|
Objection 1: It seems that not all dissimulation is a sin. For it
is written (Lk. 24:28) that our Lord "pretended he would go
farther"; and Ambrose in his book on the Patriarchs (De Abraham
i) says of Abraham that he "spoke craftily to his servants, when he
said" (Gn. 22:5): "I and the boy will go with speed as far
as yonder, and after we have worshipped, will return to you." Now
to pretend and to speak craftily savor of dissimulation: and yet it is
not to be said that there was sin in Christ or Abraham. Therefore
not all dissimulation is a sin.
Objection 2: Further, no sin is profitable. But according to
Jerome, in his commentary on Gal. 2:11, "When Peter was come
to Antioch:---The example of Jehu, king of Israel, who slew
the priest of Baal, pretending that he desired to worship idols,
should teach us that dissimulation is useful and sometimes to be
employed"; and David "changed his countenance before" Achis, king
of Geth (1 Kgs. 21:13). Therefore not all dissimulation is
a sin.
Objection 3: Further, good is contrary to evil. Therefore if it
is evil to simulate good, it is good to simulate evil.
Objection 4: Further, it is written in condemnation of certain
people (Is. 3:9): "They have proclaimed abroad their sin as
Sodom, and they have not hid it." Now it pertains to dissimulation
to hide one's sin. Therefore it is reprehensible sometimes not to
simulate. But it is never reprehensible to avoid sin. Therefore
dissimulation is not a sin.
On the contrary, A gloss on Is. 16:14, "In three years,"
etc., says: "Of the two evils it is less to sin openly than to
simulate holiness." But to sin openly is always a sin. Therefore
dissimulation is always a sin.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 109, Article 3;
Question 110, Article 1), it belongs to the virtue of truth to
show oneself outwardly by outward signs to be such as one is. Now
outward signs are not only words, but also deeds. Accordingly just as
it is contrary to truth to signify by words something different from
that which is in one's mind, so also is it contrary to truth to employ
signs of deeds or things to signify the contrary of what is in oneself,
and this is what is properly denoted by dissimulation. Consequently
dissimulation is properly a lie told by the signs of outward deeds.
Now it matters not whether one lie in word or in any other way, as
stated above (Question 110, Article 1, Objection 2).
Wherefore, since every lie is a sin, as stated above (Question
110, Article 3), it follows that also all dissimulation is a
sin.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Questions.
Evang. ii), "To pretend is not always a lie: but only when the
pretense has no signification, then it is a lie. When, however, our
pretense refers to some signification, there is no lie, but a
representation of the truth." And he cites figures of speech as an
example, where a thing is "pretended," for we do not mean it to be
taken literally but as a figure of something else that we wish to say.
In this way our Lord "pretended He would go farther," because He
acted as if wishing to go farther; in order to signify something
figuratively either because He was far from their faith, according to
Gregory (Hom. xxiii in Ev.); or, as Augustine says (De
Questions. Evang. ii), because, "as He was about to go farther
away from them by ascending into heaven, He was, so to speak, held
back on earth by their hospitality."
Abraham also spoke figuratively. Wherefore Ambrose (De Abraham
i) says that Abraham "foretold what he knew not": for he intended
to return alone after sacrificing his son: but by his mouth the Lord
expressed what He was about to do. It is evident therefore that
neither dissembled.
Reply to Objection 2: Jerome employs the term "simulation" in a
broad sense for any kind of pretense. David's change of countenance
was a figurative pretense, as a gloss observes in commenting on the
title of Ps. 33, "I will bless the Lord at all times." There
is no need to excuse Jehu's dissimulation from sin or lie, because he
was a wicked man, since he departed not from the idolatry of Jeroboam
(4 Kgs. 10:29,31). And yet he is praised withal and
received an earthly reward from God, not for his dissimulation, but
for his zeal in destroying the worship of Baal.
Reply to Objection 3: Some say that no one may pretend to be
wicked, because no one pretends to be wicked by doing good deeds, and
if he do evil deeds, he is evil. But this argument proves nothing.
Because a man might pretend to be evil, by doing what is not evil in
itself but has some appearance of evil: and nevertheless this
dissimulation is evil, both because it is a lie, and because it gives
scandal; and although he is wicked on this account, yet his wickedness
is not the wickedness he simulates. And because dissimulation is evil
in itself, its sinfulness is not derived from the thing simulated,
whether this be good or evil.
Reply to Objection 4: Just as a man lies when he signifies by word
that which he is not, yet lies not when he refrains from saying what he
is, for this is sometimes lawful; so also does a man dissemble, when
by outward signs of deeds or things he signifies that which he is not,
yet he dissembles not if he omits to signify what he is. Hence one may
hide one's sin without being guilty of dissimulation. It is thus that
we must understand the saying of Jerome on the words of Isaias
3:9, that the "second remedy after shipwreck is to hide one's
sin," lest, to wit, others be scandalized thereby.
|
|