Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that hypocrisy is not contrary to the virtue of truth. For in dissimulation or hypocrisy there is a sign and a thing signified. Now with regard to neither of these does it seem to be opposed to any special virtue: for a hypocrite simulates any virtue, and by means of any virtuous deeds, such as fasting, prayer and alms deeds, as stated in Mt. 6:1-18. Therefore hypocrisy is not specially opposed to the virtue of truth.

Objection 2: Further, all dissimulation seems to proceed from guile, wherefore it is opposed to simplicity. Now guile is opposed to prudence as above stated (Question 55, Article 4). Therefore, hypocrisy which is dissimulation is not opposed to truth, but rather to prudence or simplicity.

Objection 3: Further, the species of moral acts is taken from their end. Now the end of hypocrisy is the acquisition of gain or vainglory: wherefore a gloss on Job 27:8, "What is the hope of the hypocrite, if through covetousness he take by violence," says: "A hypocrite or, as the Latin has it, a dissimulator, is a covetous thief: for through desire of being honored for holiness, though guilty of wickedness, he steals praise for a life which is not his." Therefore since covetousness or vainglory is not directly opposed to truth, it seems that neither is hypocrisy or dissimulation.

On the contrary, All dissimulation is a lie, as stated above (Article 1). Now a lie is directly opposed to truth. Therefore dissimulation or hypocrisy is also.

I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. text. 13, 24, x), "contrariety is opposition as regards form," i.e. the specific form. Accordingly we must reply that dissimulation or hypocrisy may be opposed to a virtue in two ways, in one way directly, in another way indirectly. Its direct opposition or contrariety is to be considered with regard to the very species of the act, and this species depends on that act's proper object. Wherefore since hypocrisy is a kind of dissimulation, whereby a man simulates a character which is not his, as stated in the preceding article, it follows that it is directly opposed to truth whereby a man shows himself in life and speech to be what he is, as stated in Ethic. iv, 7.

The indirect opposition or contrariety of hypocrisy may be considered in relation to any accident, for instance a remote end, or an instrument of action, or anything else of that kind.

Reply to Objection 1: The hypocrite in simulating a virtue regards it as his end, not in respect of its existence, as though he wished to have it, but in respect of appearance, since he wishes to seem to have it. Hence his hypocrisy is not opposed to that virtue, but to truth, inasmuch as he wishes to deceive men with regard to that virtue. And he performs acts of that virtue, not as intending them for their own sake, but instrumentally, as signs of that virtue, wherefore his hypocrisy has not, on that account, a direct opposition to that virtue.

Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question 55, Articles 3,4,5), the vice directly opposed to prudence is cunning, to which it belongs to discover ways of achieving a purpose, that are apparent and not real: while it accomplishes that purpose, by guile in words, and by fraud in deeds: and it stands in relation to prudence, as guile and fraud to simplicity. Now guile and fraud are directed chiefly to deception, and sometimes secondarily to injury. Wherefore it belongs directly to simplicity to guard oneself from deception, and in this way the virtue of simplicity is the same as the virtue of truth as stated above (Question 109, Article 2, ad 4). There is, however, a mere logical difference between them, because by truth we mean the concordance between sign and thing signified, while simplicity indicates that one does not tend to different things, by intending one thing inwardly, and pretending another outwardly.

Reply to Objection 3: Gain or glory is the remote end of the dissembler as also of the liar. Hence it does not take its species from this end, but from the proximate end, which is to show oneself other than one is. Wherefore it sometimes happens to a man to pretend great things of himself, for no further purpose than the mere lust of hypocrisy, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7), and as also we have said above with regard to lying (Question 110, Article 2).

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod hypocrisis non opponatur virtuti veritatis. In simulatione enim sive hypocrisi est signum et signatum. Sed quantum ad utrumque, non videtur opponi alicui speciali virtuti, hypocrita enim simulat quamcumque virtutem; et etiam per quaecumque virtutis opera, puta per ieiunium, orationem et eleemosynam, ut habetur Matth. VI.

Ergo hypocrisis non opponitur specialiter virtuti veritatis.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, omnis simulatio ex aliquo dolo procedere videtur, unde et simplicitati opponitur. Dolus autem opponitur prudentiae, ut supra habitum est.

Ergo hypocrisis, quae est simulatio.

Non opponitur veritati, sed magis prudentiae vel simplicitati.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, species Moralium considerantur ex fine.

Sed finis hypocrisis est acquisitio lucri vel inanis gloriae, unde super illud iob XXVII, quae est spes hypocritae, si avare rapiat etc., dicit Glossa, hypocrita, qui Latine dicitur simulator, avarus raptor est, qui dum inique agens desiderat de sanctitate venerari, laudem vitae rapit alienae.

Cum ergo avaritia, vel inanis gloria, non directe opponatur veritati, videtur quod nec simulatio sive hypocrisis.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quia omnis simulatio est mendacium quoddam, ut dictum est.

Mendacium autem directe opponitur veritati.

Ergo et simulatio sive hypocrisis.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in X metaphys., contrarietas est oppositio secundum formam, a qua scilicet res speciem habet. Et ideo dicendum est quod simulatio sive hypocrisis potest opponi alicui virtuti dupliciter, uno modo, directe; et alio modo, indirecte. Directa quidem oppositio eius sive contrarietas est attendenda secundum ipsam speciem actus, quae accipitur secundum proprium obiectum. Unde cum hypocrisis sit quaedam simulatio qua quis simulat se habere personam quam non habet, ut dictum est, consequens est quod directe opponatur veritati, per quam aliquis exhibet se talem vita et sermone qualis est, ut dicitur in IV ethic..

Indirecta autem oppositio vel contrarietas hypocrisis potest attendi secundum quodcumque accidens, puta secundum aliquem finem remotum, vel secundum aliquod instrumentum actus, vel quodcumque aliud huiusmodi.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hypocrita simulans aliquam virtutem, assumit eam ut finem non quidem secundum existentiam, quasi volens eam habere; sed secundum apparentiam, quasi volens videri eam habere. Ex quo non habet quod opponatur illi virtuti, sed quod opponatur veritati, inquantum vult decipere homines circa illam virtutem. Opera autem illius virtutis non assumit quasi per se intenta, sed instrumentaliter, quasi signa illius virtutis. Unde ex hoc non habet directam oppositionem ad illam virtutem.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, prudentiae directe opponitur astutia, ad quam pertinet adinvenire quasdam vias apparentes et non existentes ad propositum consequendum. Executio autem astutiae est proprie per dolum in verbis, per fraudem autem in factis. Et sicut astutia se habet ad prudentiam, ita dolus et fraus ad simplicitatem. Dolus autem vel fraus ordinatur ad decipiendum principaliter, et quandoque secundario ad nocendum. Unde ad simplicitatem pertinet directe se praeservare a deceptione. Et secundum hoc, ut supra dictum est, virtus simplicitatis est eadem virtuti veritatis, sed differt sola ratione, quia veritas dicitur secundum quod signa concordant signatis; simplicitas autem dicitur secundum quod non tendit in diversa, ut scilicet aliud intendat interius, aliud praetendat exterius.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod lucrum vel gloria est finis remotus simulatoris, sicut et mendacis. Unde ex hoc fine speciem non sortitur, sed ex fine proximo, qui est ostendere se alium quam sit.

Unde quandoque contingit quod aliquis fingit de se magna, nullius alterius gratia, sed sola libidine simulandi, sicut philosophus dicit, in IV ethic., et sicut etiam supra de mendacio dictum est.