<<<home page index to Virtues>>>

 

Conferences on the Virtues

By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

 

Number 50

 

Detraction continued…

 

 

Last month’s conference ended abruptly because there was no room to include the few last remarks that remained about the subject:  Detraction.  So now we turn our attention to the gravity of the sin of detraction.

 

You will remember that in the course of my (the textbook’s) remarks on the subject I stated that “detraction is per se a mortal sin”.  Of course, per se means, “Considered in the abstract”.  When considered in real life situations, the gravity of the sin depends upon the circumstances.  It is these that we consider now.

 

The seriousness of the sin of detraction depends not so much upon the seriousness or gravity of the sin or defect revealed, as it does upon the gravity of the “harm” inflicted upon the “victim”.  The gravity of the harm is itself dependent in turn upon the status of the person who is injured, i.e., his condition and dignity.  It also depends upon how effectively the “detraction” has contributed to his injury.  Therefore, these are the elements of be kept in mind when trying to assess the gravity of the sin of detraction:

 

1.  With regard to the fault revealed: Ordinarily the revelation of a very serious defect (all other things being equal) makes the detraction (and calumny) a serious sin.

 

Likewise, the revelation of a slight defect makes it a slight sin.

 

With regard to the faults revealed, it must be remembered that disclosures touching upon the moral integrity of one’s life are much more serious than those which call attention to defects of body or of soul.

 

But with regard to the latter, if the defect of body or psyche is very shameful, and the detraction inflicts great emotional pain and sorrow upon the injured person, which, too, could also be a grievous sin.

 

In general, merely to assert that someone is proud, or ill-tempered or greedy or lazy, etc. is not nearly as serious as relating the deeds and conduct that are factual evidence of those moral faults.  But if the assertion is based upon knowledge shared by those to whom the statement if made, it could well be that no sin is committed, since the others would realize that the speaker is just ‘voicing his opinion”.

 

2.       Oftentimes the seriousness or shamefulness of the defect disclosed depends upon the conditions and dignity of the injured party.  In the event one is enjoying a spotless reputation, and a good reputation is essential to that person’s business or profession or the fulfillment of the duties of his state in life, then to reveal the hidden sins and faults of such a person would be more serious than for one who does not stand in need of a good reputation in order to earn his living or to function credibly and creditably.

 

For example, it is much more serious to accuse a priest or a religious of ambition, greed, hypocrisy or lust than it would be to accuse a layperson of those same vices.  Similarly, it is much more serious to accuse a young woman of sexual promiscuity than it would be to accuse a soldier or sailor of that same thing.  And so forth…

 

3.       The efficacy or effectiveness of the detraction is also dependent upon certain factors.  They are, the reputation of the detractor, and the number, the dispositions and the quality of those hearing the disclosures.

 

Thus, a person who is considered serious, prudent and truthful does more harm by his disclosures of others’ faults than one who is facetious, garrulous or mendacious (given to lying). 

 

Likewise, he does more harm who reveals faults based upon personal observation than one who merely repeats the opinions of others (hearsay).

 

Also, it is more serious to commit a sin of detraction in the presence of individuals who are gossipy and loquacious than to do so in the presence of people who tend to keep to themselves all that they hear regarding the character of others.

 

Clearly, it is more serious to commit a sin of detraction in the presence of many people, than it is to do so in the presence of only one individual.

 

Another of the remarks we didn’t have space for in last month’s conference concerns the conditions that justify the disclosure of the [previously] unknown faults and sins of others.  We have then, the Principle:

 

It is lawful to reveal the hidden faults of another only when there is a proportionately grave reason for doing so.

 

To prove the truth of this assertion we appeal to the Principle of the Two-fold Effect, which we have had occasion to speak of in previous conferences:

 

i)                    to tell the truth about someone is not intrinsically evil

ii)                   from this revelation two effects MUST equally proceed, one good and one evil:

 

a)      a person’s good name is injured (the bad effect), and

b)      the knowledge is necessary to a third party to help him either avoid a loss or to gain a benefit (the good effect),

 

iii)                 the good effect must outweigh, or at least be equal to, the evil effect, and

iv)                 the good effect MUST be directly intended.

The author of my textbook says there are special considerations that make the revelation of the sins and faults of another not only licit, but also even necessary.  As examples he gives the following:

 

Religious considerations, such that it would be necessary to reveal to the proper authorities the vices of one who is about to be ordained to the Priesthood, so as to prevent scandal and other future harm to the Church and the Faith.  (Just as, in some Christian Marriage ceremonies, the representative of the Church presiding proclaims:  “If anyone knows of any reason why these two should not be joined in Marriage, let him speak now or forever hold his Peace”, I do believe that something similar used to be done in ordination ceremonies).

 

Analogous to the above, considerations of Justice, such that the vices of one who is to hold a very “sensitive” public office are to be made known to the appointing official.  (Our Congress routinely looks into the background of individuals nominated by the President for appointment to the Supreme Court).

 

Considerations of Charity, such as to prevent harm to

 

i.                     the one revealing and his family.  This could be considered justifiable “self-defense”.

ii.                   The delinquent himself.  As, for example, revealing the vices of a delinquent to his parents (if he is still under their authority), or to the superior who is in a position to correct him.

iii.                  A third party.  As, for example, to prevent a friend from doing business with someone who is known to be a “dead-beat” or on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

In spite of all that, in making the revelations, care must be taken to minimize the damage by stating only as much as is absolutely necessary to achieve the good effect, and then only to those whose interests are to be protected.  And only that information must be given which is lawfully obtained, that is, without violating the rights of privacy of the delinquent, as would happen by opening and reading his mail without authorization.

 

Finally, something must be said about cooperation in the sin of detraction.  This could be done both directly and indirectly.

 

The cooperation if direct when someone “induces or solicits” the detraction by inquiring about the faults of another or by praising and rewarding those who “gossip” about the sins and faults of others.  This is just as much a sin of injustice in the “cooperator” as it is in the detractor himself.  It is also considered “direct” cooperation in the sin of detraction when one “takes delight” in such gossip.  But in this case, it is only a sin against Charity in the cooperator.  However, the “enjoyment” could be the result of “unjust sentiments” such as jealousy or a vengeful spirit.

 

The cooperation is indirect when one is able to prevent the detraction, but makes no effort to do so.  This is usually a sin against charity, but in the event the one who could prevent it also should prevent it in virtue of being a superior or in a position of authority, it would also be a sin against justice.

 

How does one go about preventing a sin of detraction?  My textbook lists these possibilities:

 

a)      by ordering an end to the conversation (only for those possessing the lawful authority).

b)      By fraternal correction (one on one).

c)      By proving the accusation to be false or otherwise convincing the hearers not to believe the detractor.

d)      By exhibiting sadness, displeasure or indignation over the fact of the disclosure; by changing the subject; by speaking about the compensating good qualities of the victim of detraction; by excusing or putting a benign interpretation upon the conduct of the alleged delinquent.

 

Thus far, detraction.  But there is a related matter:  Murmuring. A word about this also needs to be said.

 

The Latin is Surratio and it has a specialized meaning in Moral Theology.  My author calls it “bad-mouthing” (oblocutio mala) another behind his back for the purpose of destroying an amicable relationship, that is, repeating the words or deeds of someone for the purpose of disturbing the peace and benevolence that exists between family members or between friends.

 

It is distinct from detraction by virtue of its intent.  Whereas detraction seeks to destroy or blacken the good name of another, Murmuring seeks to sow the seeds of discord.  But by its very nature, murmuring usually accomplishes both.

 

Murmuring is clearly a sin against Charity since its purpose is to deprive another of something good, that is, friendship.  But, according to my textbook, it is also a sin against Justice.  This is so, not only on those occasions when unjust means are used, as happens in most cases, but always.  The reason being that once a friendship is formed, it becomes a valuable “good” possessed by the parties thereto, who from then on possess the strict right that it be respected (saved harmless) by others.

 

Per se, Murmuring is a grave sin because its intent is to destroy what Scripture (Sirach 6:14-16) calls a “treasure of incalculable price”.  About it, St. Thomas has this to say:

 

“And so, Murmuring is a greater sin than detraction, and even greater than Contempt, because friendship (literally, a friend) is better than honor, and to be loved is better than to be honored.”

 

Murmuring therefore deprives of a greater good, and inflicts a greater harm than detraction.  That is why Scripture decries that sin as being hateful to God and to Men (Proverbs 6:16:19b; Sirach 21:31), and deserving of death [capital punishment] (Romans 1:30,32).

 

The gravity of Murmuring depends, therefore, upon the degree of intimacy and the greater the mutual support and consolation that had been enjoyed by the friendship that has been destroyed.  And conversely (the other side of the coin), the greater the harmful effects visited upon the parties thereto.

 

Murmuring is an extremely grave sin when discord is sown between spouses, between parents and their children, between co-religionists, especially between those whose duty is to defend the Faith, such as (in the latter case) to bring about the danger of schism.

 

There are however, “friendships” that must be designated as apparent or “false”.  Such would be the “friendship” between thieves or between parties to an adulterous relationship.  Since, to be an authentic friendship, TRUE GOOD must be the fruit both parties derive therefrom, one does not commit a sin of Murmuring when he speaks in such a way (always being truthful, of course) as to bring about, hopefully, the end of the spiritually damaging relationship.

 

 

 

<<<home page index to Virtues>>>

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.