FALSEHOOD. —
I. FALSEHOOD IN GENERAL
F. (Latin: *falsum*) in the broadest sense denotes any alteration of the truth. This alteration may be effected either orally or in writing through an act of counterfeiting; thus we have monetary, documentary, or personal falsehood, as well as falsehood in emblems, honors, etc.In the first case, we have lying, slander, false testimony, or perjury. In the second case, there may be alteration or suppression of a text, a document, or its fabrication *ex novo*. In the third case, falsehood may assume various forms ranging from substantial alteration of the object to minor and entirely extrinsic changes.
In the second and third cases, we have falsehood or forgery *properly so called*, which involves the *immutatio veri* aimed at *imitatio veri*.
For the guilt and crime of falsehood to exist, a further subjective element is required, namely, *dolus*. Here, *dolus* consists in the will and awareness of committing the forgery, whatever the motive inspiring the culprit may be, even if he acted out of carelessness or negligence. It is not necessary that the culprit foresee the possibility of harm as a consequence of his forgery; it suffices that he acted with awareness and will for illicit purposes.
The crime of falsehood may therefore be defined as the fraudulent counterfeiting or suppression of the truth, committed to the detriment of another. The objective of this crime is to deceive public trust. This, at least, is the classification used by Filangieri and Raffaelli and adopted in almost all subsequent legislation. It is therefore necessary that public trust be capable of being offended by the act. When the forgery is so crude and evident that it cannot deceive anyone, there may be a sin or a crime of attempted or consummated fraud, but not a crime of falsehood.
From this, the distinction between fraud (*v.*) and the crime of falsehood emerges. In fraud, the *immutatio veri* proper to falsehood is absent, and the aim is directly to deceive another to his detriment; moreover, the direct objective of this crime is the violation of individual trust, whereas in falsehood it is the violation of social trust. Similarly, the crime of falsehood differs from the crime of plagiarism, where there is imitation of another’s work presented as one’s own, again without *immutatio veri*; or if alteration occurs, it is in the author’s name, not in the nature of the composition. Falsehood is also distinguished from perjury, which is a false statement confirmed by an oath, where there is additionally the invocation of divinity to witness the falsity.
In conclusion, two conditions are necessary for the existence of falsehood, whether as a crime or merely as a sin:
1) the alteration of the truth (*immutatio veri*), which constitutes the *corpus delicti* or sin of all acts or deeds qualified as falsehood. A false statement in a report, containing deliberately false assertions by a witness, may be considered falsehood even if the documents are not altered;
2) fraudulent intent, that is, the intention to harm another. Without evil intent, no imputation is possible.
The principle that stands in clear opposition to all falsehood, poetically expressed by Manzoni, applies to every man in every ethical relationship with rational creatures: “Never betray the holy truth” (A. Manzoni, *In morte di C. Imbonati*, 213–14).
The worst kind of falsehood occurs in the corruption of our relationship with God: rendering to false gods the worship due to God alone, or rendering to God Himself false or superstitious worship (*V. SUPERSTITION*).
But the widest field of application lies in our relationships with our neighbor or even with ourselves. The vice of baseness arises when falsehood touches the proximate norm of morality, namely, conscience. The formation of a false conscience (*v.*) has repercussions throughout life, and if recognized during its formation—even if no longer perceptible later—it remains culpable at least until formal retraction.
In relationships with one’s neighbor, the use of falsehood is unjust whenever the neighbor has a right to know the truth. Thus, the deceptions practiced even by savage peoples in hunting animals are neither sin nor crime of falsehood, given the subordination of animals to man’s service and the existence of rights only among men. Similarly, so-called “feints,” “traps,” in fencing, football, chess, etc., are permitted; here, apparent falsehood is nothing but a display of intelligence that does not offend the opponent, who must expect such conduct within the limits of fair play.
Simulation, widely employed in the art of war, likewise escapes any injustice, for, as St. Augustine says, “when someone wages a just war, whether he conquers by open battle or by ambush, it makes no difference to justice” (*Quaestiones in Heptateuchum*, I. VI, q. 10). Quite different, however, is the systematic use of falsehood in civic or private individual relations (contractual relationships, legal obligations, etc.) and in international relations. Here, we enter fully into the violation of the ethical and juridical sphere, where the general rule is the duty owed to truth.
Moralists here descend to specific casuistry, speaking of the falsification of goods, currency, documents such as wills; of false declarations in insurance contracts or tax filings; of false testimony or defamatory accusations, whether made anonymously or not.
Recourse to falsehood in all these cases and others not mentioned is condemned not only as a grave or venial sin, depending on the gravity of the matter or its consequences, but at times also entails the rescindability of a contract or the obligation of reparation.
Some graver forms of falsification constitute crimes in canon and civil law.
THE CRIME OF FALSEHOOD IN THE *CIC*. — The *Codex Iuris Canonici* (*CIC*), leaving to civil law the punishment of the falsification of currency, weights, and goods, deals only with the falsification of sacred relics, ecclesiastical documents, and the false accusation of solicitation to turpitude.
1. **Falsification of Holy Relics or Use of False Relics.** — Whoever manufactures false relics, knowingly sells, distributes, or exposes them to public veneration is punished *ipso facto* with an *ipso facto* reserved censure by the Ordinary (can. 2326). One is said to expose to public veneration whoever has some authority in the matter by office (e.g., the sacristan) or by sacred order received (e.g., the parish priest, a cleric, etc.).
Moreover, the sale of holy relics constitutes an act of simony (can. 1289 § 1), and thus the offender incurs the penalties proper to that crime as well.
2. **Manufacture or Falsification of Apostolic Letters.** — Against this species of the crime of falsehood, there is a rich body of penal legislation in ancient canon law (2, 34, X, II, 19). In current law, all who manufacture or falsify letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Apostolic See, or who knowingly use such false letters, decrees, or rescripts, incur *ipso facto* a censure reserved in a special manner to the Holy See (can. 2326 § 1).
Clerics who commit this crime are further liable to additional penalties that may extend to deprivation of benefice, office, dignity, and ecclesiastical pension. Religious, moreover, must be deprived of all offices they held in the institute and of active and passive voice, in addition to the penalties established in their proper constitutions (can. 2326 § 2).
Forgery is punished by the censure of excommunication for the fabrication or complete compilation of letters, their falsification, or any substantial alteration; their use or presentation to obtain an effect, even if, upon discovery—for example, of the falsification—the desired effect is not actually achieved. By the term "letter," decree, or rescript of the Apostolic See, all individual public acts in the form of a letter, decree, or rescript issued by the Holy See, whether by the Roman Pontiff or by the Roman dicasteries, are included for this purpose. However, it is necessary that they be used knowingly.
Those who then use these false or falsified documents incur these censures on two counts.
3. **Obexion or subreption in petitions for rescripts.** — If someone, in a petition submitted to the Holy See or to the local Ordinary to obtain a rescript, fraudulently or deceitfully fails to state the truth or conceals it, they may be punished by their own Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault (can. 2326). However, the rescript, if the obexion or subreption is not manifest, may be executed if in the hands of a necessary executor, while it is entirely left to the discretion of the executor if the executor is voluntary (can. 34). In lesser impediments (can. 1042 § 2), dispensation in matters concerning marriage is valid despite any obexion or subreption (can. 1054).
4. **Forgery of other ecclesiastical documents.** — Those who fabricate or falsify ecclesiastical letters or acts, whether public or private, or who knowingly use such documents may be punished according to the gravity of the crime (can. 2302). If the forger is someone entrusted with the compilation, drafting, or preservation of the documents and books in question, they must be deprived of their office, and other penalties may be added (can. 2406 § 1). If the crime of forgery is perpetrated against the diocesan curia in documents of notable importance and involves substantial forgery, the forger incurs the censure of excommunication reserved simply to the Holy See, not excluding the vicar capitular and canons, in addition to other penalties that may be imposed by the Ordinary (can. 2405). These canons also include acts of any ecclesiastical authority subordinate to the Apostolic See, such as acts of bishops or parochial documents, etc.
5. **False accusation of solicitation.** — If someone, either personally or through others, falsely accuses a confessor of the crime of solicitation (q.v.) to their superiors, they incur ipso facto the censure of excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which they cannot be absolved in any case unless they have formally retracted the false accusation, made reparation for any damages according to their ability (pro viribus) if such damages have occurred, and undergone a grave and lengthy penance (can. 2363).
Moreover, not only is the censure reserved in this case, but the sin itself is reserved to the Holy See by its very nature (ratione sui): indeed, it is the only such case in the present legislation (can. 804). This is easily understood, given the gravity of the act that the legislator intends to punish.
For penalties against false witnesses and the crime of collusion, see **TESTI**.
---
### III. FORGERY IN ITALIAN LAW
The State must also protect itself against the consequences of forgery, which undermines the foundations of public faith—that juridical certainty upon which organized society depends for its very existence.
The Italian Penal Code establishes penalties for forgery in Title VII of Book II, under the heading of crimes against public faith. It represses the various forms that forgery can take and distinguishes them into four fundamental categories:
1) **Forgery of coins, public credit instruments, and revenue stamps**, including the falsification, alteration, and circulation of counterfeit coins or revenue stamps, the counterfeiting of watermarked paper, the manufacture and possession of instruments intended for the falsification of coins and revenue stamps, the falsification of tickets for public transport companies and their use, etc. (arts. 453–66);
2) **Falsification of seals, instruments, or marks of authentication, certification, or recognition**, including the counterfeiting of the State seal or other public authentication marks and the use of such counterfeit seals, the abusive use of genuine seals, the use or possession of measures or weights with false markings, the counterfeiting and use of distinctive marks of works of the intellect or industrial products, and the introduction into the State of products bearing false marks (arts. 467–75);
3) **Falsification in documents**, including cases of material and ideological forgery committed by public officials or those entrusted with public service, material and ideological forgeries committed by private individuals, the use of false documents, and the suppression or concealment of genuine documents (arts. 476–93);
4) **Personal falsification**, including personation, false attestations or declarations regarding one’s own or another’s identity and personal qualities, fraud in obtaining certificates from the judicial records office, the improper use of such certificates, and the usurpation of titles or honors (arts. 494–98).
---
**