St. Augustine's Thoughts on Lies

Selected from two works: De mendacio and Contra mendacium ad Consentium. In addition to the disclosure of the main subject, in these works the witty and, for the most part, thorough explanations of many passages of Holy Scripture are noteworthy. In the time of St. Augustine, there were people who tried to prove that in some cases lying is necessary, and therefore permissible for a Christian. Against this opinion, Augustine argues that lying cannot be justified by anything, and that it is under no circumstances permissible for a Christian to use it, even for a good purpose. First of all, Augustine defines what a lie is. A lie, he says, happens when someone has one thing in his thoughts and expresses another in words or some other signs. That is why it is said that a liar has a double heart, that is, a double thought, one about what he considers to be true and what he does not express, the other about what he expresses, knowing that it is false. So, according to the speaker’s thoughts, it is necessary to determine whether to recognize him as a liar or not. Whoever speaks a lie instead of the truth, thinking that he is speaking the truth, can be called erring and rash; to call him a liar would be unfair: he does not have a double thought - he does not want to deceive, but he himself is deceived. The guilt of a liar lies precisely in the fact that he wants to deceive, regardless of whether he succeeds or fails to do so. Such deliberate lies are expressly forbidden in Holy Scripture. The Decalogue says: do not listen to false testimony (Ex. 20:16), where of course all lies. The book of psalms says: destroy all who speak lies (Ps. 5:7). He is pleasing to the Lord who speaks the truth in his heart and does not deceive with his tongue (Ps. 14:2:3). A lying mouth kills the soul (Wis.1:11). The Lord Himself says: let your word be: yes, no, no, it is unnecessary to sow because of hostility (Matthew 5:37). And the Apostle, when he taught Christians to put off the old man, by which is meant all kinds of sins, says: Therefore, having put away lies, speak the truth to everyone who is sincere (Eph. 4:25). But just as the sayings of Holy Scripture can be subject to arbitrary, often incorrect interpretations, Augustine points out a means for the correct understanding of the instructions offered in Holy Scripture. “Scripture,” he says, contains not only the commandments of God, but also descriptions of the life and deeds of the righteous, so that if it seems unclear to us how to understand this or that commandment, then this can be explained by the deeds of the righteous. However, here it is necessary to exclude those cases about which, although no one doubts that they were really committed, but which anyone can interpret allegorically. This is almost the entire story of the Old Testament. For if the Apostle says about the sons of Abraham, who, of course, were naturally born and lived, that they meant two covenants (Gal. 4:22-24), and about that wondrous good deed that God showed to the Israelites in delivering them from the slavery of Egypt, and about the punishments that they suffered for their sins on the way to the Promised Land, he says that all this image was received dumbly ( 1 Cor. 10:1–11): then what events of the Old Testament cannot be explained allegorically? So, with the exception of these acts, the acts of the saints in the New Testament, which most clearly encourage us to imitate their morals, have the value of examples serving to explain the moral instructions of Scripture. So, when we read in the Gospel: if someone strikes you on the right side of your cheek, turn to him the other too (Matthew 5:39), then, of course, we must find a superior example of patience in the patience of the Lord himself. But when He received a blow on the cheek from the bishop’s servant, He did not say: “Here is another cheek for you,” but said: If you speak evil, testify about evil, or if it is good that you hit me? (John 18:23), which showed that the conversion of the other cheek, required by the commandment, must be complete in the heart. The Apostle Paul, of course, knew this, for he too, when, at the order of the high priest, they began to beat him in the face, he did not say: “strike me on the other cheek,” but said: “God will beat you, the wall has fallen” (Acts 23:3), seeing in spiritual contemplation that the Jewish priesthood had become such that it shone only with the outward splendor of its name, but was inwardly defiled unclean passions, and saying this, he foresaw in spirit that according to the righteous judgment of God it should be abolished; but at the same time, in his heart he was ready not only to endure new blows to the face, but also to endure all the torment for the truth, with love for those from whom he suffered these torments. It is also written: But I say to you: do not swear in every way (Matthew 5:34). But the Apostle himself used an oath in his epistles (Rom. 9:1; Phil. 1:8; Galat. 1:20), and thus showed how one must understand the Lord’s commandment about an oath, that is, that one must be careful not to move from an oath to too easy the use of an oath (ne a jurando ad faciltatem jurandi ueniatur), and from here to the habit swear, and from this habit do not fall into perjury. Therefore we do not see the Apostle ever swearing, except in his writings, where more careful reflection restrained the tongue from being careless in swearing. And this oath, of course, was out of hostility, that is, from imperfection 1, as it is said (Matthew 5:37), however, not his own, but from imperfection, that is, weakness, of those whom he tried in this way to assure of the truth. But just as it cannot be said that the Apostle was guilty of violating the commandment of the Lord, especially in his epistles, written and distributed in the Church to guide people to spiritual life and salvation, it must be understood that the word: everything in the commandment of the Lord is said so that you, as much as depends on you, try not to swear, not to love oaths, not to want to use it. It is also said: do not worry about the morning, and: do not worry about what pits or what we drink or what we wear (Matthew 6:31:34). But when we see that the Lord Himself 2 had little arks into which what was given was placed and stored for time-necessary use (John 12:6), and subsequently the Apostles carefully collected in advance for the needs of the brethren, not only for the next day, but also for the longer time of famine that was to come, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 11:28–30) 3: then it is quite clear that These commandments must be understood in such a way that we should not do any of our work out of passion for acquiring temporary goods, or out of sheer fear of need, only as if out of necessity 4 . Having thus established a rule for the correct understanding of the meaning of the sayings of Holy Scripture, Augustine, based on these sayings, refutes the objections of the defenders of lies. They said that anyone who lies for any reason does not betray the truth in his heart. Augustine says against this that even with the lips one should not betray the truth, that in a Christian there should not be a split between thought and language, that when it is said: with the heart one believes in the truth, it is not in vain that it is added: one confesses with the lips for salvation. Didn’t all those who almost renounced Christ before the persecutors have faith in Him in their hearts, but without confessing this faith with their lips for salvation, they perished, except for those who through repentance were raised again to life? And the Apostle Peter, when he denied Christ, of course, to believe in Him, kept the truth in his heart, but with his lips he uttered lies. Why did he have to wash his verbal renunciation with bitter tears if heartfelt belief alone was enough for salvation? That is why he shed tears because he saw destruction in the fact that, believing in the truth in his heart, he did not confess it with his lips for salvation. Therefore, what is written in the psalm: speak the truth in your heart cannot be understood as if you can, while keeping the truth in your heart, speak a lie with your lips. These words were spoken against those who would only speak the truth with their lips, but would not have it in their hearts, and for whom it would therefore not bring any benefit, that is, if they did not believe in what they say. That is why in the psalm, after the words: speak the truth in your heart, it is added: you who do not deceive with your tongue. The defenders of lies considered it permissible to use lies in relations with non-Christians, with heretics, since the above saying of the Apostle says that we must speak the truth to our sincere ones, that is, only to a Christian like us. Augustine says against this that the Apostle said so because each of us should honor every person with what we want him to be, that is, a member of the body of Christ, even if he has not yet become one, as the Lord showed that the Samaritan foreigner is the neighbor of the one to whom he showed mercy (Luke 10:30-37). So, one must honor one as a neighbor, and not as a stranger, with whom one must act in such a way that he does not remain (forever) a stranger; and if, because he has not yet become a participant in our faith and sacraments, something true can be hidden from him for a while, however, therefore, one should not tell him something false. In general, says Augustine, it is not the same thing to hide the truth and tell a lie. For although everyone who lies wants to hide the truth, not everyone who wants to hide the truth lies. The Lord did not speak falsely when he said to his disciples: The imam speaks many things to you, but you cannot wear the clothes (John 16:12). He kept silent about the true, but did not speak falsely; He kept silent because He knew that His disciples were still unable to hear this true thing. If He had not declared this to them, i.e., that they could not yet contain what He had kept silent about before them, then we would not have known that it was fair and permissible to do this and would not have had such an example to support us. Those who argue that sometimes one must lie, groundlessly point to Abraham as if he lied when he called Sarah his sister. He did not say: this is not my wife, but he said: this is my sister, because she really was his sister by father (Gen. 20:2:12). So, he hid part of the truth (aliquid veri taccuit) with silence, but did not say anything false. His son Isaac subsequently did the same, for we know that his wife was also a relative to him (Gen. 26:7 and 24 ch.). Defenders of lies said that it happens that if we tell the truth, we will harm our neighbor; if we tell a lie, then we will do him a favor: in such cases, in their opinion, it is permissible to use a lie for a good purpose. Augustine discusses this subject at length, arguing that it is not permissible to lie even for a good purpose, and that otherwise it would be necessary to recognize all kinds of crimes as permissible if they are committed for some good purpose. “The truth,” he says, “is very important for what reason, for what purpose, with what intention something is done. But what is undoubtedly a sin should not be done either under the pretext of a good reason, or as if for a good purpose, or with a seemingly good intention. For there are deeds that in themselves are indifferent, but become good or bad depending on the motives for which they are performed. So, for example, giving food to the poor is a good deed if it is done out of charity; This is also marital cohabitation if it has the goal of giving birth to children, with the belief that they are born for spiritual rebirth. These same deeds, if they have bad motives as their source, turn into sins, for example, if a poor person is fed out of vanity, if someone lives with his wife for voluptuousness, if they give birth in order to raise them not for God, but for the devil. But there are deeds that in themselves are sins, such as theft, fornication, blasphemy and the like: who dares to say that they should be done for good purposes (causas), so that these sins will no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, will be good sins (justa peccata sint)? If we accept such a rule, i.e. that in every bad deed we must keep in mind not what is being done, but what is being done for, then why not do every bad deed for the sake of the expected good, if for the sake of this good even bad deeds will no longer be bad? Then it will be possible to reason like this: we will steal from the rich so that we can have something to give to the poor; We will give false evidence for money, especially if the innocent will not suffer harm from this, and the guilty will be freed from trial, and in this way a double benefit will result - and the money will be acquired with which it will be possible to feed the poor, and due to the fact that we deceive the judge, the guilty person will escape punishment. Why don’t we also destroy genuine wills and replace them with forged ones, so that the estate goes not to unworthy people who will not do anything good with the money they receive, but to those who will feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome strangers, build churches? Or, if one can expect that some rich, depraved woman will generously reward the one who satisfies her passions, why shouldn’t a compassionate person take advantage of this for a good purpose, namely, to have a means of helping those in need, contrary to the word of the Apostle, who says: whoever steals, do not steal from anyone, but rather let him labor, working with his own hands what is good, so that he may give taxes to him who demands (Eph. 4:28). But to argue this way does not mean to overthrow the foundations of any order in human affairs, all laws and morals? For the laws rightly punish the thief who says and proves that he stole what was superfluous from a rich man in order to supply what was necessary to the poor; the maker of forged wills is fairly punished, even if he proved that he did it so that the inheritance would go to the most worthy; an adulterer is justly punished, even if he proves that he committed adultery out of compassion, precisely in order to save a person from death with the help of the woman with whom he committed the sin. The Apostle says: do not present your hands as weapons of unrighteousness to sin (Rom. 6:13) (i.e., do not make your members instruments of unrighteousness, sin). So, if we should not use our hands or other members for shameful deeds, then why do we decide to make our tongue, mouth, organ of voice an instrument of sinful lies? They will say: is it really true that someone who steals with a philanthropic intention should be considered guilty on an equal basis with any thief? No one will say this, of course, but of these two, the first cannot be called good only because the other is even worse. Worse is the one who steals out of passion for theft than the one who did it out of compassion; but if all theft is a sin, then one must refrain from all theft. There are degrees between sins: there are great sins and there are small sins; One should not listen to the Stoics who claim that all sins are equal. But to say that some lies are not criminal is the same as saying that some sins are sinless (justa esse peccata), or, what is the same, saying that some iniquities are criminal, and some are not criminal, for the Apostle John says: everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). What is done against the law of God cannot but be criminal. It is said: your law is truth (Ps. 119:142). So, what is against the truth cannot but be criminal. But every lie is contrary to the truth, therefore, no lie can be not criminal. Isn’t it clear to everyone that everything that is righteous is from the truth? But the Apostle John proclaims (clamat): every lie is not from the truth (1 John 2:21). Thus, to assert that it is permissible to use lies for a good purpose, does not it mean, contrary to the word of the Apostle, to teach: let us do evil, that good may come (Rom. 3:8)? I only sow out of hostility. Dislikes - Greek. ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ – from bad, from imperfect. Isn’t it better to say: the disciples who accompanied the Lord had small arks? The quoted passage actually speaks about Judas. Wed. 1 Corinthians 16:1–3. The Apostle commands the Corinthians to put aside and save every first day of the week, as much as each person’s fortune allows, so that later they can send this alms to Jerusalem.” "Tanquam ex necessitate faciamus." Those. one must do according to the free spirit of Christian love, not only for oneself, but for one’s neighbors.