Question VII: Whether it is ever lawful to defame another falsely, or to reveal his hidden crime

NOW the various modes divided in quaest. 1. must be examined.

It is MOST CERTAIN that it is never lawful to impose a false crime upon anyone; for this is most mortal in its kind. So D. Bonau. in speculo animae, cap. 1. 2. et 4. et p. 1. Centilog. sectione 13. et in 3. dist. 28. quaest. 3. et sequenti, et ad cap. 10. Eccles., where he urges that testimony of Scripture: If a serpent bite in silence, he is no better that detracteth his neighbour in secret, Eccles. 10. Do not curse the deaf, according to the exposition of D. Gregory 2. p. Pastoralis, cap. 1. admonit. 36. For to curse the deaf is to defame one who is absent and not hearing. The reason, as rehearsed by the holy Doctor, is because he unjustly takes away a good better than riches, according to Prouerb. 22: A good name is better than great riches. By which reason they commonly argue. This is the worst detraction, as the Doctors cry out in common with D. Thom. quaest. 73. art. 2., whom Sayrus reports l. 11. cap. 3. num. 7. et Fagundez in octavum praeceptum, l. 8. cap. 3. Therefore not even to avoid tortures, or to avert any grave evil whatsoever, is it lawful, as all Theologians teach with D. Bonau. and D. Thom., and the Canonists ad C. super eo, de usuris, et C. mihi, 22. quaest. 11. See Fagundez l. 8. cap. 5.

But it is ASKED: Whether it is ever lawful to uncover a true crime of someone.

THE HOLY DOCTOR ANSWERS in speculo animae, cap. 1. §. secundus ramus invidiae; that it is possible, when an unworthy man is praised beyond his merits, and from this some deception can arise, then it does not have the nature of sin. Therefore, if we hear some secretly depraved and pernicious man, who could deceive to the ruin, whether of faith or of life; such as an Apothecary or Physician; or of conscience, such as a Confessor; or of causes, such as an Advocate, being commended, then it is lawful to uncover his depravities; but not, if someone is a hypocrite and evil only toward himself, as if someone outwardly feigns piety and inwardly is full of private sins. The Doctors consent in common: Filliuc. tomo 2. tract. 40. in octavum praeceptum, cap. 4. num. 107. Sotus l. 5. de Iust. quaest. 10. art. 2. Less. t. 1. l. 2. cap. 11. dub. 10. num. 64. Petrus Nauar. l. 2. de restit. cap. 4. num. 341. Corduba quaest. 2. de detract. concl. 4. ad 2. Tolet. l. 5. Summa, cap. 65. Fagundez lib. 8. cap. 3. num. 3. Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 17. punct. 2. dub. 3. Salon. 2. 2. quaest. 73. art. 2. Sayrus l. 11. cap. 6. num. 18. et the rest apud Tannerum disp. 4. quaest. 8. n. 144., the same author adding that when due information is inquired by reason of office, marriage, etc., provided the damage be not so enormous that the other consideration ought rather to prevail. Bassaeus subscribes, v. Detract. from num. 10.

From this it ALSO happens that one inquiring into the defects of another, in order to avoid deceptions, does not sin, for instance for marriage, for a Chair, etc. So Fagundez warns loco citato.

You will ASK secondly: Whether uncovering the sins of someone who is already defamed in some crime is a sin.

It is ANSWERED, that uncovering other sins bearing a different infamy is mortal; as, if someone is publicly a drunkard, and you report that he is a thief. So Adrian. quodl. 11. art. 1. Nauarr. Summa Lat. cap. 18. num. 42. and others apud Fagundez num. 9. and Tannetum num. 141., who add that this is true even if the crime disclosed is lesser, as if you wished to defame a homicide by theft. Yet this example indicates something greater as to belief. So also Bassaeus num. 9.

You will ASK thirdly: Whether detracting from the dead is a mortal sin.

It is ANSWERED, that it is an atrocious sin. So in common Petr. Nauar. l. 2. de restit. cap. 4. a n. 351. Angelus in 4. quaest. de restit. honoris. Malderus de Iustitia t. 7. cap. 1. dub. 8. Molina disp. 28. Fagundez num. 11.

You will ASK fourthly: Whether detracting from the Religious Orders is a special fault.

It is ANSWERED first, that in these times it is dangerous to the faith, because of the heretics eager to carp at the Religious Orders, especially in chastity, which they proclaim as contested among us, judging, or impiously proclaiming, the conjugal life to be better, indeed necessary; otherwise concubinage would be had with others, whence that foul saying of the most filthy Luther l. de vita coniugali: si non vult uxor, veniat ancilla. Yet both Christ and the Apostle proclaim the celibate and virginal life servable by the help of God. And in Apoc. 14. John beheld virgins of this kind innumerable, as Fagundez disserits cap. 3. num. 13. after D. Bonav. in Diaeta salutis, tit. 10. ad finem: See Bassaeus 7.

Against these our Seraphic Doctor, the most valiant Achilles of the Church, often fought, as is seen in Libris Apologeticis contra magistrum Gulielmum, contra Magistrum innominatum in Apologia pauperum, and in other places.

These enemies and detractors of the Religious Orders, utterly hostile to the Gospel (since Christ issued the Evangelical Counsels of Chastity, Obedience, and Poverty, but these men revile them), the holy Doctor proclaims Adversaries of the Church. For the Church approved and venerates the Religious Orders; but these men reprove and spurn them.

He shows them guilty of death with a weighty testimony Deuter. 17.; for there it is prescribed: If you perceive that among you there are hard and doubtful judgments in cause of blood, etc. Thou shalt go to the priests of the Levitical race, and shalt follow their sentence, and shalt not decline to the right hand or to the left. But he that will refuse to obey the commandment of the priest who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, by the decree of the judge, that man shall die. Whence the holy Doctor argues: If to resist gravely, or to cry out against a shadowy Pontiff defining or decreeing, the penalty of death was deservedly imposed, how much more worthily will it be imposed upon the most unworthy, who detract from the Sacred and Apostolic sanctions of the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of God on earth? The holy Doctor proclaims such detractors of the Religious Orders, which the holy Mother Church erected, confirmed, and made firm, to be rebels and subverters of the Church. For with what face do these enemies of God proclaim as impostors those poor in spirit by voluntary choice, whom Christ Matth. 5. acclaims as blessed? Do they bark that those who for the straight road to the kingdom of heaven cut themselves off spiritually, and live most continent, and abstain from all things, that they may win the unfading crown, have wandered from the way of salvation? Lovers of Virginity do not revile marriages (says S. Bonan.) but prefer virginity with the Apostle prima Corinth. See the holy Doctor treating this matter at length.

Therefore MERITEDLY anathema was imposed upon these rotten members, detractors especially of the Orders of Sisters, of S. Dominic, and D. Francis, as Bartholomeo Medina witnesses cap. 14. fol. 184. Which excommunication is reserved to the Pope. But Petrus Nauar. notes l. 2. de restit. cap. 4. num. 354. Sylvest. v. Excommunicatio, 7. excom. 48. Sayrus l. 4. cap. 4. num. 10. Graff. l. 2. decisionum, cap. 137. Nauar. cap. 27. num. 109. Fagundez l. 8. cap. 3. num. 14. that the excommunication does not strike those detracting privately from these Religious Orders, but those publishing libellos famosos, songs, and rhymes to the infamy of these Orders. And the same holds for all the other mendicant Orders by extension of the same privilege, as is clear from a certain privilege of Alexander IV. which begins Ex alto; and from another, which begins Non sine multa. Those, however, are bound to sing a palinode in writing.

Those, moreover, who COMPOSE famosos libellos against other persons, first sin mortally, because they gravely offend reputation, and the more gravely as the libelli remain long.

FURTHERMORE, excommunication ferendae sententiae is inflicted upon them by C. quidam malign. et C. si qui inuenti, quaest. 1. if the libelli are against Ecclesiastics; for if against laymen, by canon law they are only to be beaten with rods, C. qui in alterius, 5. quaest. 1. which penalties Pius V. renewed in Bull 147. and Gregory XIII. in Bull 7.

THEREFORE Salonius errs 2. 2. quaest. 72. art. 2. controv. 2. in saying they are excommunicated ipso facto. For they are only to be excommunicated, as Sayrus notes l. 4. cap. 4. num. 10. Nauar. cap. 18. num. 35. Sylvester, verbo libellus, num. 5. Filliuc. tract. 40. n. 81. Fagundez cap. 2. num. 17.

Those, however, who find such defamatory libelli are bound to tear them up; otherwise, if they hand them to others, they fall into the same penalties, with the consenting parties.

Yet it will NOT be said that one who reads through a libellus to only one person manifests it. So Burlatus consil. 99. l. 1. num. 17. Cephal. consil. 341. l. 3. num. 28., because that is called manifest which becomes known to many, according to Bartol. in Leg. haered. palam 21. ff. de testamentis, num. 2.