Question VI: On the various cases in which detraction seems to be excused

The first is, if one tells a close friend of an injury secretly inflicted upon him by someone, in order to lessen the pain; for it is too hard, and contrary to human custom, that anyone should bear injuries alone and not be able to share them with a friend; this is lawful, not with the intention of detracting, but so that he may bear it more lightly. So Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 62. art. 2. quaeritur 15. Bassaeus verb. Detractio 12. Less. lib. 2. cap. 11. dub. 12. num. 72. Navar. lib. 1. cap. 4. num. 345. Molina tract. 4. disp. 29. num. 5. Layman lib. 3. sec. 3. tract. 4. parte 2. cap. 3. Tanner. 2. 2. disp. 4. quaest. 8. dub. 7. num. 145. and other Doctors in common, with whom Diana subscribes Tom. 3. tract. 15. resol. 32. But Ioan. de Cruz adds more in his directory, p. 8. quaest. 2. art. 2. dub. 3. concl. 1.

Saying: If a person gravely injured in secret, unable to restrain himself from grief, bursts forth into public complaints, he is not for that reason condemned to mortal sin, if the injurer is defamed; for it seems hard to restrain an afflicted mind so that it does not burst into complaints, since this is most natural, so says the same author, also citing Ludovicus Lopez. This is the opinion of D. Bonav. in speculo animae, cap. 1. circa medium, where he says: Yet it matters greatly whether it proceeds from envy; for sometimes it happens that the evil deeds of others are recounted, or even exaggerated, against someone out of a certain indignation, or levity of speech, without the intention of defaming him, which would be a hard judgment to call mortal.

The second case is, when someone narrates the sins of another which he has heard, and expressly asserts that he knows nothing for certain, but is only reporting what was related.

That this person sins mortally is taught by Sotus de Iust. lib. 4. quaest. 6. art. 3. ad 4. and in 4. disp. 15. quaest. 4. Navar. cap. 18. num. 50. Villalob. sum. tom. 2. tract. 11. dub. 36. num. 6. Tanner. 2. 2. disp. 4. quaest. 8. dub. 7. num. 139. Malder. tract. 7. cap. 1. dub. 17. Sylvius quaest. 62. art. 2. quaeritur 16. concl. 3. Turrianus disp. 52. dub. 10. num. 8. and others, with whom Diana subscribes Tom. 3. Tract. 5. resol. 28. The reason is, because he defames; Sylv. subscribes quaest. 4. D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 73. art. 4. in corpore. Caiet. there, Less. lib. 2. cap. 9. de iniuriis in corpore, dub. 16. num. 113.

Many Recent authors say this is true in the case, if the one reporting is a man of authority, so that he is believed, or because of the levity of the hearers. So Azor. p. 4. l. 13. cap. 16. Sotus loco citato Less. l. 2. cap. 11. dub. 5. Salon. apud Tannetum, Layman. l. 3. sect. 5. tract. 3. p. 2. cap. 3. num. 7. Ioan. de la Cruz in direct. art. 8. quaest. 2. art. 2. dub. 3. concl. 4. They say, however, Less. loc. cit. Nauar. Man. cap. 17. num. 71, that it is not against justice, but against charity, which Bassaeus n. 13 judges more probable with Fagundez num. 19, because here he does not defame directly, but per accidens.

Yet there are not lacking those who deny that he sins mortally, and thus hold at least the opposite opinion as probable: Tannerus loc. cit. Caiet. 2. 2. quaest. 33. art. 2. disp. 2. Sotus in 4. disp. 15. quaest. 4. art. 1. Sylvest. v. detractio, quaest. 4. except. 5. Armilla v. restitutio, num. 4. except. 7. Sà verbo informare, after Gabriel, Adrian, and others. And thus Faber teaches this opinion in 4. de restit. disp. 53. num. 29, and Diana judges it probable.

Tannerus adds num. 140. with Lessio dub. 5: if anyone reports in such a way that he probably thinks no one will believe it, it is not mortal; but if he thinks some will believe it out of mere idle levity, it is not against Justice, but against charity.

The Seraphic Doctor, who in speculo animae, cap. 1. et 2. relates all the modes of excusing in Confession, also appends this one. Therefore I judge that he stands for the first opinion, because, as the holy Doctor himself argues, when reputation is gravely damaged, it is enough that there be no cause; yet if these things are reported out of mere talkativeness, the holy Doctor judges it probably not mortal. But if the detraction is from malice, it will be mortal against Justice; indeed this kind of detraction is pestilential, and more colored toward defaming. So Sotus especially.

The third case, which the holy Doctor notes in speculo animae, cap. 1. §. secundus ramus invidiae, etc., is levity of matter. So Lessius l. 2. cap. 11. dub. 3. num. 11, adding that the same must be said of one revealing natural defects, such as that someone is ignorant, of weak judgment, etc.; and Petrus Nauar. l. 2. cap. 4. num. 307. with others judges the same must be said of natural defects; as if you say that someone is the son of a cleric, born of adultery, and the like; provided, however, the person is not so distinguished that to speak even lightly of him would be grave, as to be a liar. Diana subscribes p. 1. tract. 5 resol. 69. Lessius num. 14. Salonius 2. 2. quaest. 6. art. 3. dub. 3. Fagundez in octavum praeceptum, l. 8. cap. 2. before the fourth number. Tannerus disp. 4. quaest. 8. num. 156. To this he also reduces levity of mind, or talkativeness, with D. Thom. quaest. 73. art. 3, understanding it by reason of indeliberateness, with Valentia quaest. 17. puncto secundo. Bassaeo, v. Detractio 1. from num. 6.

The general rule of S. Bonav. in speculo, cap. 1. et 2. attests: whenever from detraction a grave loss of reputation of itself follows, it is mortal. So Fagundez n. 4. Less. num. 15. Petrus Nauar. l. 2. de restit. cap. 4. num. 347. Filliuc. tract. 32. de restit. cap. 9. num. 230. Nauar. Summa Lat. cap. 18. num. 22. 23. 25.

THEREFORE OFTEN to speak venial things will be mortal: and conversely, to speak mortal things will not be mortal with respect to certain persons; as if you say of some young man that he has dishonorable loves; of a soldier, that he has killed, or fought a duel, or seduced a girl, or keeps a concubine. So Sotus l. 4. de Iustitia, quaest. 6. art. 3. §. sequetur in medio. et l. 5. quaest. 10. art. 2. concl. 4. Less. l. 2. cap. 11. de detract. dub. 3. num. 17. Lopez p. 1. Instruct. cap. 285. Tolet. l. 5. Summa, cap. 66. Caiet. 2. 2. quaest. 73. Filliuc. tomo 2. tract. 32. cap. 9. num. 231. Corduba de detract. quaest. 1. Fagundez l. 8. cap. 2. num. 51.

Say the SAME, if you detract by general terms, it will be only venial; as if you say someone is proud, avaricious, irascible. So Less. l. 2. cap. 11. de detract. dub. 3. num. 18. Sylvester v. detractio. Filliuc. t. 2. tract. 32. cap. 9. num. 232. D. Antonin. 2. p. tit. 8. cap. 4 Nauar. Summa, cap. 18. num. 24. Fagundez num. 6.

The reason is, because these are mostly received as defects, not defamatory, or are taken for a natural inclination. Yet it can happen that they gravely wound. Therefore prudence must be used, to discern whether they gravely defame, considering the persons, both those defamed and the hearers; and therefore confessors must employ great prudence in these matters. So Tolet. l. 5. Summa, cap. 64. Nauar. num. 25. Less. cited above, Caiet. loc. cit. Fagundez num. 7.

MOREOVER, if one idly relates the sins of others to those whom he knows will not believe them, he will not sin, whatever those sins may be: Less. l. 2. cap. 11. dub. 5. num. 24. Sotus l. 4. quaest. 6. art. 3. Nauar. cap. 18. num. 49. The reason is, because no damage follows from it. D. Bonau. senses the same above; yet if the crime were atrocious, such as Sodomy, heresy, treason, and although they would not believe it, they would nevertheless entertain some suspicion, it will be lethal, if the person is honorable. The reason is, because since he is in peaceable possession of the best reputation, it is reduced to doubt and to the grave peril of losing it. So D. Bonau. loc. cit. D. Thom. quaest. 73. art. 2. in corpore, Caictanus there, Sotus l. 5. quaest. 10. art. 1. Tolet. l. 5. Summa, cap. 63. Sylvest. v. detractio, num. 2. Lessius cited above, and Fagundez num. 17.

It is STILL ASKED concerning those who write Annals, and in them recount the hidden crimes of others.

HE ANSWERS Fagundez n. 25. that they do not sin mortally, provided they do not write out of envy or hatred. This is also the mind of D. Bonau. in the place often adduced above, in speculo, cap. 1. Yet let them beware lest they brand any family, and the living, with some stain that grows squalid among posterity. So note Sotus l. 5. de Iust. quaest. 10. art. 2. Malder. tract. 7. cap. 1. Molina above. Arrian. quodl. 11. quaest. 1. Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 8. n. 143. Valentia quaest. 17. p. 2. for these things are not lawful.

FINALLY there are certain Astrologers who impose falsehoods upon some, and these gravely sin, as Fagundez notes num. 26.; for foolishly they assert, defaming men, things from the motion of the stars. Whence it happens that if an Astrologer, when questioned, names some thief, he is punished by municipal laws; yet one cannot bring an action of injury against him, as Leg. Item apud Labeonem, §. si quis Astrologus teaches. Therefore also by Leg. Nemo Cod. de maleficis it is provided that no one consult an Aruspex or a Mathematician, because they are impostors, and therefore to be cast out to the farthest lands, as Sotus teaches l. 5. de virtute quaest. 10. artic. 2., who nevertheless speaks of the Judiciarii, condemned by the Pontiffs, Sixtus V. and others.

The Sacred Canons condemn these detractions, extra de sortilegiis from the Penitential of Theodotus, and Alexander III. Granden. the Patriarch, apud D. Bonaventuram in Confessionali, cap. 3. periculis 37. et 38.