Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question IV: Whether material detraction, which comes from talkativeness, is mortal
The FIRST opinion is that material detraction, which bursts forth from lightness in speaking, or from indiscreet zeal, is not mortal. So D. Bonaventure reports it, nor did he wholly reject it, saying that it would be a rash judgment to pronounce this mortal. So in the Book of the Mirror of the Soul, chapter 1, about the middle: but I shall explain it below.
An Detractio materialis, quae fit ex loquacitate, sit mortifera.
PRIMA opinio est, detractionem materialem, quae ex levitate loquendi, vel zelo erumpit indiscreto, non esse mortalem, Ita D. Bonav. refert, nec omnino renuit dicens, quod esset dutum, hoc iudicare mortale. Sic Lib. Speculi animae, cap. 1. circa medium: Sed ipsum infra explicabo.
The SECOND opinion is that, if the loss is grave and foreseen, or inflicted through grave blameable ignorance, it is mortal. So D. Bonaventure there, who says it is common to most; D. Thomas, question 73, article 2; Salonius; Cajetan; Aragon there; Soto book 5 on Justice, question 10, article 2; Valentia disputation 5, question 17, point 2; Nauarre in the Manual, chapter 18, number 23, and on the decretal Inter verba, 11. question 3, coml. 6. coroll. 33. number 119; Sayrus in the Clavis Regia, book 12, chapter 6, number 9; Toletus book 5 of the Summa, chapter 63; Sylvester, s.v. detractio; Lessius book 2, chapter 11, on detraction, doubt 3, number 11; Fagundez book 8, chapter 2, number three; Bassaeus, s.v. Detractio, 1. number 4; Diana p. 5, tract 5, resolution 69; Sylvius 2. 2. question 63, article 2.
SECUNDA sententia est, si damnum sit grave, et praevisum, vel gravi culpa ignorantiae iniectum, esse mortale. Ita D. Bonav. ibi, qui dicit, esse plerisque communem; D. Thom. quaest. 73. art. 2. Salonius, Caietanus, Aragonius ibi, Sotus l. 5. de Iust. quaest. 10. art. 2. Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 17. punct. 2. Nauar. in Man. cap. 18. num. 23. et in C. Inter verba, 11. quaest. 3. coml. 6. coroll. 33. num. 119. Sayrus in Clavi Regia l. 12. cap. 6. num. 9. Toletus l. 5. Summa, cap. 63. Sylvest. v. detractio, Lessius l. 2. cap. 11. de detract. dub. 3. num. 11. Fagundez l. 8. cap. 2. numero tertio, Bassaeus, v. Detractio, 1. num. 4. Diana p. 5. tract. 5. Resol. 69. Sylvius. 2. 2. quaest. 63. art. 2.
But it WILL be venial, if he speaks from venial lightness in speaking, without advertence, or from a good and reasonable end of correcting his morals. This the second teaches, as Valentia, Salon. loc. cit., Nauarre number 30, and S. Antoninus p. 2, title 8, chapter 4; Astian. in 4. on fraternal correction; Sayrus number 9, even if something of zeal exceeds bounds.
ERIT autem veniale, si ex levitate veniali loquendi, non advertens, loquitur, vel ex bono fine rationabili corrigendi eius mores. Hoc secundum docet Valentia, Salon. loc. cit. Nauar. num. 30. et S. Antonin. p. 2. tit. 8. cap. 4. Astian. in 4. de correctione fraterna. Sayrus num. 9. esto aliquid Zeli excedat.
I ASSERT first, that material detraction is venial, if it lightly blackens reputation. It is plain, because light loss is against Justice.
ASSERO primo, detractionem materialem esse venialem, si leviter denigret famam. Patet, quia leve est damnum contra Iustitiam.
I ASSERT secondly, that it is mortal, if grave loss is inflicted.
ASSERO secundo, esse mortalem, si grave damnum iniiciatur.
It is PROVED first by D. Bonaventure, from the precept of the order of fraternal correction.
PROBATUR primo a D. Bonav. ex praecepto ordinis correctionis fraternae.
It is PROVED secondly, because if grave ignorance also follows, since you are bound not to inflict grave loss, by no means do you remove the voluntary act, whence sin results. Yet if there be some venial lightness as the cause in speaking, the effect also will already be light.
PROBATUR secundo, quia si ex gravi etiam ignorantia sequatur, cum tenearis damnum grave non inferre, nequaquam aufers actum voluntarium, unde peccatum resultat. Si tamen levitas venialis aliqua sit in loquendo causa, iam erit etiam effectus levis.
It is EXPLAINED further: for it can arise from some impulse or inadvertence, and so be venial.
DECLARATUR ulterius; potest enim esse ex impetu aliquo, vel subreptione, atque adeo venialis.