be drawn from some others of its articles. For the sake of convenience, however, we give here a list of references, showing the passages of this Moral Theology in which the Commandments of the Decalogue are explained.

(a) Thus, for the First Commandment read on superstition (2274 sqq.) for the prohibitory part, on faith, hope and charity (746 sqq.) for the perceptive part.

(b) For the Second Commandment read on irreligiousness (2299) for the prohibitory part; on oaths, adjuration and praise (2245 sqq.) for the preceptive part.

(c) For the Third Commandment as to its natural precept, read on the virtue of religion (2145 sqq.); as to its positive precept, read on positive laws (340 sqq., 352, 425) and on the first Commandment of the Church (see 2575 sqq.).

(d) For the Fourth Commandment read on the virtues of piety, reverence, obedience and gratitude (2344 sqq.). Other matter will be found under charity (1158 sqq., 1211 sqq.) and under the duties of particular states.

(e) For the Fifth Commandment read on homicide, suicide, and bodily injury (1816-1871). Other matter will be found in the Articles on charity (1579 sqq., 1193 sqq.) and on affability (2421 sqq.).

(f) For the Sixth Commandment read on injustice (1719 sqq.), on restitution (1803), and on the virtue of temperance (2461 sqq.).

(g) For the Seventh Commandment read on commutative and distributive justice (1745 sqq.), on restitution (1751 sqq.), on injuries to property (1872-1938), on fraud (2121 sqq.), on liberality (2424 sqq.).

(h) For the Eighth Commandment read on judicial injustice (1939 sqq.), on unjust words (2009 Sqq.), and on truthfulness (2385 sqq.).

(i) For the Ninth and Tenth Commandments read on internal sins (230 sqq.), and on the malice of the internal act of sin (89-93).