Question I: On the malice of whispering

The Whisperer is also called two-tongued (bilinguis), since he subverts his neighbors on both sides by whisperings, as it were with two tongues: Of this Ecclesiasticus 28.: The whisperer and the two-tongued is cursed; for he will trouble many who were at peace.

Whispering (susurratio) is occult detraction against one's neighbor, by which discord could arise among friends. Thus it is taken from St. Thomas, art. 1.; Valencia, disput. 5. quaest. 18.; Soto, l. 5. de Iust. quaest. 11. art. 3.; Sayrus, l. 12. cap. 5.; Filliucius, Tomo 2. tract. 40. cap. 5. num. 135.; Fagundez, l. 8. cap. 12.. Most excellently the holy Doctor in the Opusc. explicatio sermonum Theology penetrates the formal element of whispering-detraction, defining it thus: Whispering is the will of speaking, sowing discords among brothers.

That formal whispering is a mortal sin the holy Doctor proves in the Speculum animae, cap. 1. §. Machinatio, at the end, from that Proverb 6.: Six are the things which the Lord hates, and the seventh his soul detests. He who sows discords among brothers.

That it is worse than theft, detraction, and contumely is proved by Tanner, disp. 4. quaest. 8. num. 152., from St. Bonaventure, serm. 10. de Apostolis, and St. Thomas, quaest. 74. art. 1., from that Ecclesiasticus 6.: There is no comparison with a faithful friend, nor a weighing of gold worthy [of him], nor of silver, that could resist the goodness of his fidelity. Hence this argument is drawn. A sin is the worse, the greater a good it takes away: but whispering takes away a greater good than theft, detraction, or contumely: Therefore. The minor is proved, for it takes away friendship, a most precious good above riches, reputation, and honor: Therefore also the vice destructive of friendship is the worst. The minor is proved secondly from St. Bonaventure, serm. 9. de Sanctis Apostolis: That is always better which is more like the better, from Aristotle 3. Top. cap. 2. loco 32., and l. 2. de caelo text. 66. But Christian friendship makes one like God in an exquisite manner; whence John 15.: In this shall they know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.

The minor is PROVED thirdly from St. Bonaventure, ibid.: The end is nobler than the things that are toward the end; but CHARITY is the end of human life: Therefore it is nobler than fame, honor, and riches, which are only means. St. Thomas confirms it with the Scriptures gathered together, Rom. 13.: Owe nothing to anyone, except that you love one another; Therefore the fullness of the law is love. Psalm 81.: I have said: You are gods, and sons of the Most High. St. John always insisted: Little children, love one another, and if this be done, it suffices.; many excellent things he adds also in the sermon on Saints Philip and James. The same he repeats on Luke 11.: Which of you has a friend.

In the first sermon on St. Bartholomew he adduces the saying of Tully in the Laelius de amicitia, and of Valerius Maximus, l. 4. cap. 7., who say that friendship is to be preferred to kinship, and Tully concludes: Friendship is to be preferred to all human things.

See the holy Doctor also in collation 18. on cap. 3. of John.

He shows THE SAME on Luke 16. in these words: I know what I shall do, where the steward preferred friends to riches, because a friend is the light of life, he is a treasure. Eccl. 6, on the contrary enmity is like darkness and death. 1 John 2.: He who hates his brother is in darkness. Therefore he who breaks friendship and introduces enmity is the worst. Therefore Ecclesiasticus 29.: Lose your money for a friend.

This sin is against justice, at least if it is contracted by deceit, fraud, lies, or the revelation of secrets: The reason is, because everyone has a right to this good, which is to be preferred to others. Thus Fagundez, cap. 12.; Filliucius, tract. 40. cap. 5. num. 137.

You will ASK: Whether it is lawful to whisper to a Prince or Prelate, so that I may succeed him in friendship in place of another, of whom he speaks ill.

It is ANSWERED that it cannot be done. Thus Soto, l. 5. quaest. 11. art. 1.; Salon., 2. 2. quaest. 74. art. 1.; Sayrus, l. 11. cap. 5. from num. 5.; Fagundez, l. 8. cap. 12. num. 6.

The REASON is, because one's own good is not a sufficient reason to deprive another of his right; otherwise it would be lawful to steal. Next it is against the natural precept, that we do not do to another what we would not want done to ourselves.

You will ASK: whether he who dissuades one who wishes to resign a benefice, or to bequeath goods to someone, so that he assign those goods to himself, is a Whisperer.

It is ANSWERED that if he does not proclaim him unworthy, and only exhorts, he does not sin according to Fagundez, because the other does not yet have a right to those goods.