|
Objection 1: It would seem one can, without a mortal sin, deny the
truth which would lead to one's condemnation. For Chrysostom says
(Hom. xxxi super Ep. ad Heb.): "I do not say that you should
lay bare your guilt publicly, nor accuse yourself before others."
Now if the accused were to confess the truth in court, he would lay
bare his guilt and be his own accuser. Therefore he is not bound to
tell the truth: and so he does not sin mortally if he tell a lie in
court.
Objection 2: Further, just as it is an officious lie when one tells
a lie in order to rescue another man from death, so is it an officious
lie when one tells a lie in order to free oneself from death, since one
is more bound towards oneself than towards another. Now an officious
lie is considered not a mortal but a venial sin. Therefore if the
accused denies the truth in court, in order to escape death, he does
not sin mortally.
Objection 3: Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity, as
stated above (Question 24, Article 12). But that the accused
lie by denying himself to be guilty of the crime laid to his charge is
not contrary to charity, neither as regards the love we owe God, nor
as to the love due to our neighbor. Therefore such a lie is not a
mortal sin.
On the contrary, Whatever is opposed to the glory of God is a mortal
sin, because we are bound by precept to "do all to the glory of God"
(1 Cor. 10:31). Now it is to the glory of God that the
accused confess that which is alleged against him, as appears from the
words of Josue to Achan, "My son, give glory to the Lord God of
Israel, and confess and tell me what thou hast done, hide it not"
(Joshua 7:19). Therefore it is a mortal sin to lie in order to
cover one's guilt.
I answer that, Whoever acts against the due order of justice, sins
mortally, as stated above (Question 59, Article 4). Now it
belongs to the order of justice that a man should obey his superior in
those matters to which the rights of his authority extend. Again, the
judge, as stated above (Question 67, Article 1), is the
superior in relation to the person whom he judges. Therefore the
accused is in duty bound to tell the judge the truth which the latter
exacts from him according to the form of law. Hence if he refuse to
tell the truth which he is under obligation to tell, or if he
mendaciously deny it, he sins mortally. If, on the other hand, the
judge asks of him that which he cannot ask in accordance with the order
of justice, the accused is not bound to satisfy him, and he may
lawfully escape by appealing or otherwise: but it is not lawful for him
to lie.
Reply to Objection 1: When a man is examined by the judge according
to the order of justice, he does not lay bare his own guilt, but his
guilt is unmasked by another, since the obligation of answering is
imposed on him by one whom he is bound to obey.
Reply to Objection 2: To lie, with injury to another person, in
order to rescue a man from death is not a purely officious lie, for it
has an admixture of the pernicious lie: and when a man lies in court in
order to exculpate himself, he does an injury to one whom he is bound
to obey, since he refuses him his due, namely an avowal of the truth.
Reply to Objection 3: He who lies in court by denying his guilt,
acts both against the love of God to whom judgment belongs, and
against the love of his neighbor, and this not only as regards the
judge, to whom he refuses his due, but also as regards his accuser,
who is punished if he fail to prove his accusation. Hence it is
written (Ps. 140:4): "Incline not my heart to evil words,
to make excuses in sins": on which words a gloss says: "Shameless
men are wont by lying to deny their guilt when they have been found
out." And Gregory in expounding Job 31:33, "If as a man I
have hid my sin," says (Moral. xxii, 15): "It is a common
vice of mankind to sin in secret, by lying to hide the sin that has
been committed, and when convicted to aggravate the sin by defending
oneself."
|
|