Conferences on the Virtues
By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Number 86
The Virtue of Truth
Section
E – TRUTH
When the word Truth
is used as something objective, that is, apart from the apprehension of it by
the mind, it is a synonym for Reality, that is, what material and
spiritual beings, created or Uncreated, really and truly are in
and of themselves.
When the human
mind has formed an idea of objective reality that is perfectly accurate
and conforms perfectly with what that being is in and of itself, then the mind
is said to be in possession of the Truth concerning that reality.
In this section
of the Treatise on the Cardinal Virtues, we will now consider the Virtue of
Truth as one of the Virtues affiliated with, that is, resembling in some
respects, the Cardinal Virtue of Justice.
Question
1 – Nature of the Virtue of Truth…
Truth
(or veracity) is the moral virtue which inclines one to express exactly in
speech (written or spoken) the ideas or knowledge one adheres to [as
subjective truth] in one’s mind. This
virtue is also extended by some to include the conformity of one’s deeds
to that subjective truth.
As everyone
learns by experience quite early in life, what one thinks a thing to be
and what it really is are not always the same. With regard to the virtue of Truth, what one actually thinks is
True is itself a datum of objective reality, and we give that datum the name subjective
Truth. For the virtue of Truth,
then, it is not essential that what one sincerely thinks is true be actually,
objectively true.
Since an act of
the virtue of Truth consists in speaking in perfect conformity with
one’s mind, we can say that it has two integral parts, or rather, is manifested
in two different ways. They are by
1. Simplicity,
or by the intention of excluding duplicity. A person is guilty of duplicity when he has one thing in mind,
but expresses something different.
Or by
2. Fidelity,
which is the sincere intention of carrying out one’s
promises.
In
the former, clearly, one’s word is simply taken to be a statement of
fact; the mere fact of what one adheres to mentally.
In
the latter, clearly, one’s word is taken to be an expressed promise to
do or not do something at a future time, and thus is an expression of what one intends
to do at a later time.
The virtue of
Truth is affiliated with the cardinal virtue of Justice because we owe it to
others to say in speech and action what it is we actually think to be true, and
adhere to as true. This is not a strict
legal debt. A legal debt only
comes into existence by mutual agreement between parties. The obligation to speak truthfully is a moral
debt, in the sense that we human beings could not live in harmony without being
able to rely on the spoken word of one another. Our nature as social beings requires this of us.
The virtue of
Truth also resembles the virtue of Justice because it requires equality or
perfect conformity between what is in one’s mind and intention and
one’s verbal statement of what is one’s mind and intention. With regard to the virtue of Justice, as you
recall, the equality has to be between what is acknowledged as owed
and what is paid or delivered to satisfy the debt.
Because the
virtue of truth is essential for the peaceful and orderly conduct of human
social relationships, it is possible to commit sins of untruth in two possible
ways:
1. By
saying something other than what we hold to be the truth, whether it is
something totally different, or only partially different.
2. By
speaking what we know to be the truth when we are obliged to keep it hidden,
that is, when no one else has a right to share that knowledge. This, of course, has to do with what would
injure another person or injure human relationships.
In
the first instance, we have the sin of telling a lie or bearing false
witness.
In
the second, the sin of betraying a secret.
Question
2 – Betrayal of Secrets…
As you know, a
secret is the knowledge of a fact that is possessed by one person (or very few
persons), and not known by others. By
the way the word is used in ordinary speech, the little known fact or datum of
information is usually one that should not be made common
knowledge. The word secret, as a matter
of fact, comes from the Latin secerno, secernere, secrevi, secretus. Secernere means to set aside, to
separate.
The obligation
to keep certain information secret can arise in several ways:
1. Naturally,
when the little known fact concerns the private life of another, and is such as
to be harmful to his reputation or cause him some kind of loss, should it
become common knowledge. It is
understood that the party in question does not want the fact to become
generally known.
2. As
the result of a promise freely made.
In such a circumstance, there is no natural obligation to keep the
information secret, but the obligation is assumed at the request of the
person it concerns.
In
the two instances just mentioned, the unknown fact is often accidentally
discovered by the one who is obliged to keep the secret.
3. When
the little known information is committed or made known to someone on
the condition that the one receiving it will henceforth not divulge
it. The obligation arising here is a contractual
one.
4. When
the information about a person becomes known in the course of a professional
relationship. Thus, Doctors,
Psychiatrists, Counselors, Attorneys, and particularly Confessors, are under a
serious obligation to keep information concerning their clients strictly
confidential. With the exception of
Confessors, though, at times the Professional may be obliged to reveal that
information to the next of kin, i.e, a parent or a spouse, who, of course,
would naturally also keep the information confidential.
Principles
concerning secret knowledge…
Everyone has a
strict right to have his/her intimately personal matters kept hidden from
others. This right arises partly out of
the dominion one naturally enjoys over his/her personal thoughts and
over the fruits of personal genius and labors.
Partly it arises out of the right everyone has to a good name and to
basic material goods of fortune. And partly
it arises out of the fact that privacy of this sort is necessary for the common
good. Therefore it is, objectively
speaking, serious sin
1. To
investigate secrets
2. To
betray secrets, and
3. To
make use of secret knowledge.
With regard to
the first, only lawful authority, and then only for a just cause, can inquire
into the secrets of an individual.
Superiors such as Bishops, Judges, and parents have such a right when
necessary for the protection of the common good of the Church, Civil society,
and the family.
Because secret
knowledge about a person is analogous to personal property, to take
possession of it through force, fraud and deceit is likened to robbery
and theft. The gravity of the
sin depends upon the nature of the secret thus unlawfully appropriated.
With regard to
the second: by betraying a secret, one
certainly commits a sin against Charity, and often against fidelity and justice
as well, either because of a promise made to keep it secret, or because
received on the condition of keeping it secret.
With regard to
the third: making use of secret
knowledge usually amounts to giving someone an unfair advantage over those not
party to the secret knowledge, and most often harms the person who alone has a
legitimate right to that knowledge.
The only legitimate
reason for doing so is the necessity of preventing harm, whether to
an innocent person or to a group or class of persons, including harm to oneself
or to one’s community. The harm to the
innocent person or the community by keeping the secret must obviously be much
more serious than that done to the individual harmed by the revelation.
Also, the harm
in question must be imminent.
Here are a few examples given in the textbook:
1. A
doctor knows that a certain person has a contagious, though not readily
discernible, a disease that is contracted through sinful conduct.
The
fact that the infected person would suffer loss of reputation does not suffice
to prevent the doctor from revealing the truth of the matter to persons who
routinely have dealings with him, both for their good and for that of the
community.
2. A
priest may know a hidden truth about a man that is an impediment to his
contracting a valid marriage. Should he
learn that this person plans to marry despite the impediment, the priest is
obliged to reveal the truth to the fiancée, unless the priest learned of
the impediment by hearing the confession of the man. The seal of the confession can never be lawfully violated.
3. Someone
is falsely accused of murder, is tried, found guilty, and is condemned to
death. A person who knows the identity
of the guilty party is obliged to reveal the truth in order to save the life of
the innocent person. However, if, by
doing so, the revealer would put himself in grave danger of being convicted of
murder as an accomplice, and perhaps himself be given the death sentence, he
would ordinarily not be obliged to name the guilty party in spite of the
harm done to the innocent convicted person.
Having included
as examples the situations in (2) and (3) above, it now seems to me that it
would have been better to say that the question as to whether a secret should
be revealed or not must be decided on a case-to-case basis in consultation with
one’s confessor.
In addition to
the obligation to keep certain unknown facts about a person secret, there is
also the obligation to avoid prying into the private lives of
others. One source of this information
would be the personal correspondence of another.
Hence it is a grave
sin by its very nature to open the personal mail of another person. And even when, by accident and without
deliberate intent, someone happens upon the private mail of another that is
already opened and carelessly left lying about, it would still be gravely sinful
for him to read the contents.
Having stated
the principle, this is what my textbook has to say about reading and/or
divulging the contents of letters:
1. They
sin gravely who try to find out secret matters of great importance concerning
the family, the business or the conscience of another person.
2. It
would be a slight or venial sin if someone were to pick up and read a letter
that was carelessly left lying about provided it could be reasonably assumed
that the letter contained nothing more than matters of little moment such as
greetings, news of minor events, commercial advertising, and the like, that
would not damage the name or the reputation of the letter’s author.
Neither
would it be a serious sin if someone picked up and read such a letter out of
mere curiosity and without full awareness of what he were doing, provided the
person stopped reading as soon as he were to come upon something the nature of
which is such that the writer ordinarily would not want it to become generally
known.
3. To
read the letter of another person would be no sin at all if either the writer
or the recipient were to give express or tacit consent. However, tacit permission is not to be
presumed lightly.
Such consent or permission exists when
(a) Spouses
permit wife or husband to read their personal mail, or when friends share
letters received from another mutual friend.
(b) In
religious houses, superiors, in virtue of permission granted by the Rule and
Constitutions of the Institute, routinely read the outgoing mail of novices and
members in initial formation.
Exempt,
however, are letters addressed to higher superiors or letters dealing with
conscience matters.
(c) A
person has grave and well-founded reasons to suspect that the letter of a
subject contains information that would gravely harm himself or some lawful
cause dear to himself, but only to the extent necessary to determine the nature
of the letter or to prevent any possible harm.
Thus
it is that Public Officials are allowed to censor mail in wartime, and Wardens
of Prisons can censor the mail of the inmates.
This right also extends to parents over the letters of their minor
children, provided reasonable grounds exist to justify its use.
Ordinarily,
though, for spouses to intercept and read the private mail of wife or husband,
and for masters to read those of their household servants, is not permissible
without a very, very grave and well-founded belief that the letters contain
something that will seriously injure family relationships.
4. Letters
that are thrown out intact or otherwise knowingly left lying about in public
places may be read without violating the right to privacy of either he writer
or the recipient. In such a case it is
reasonably presumed that there is nothing in them that either would want to be
kept hidden.
In
the event something is found in a discarded letter that ordinarily should be
kept secret, the reader would not be guilty of unjust prying, but would
be obliged to treat the information as a secret committed to him, knowledge
which he has no right to divulge.
Letters
which are torn up and discarded may not lawfully be read, since the act
of tearing them up, that is, destroying them, is evidence that neither writer
nor recipient wants the contents thereof to become known.
5. It
sometimes happens that circumstances change to such an extent that a person who
has unjustifiably opened a letter and obtained secret knowledge later acquires
a right to that knowledge and may make use of it despite the fact that harm
could befall the one it concerns.
Question
3 – Concerning Lies…
A Lie is
a statement that does not measure up to Truth, and is said to be speech
that does not agree with one’s mind or thoughts.
By the
expression speech is meant any tangible expression of a fact by an
external symbol, words, writing, deed or gesture.
This definition
of a Lie admits of distinction into Lies strictly speaking, which are
uttered by word of mouth or its graphic equivalent (the written word), and Simulated
Lies, which are manifested by deeds.
One species of this second kind is hypocrisy, which is simulated
(not actual) holiness.
Does
not agree with one’s mind or thoughts: This means that one must deliberately
intend to utter something he knows to be false.
Thus it is
possible that someone may, truly and in good faith, utter a falsehood that he
erroneously believes is the truth. He
would not be guilty of a lie, because he does not intend to lie. In this context, he is merely making a
mistake.
On the other
hand, someone may intend to utter a falsehood, but because he is
mistaken as to the truth of what he holds to with his mind, is actually telling
the objective truth. He is nevertheless
guilty of the sin of lying. In other
words, it is the intent to deceive that makes an utterance a Lie.
Principle
I – Every Lie is a Sin
This is evident
because it is forbidden by the Eight Commandment expressly, and also by other
passages in Holy Scripture.
But even were
its sinfulness not to be expressly stated in the Bible, it follows from reason
that a lie is, by its very nature, an evil act.
It is obvious
to every thoughtful person that the gift of speech was given to us as a means
of making known to others the thoughts and ideas that exist in our minds. To use speech to express what is not in
our mind and thoughts is a functional disorder. By its very nature,
disorder is evil.
Also, we use
speech to convey to others all kinds of information and experience that we have
accumulated concerning the world in which we live. Since this world, because of original sin, tends to be hostile to
our well being and happiness, we need [and have a right to] reliable
knowledge in order to keep from harming ourselves and our souls or being harmed
by what is in the world around us. To
intend to deceive others about such important matters is grievously detrimental
to the Common Good and the good of individuals. Hence it is a sin not only against Justice, but also against
Charity. In other words, we (and
others) have a right to the Truth (Justice), while others (and we too)
are obliged (by Charity) to avoid doing what can harm other people.
Catholic Moral
Theology distinguishes three kinds of Lies:
1. A
White Lie.
2. A
Jocose Lie, and
3. A
Pernicious Lie.
The White
Lie is an untruth spoken for the express purpose of personal advantage or
for that of another. Usually its
purpose is to get oneself or another out of a tough spot.
The Jocose
Lie is an untruth spoken for the sake of provoking laughter and of enjoying
the delight that accompanies laughter.
The Pernicious
Lie is an untruth spoken for the express purpose of doing harm.
Although my textbook
doesn’t say it, it appears that an untruth could partake of all three
categories at the same time.
If a White Lie
is only that, and not contaminated by traces of the other two we’ve mentioned,
it is, by its nature, the least sinful of the three (according to my textbook).
If a Jocose Lie
were just that and nothing more, it would be slightly more sinful than the
White Lie (according to my textbook), and thus not grievous.
However, both
of them could be grievously sinful if by happenstance, they would be the
occasion of giving serious scandal or otherwise doing harm to an innocent
party.
On the other
hand, whether mixed with the other kinds or not, a Pernicious Lie is
always a grievous sin because by its very nature it is an act expressive of Hatred,
which is diametrically opposed to God, whose nature is Love.
The most
serious of all Pernicious Lies are those that do harm to God (to His Name, His
Majesty, His Truth, etc.) or to God’s interests in the souls of His human
creatures.
Principle
II – Although it is Never Licit to Tell a Lie, it is Sometimes Licit Prudently
to Conceal the Truth by some kind of Dissimulation.
[Please do not
confuse dissimulation, which is morally permissible, with simulation,
which is not.]
There are two
ways of dissimulating in order to conceal the Truth. One is called an Equivocation; the other is called a Mental
Reservation.
From the Latin
root (aequa vox = an equal voice), an Equivocation is a statement that
can be understood in two distinct ways, one of which is literal, ordinary and
common, whereas the other is somewhat figurative and less common, but which can
be understood to be applicable under the circumstances.
A Mental
Reservation, as the very words imply, is mentally restricting the
application of the words used.
A Pure
mental reservation is one that cannot be perceived and understood in any way by
a listener. For example, if asked point
blank: Did you take my book? The
guilty party might respond I did not [take it with my left hand]. The square brackets contain the unuttered
statement by which he restricts, in his mind; the meaning of I did not.
A Broad
mental reservation is one in which a limitation on the meaning of the express
words is made mentally, but which can be perceived by a listener in virtue of
circumstances or common usage.
For
example: A policeman might ask a priest
“Do you know who committed this crime?” And the priest, who has recently
heard the confession of the guilty party, would be able to answer “No” [not
with knowledge I am allowed to divulge].
Again, the mental limitation is not audible, but any person of common
intelligence knows that any priest gets to know of things in virtue of his
office which he cannot divulge under pain of serious sin.
MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose
of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be
reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden
without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites,
Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.