Section — Koch–Preuss
Section 2: The Duty of Preserving Honor
- Every man is in duty bound to safeguard and preserve his honor or good name to the best of his ability.
a) This means, first and above all, that he must endeavor to acquire the basis of a good reputation by irreproachable conduct and to become ever more worthy of honor by faithfully performing his vocational duties and especially by conforming himself to Christ.1
1 Rom. VIII, 29.—Cfr. Virgil, Aeneis: "Famam ostendere factis, hoc virtutis opus."
b) We are exhorted to let our "light shine before men," that they may see our good works and glorify the Father who is in Heaven,2 and to declare the virtues of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvellous light.3 We comply with this duty if we, each in his own particular sphere, faithfully and punctually do the things that are given us to do, or, as the Apostle puts it, "provide good things not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of men,"4 and avoid even the semblance of evil. "Do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations, that you may be blameless and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world."5
2 Matth. V, 16.
3 1 Pet. II, 9; cfr. Acts XXIV, 16.
4 Rom. XII, 17; 2 Cor. VIII, 21.
5 Phil. II, 14-16. —Cfr. St. Jerome, Ep., 123 (al. 11), n. 15: “Avoid persons in whom there can be a suspicion of evil conduct, and do not have ready that commonplace saying: ‘My conscience is enough for me; I do not care what men say about me.’ And certainly the Apostle provided good things not only before God but also before men, lest through him the name of God should be blasphemed among the Gentiles (Rom. II, 24). He assuredly had the power to take about a woman as a sister, but he did not wish himself to be judged by an unbelieving conscience (1 Cor. X, 29).” (Migne, P. L., XXII, 1056). Cfr. Ep., 148 (al. 14), n. 33 (P. L., XXII, 1215).
He who does his share towards the well-being of society according to his insight and gifts,6 has no responsibility with regard to the recognition of his work by others. For, in the first place, the duty of providing for the proper recognition of his personal dignity and activity does not go beyond that of furnishing the object of recognition, which is dignity and activity itself; and, secondly, the judgments of society upon the moral worth of an individual and his work are uncertain and fallacious, because men do not always esteem one another according to their true value, but are often deceived by appearances and swayed hither and thither by error and prejudice. "Not he who commendeth himself is approved, but he whom God commendeth," says the Apostle,7 and our Divine Saviour admonishes us to "judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment."8
6 Rom. XII, 5.
7 2 Cor. X, 18. —Cfr. 1 Cor. XI, 3.
8 John VII, 24; VIII, 15. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 2, art. 3: “Another thing also must be considered: human knowledge is often mistaken, especially concerning singular contingencies, of which kind human acts are; and therefore human glory is frequently deceptive. But because God cannot be deceived, His glory is always true; for which reason it is said: ‘He is approved whom God commends.’”
It is entirely legitimate for a man to try to make himself worthy of honor before God and his fellowmen by leading a virtuous life. The love of honor, in its true sense, is not opposed to humility, for humility does not enjoin self-contempt, but merely forbids conceit. Both Church and State acknowledge man's right to strive after positions or offices of honor, and reward with titles and privileges those who distinguish themselves by extraordinary courage, zeal, or fidelity. Monuments are sometimes erected in their honor, whereas those guilty of certain public crimes, e. g., perjury, are formally deprived of honor (capitis deminutio).
To seek honor for its own sake, or as an end rather than as a means to a higher end, to delight in it unduly (vanity), to covet it without regard to God,9 to demand recognition for qualities which one does not possess (hypocrisy) or to seek it through actions which are forbidden, e.g., by neglecting one's duty, or doing evil, or omitting good which one is bound to do, are sinful acts.10 It is also sinful to be careless of honor or reputation, to hold them lightly or to despise them cynically. The last-mentioned attitude is generally a result of disguised pride.
9 Ps. CXIII, 9; 2 Cor. XI, 30.— Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 131, art. 1.
10 Cfr. Luke IX, 26. —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 132, art. 1-4.
"There are honors which dishonor him who seeks them," truly says a modern novelist.11 Every honor or dignity, according to an ancient proverb, entails its own peculiar responsibilities and burdens.12
11 "Il y a des honneurs qui déshonorent" (G. Flaubert).
12 "Honos habet onus."
An ancient saw declares that honors and dignities often change a man's character.13 Unfortunately, the change is not always for the better, and consequently those who receive honors or dignities should strive to employ them as a means of moral improvement. "It is sure proof of nobility of character," says Jean Paul, "if a man uses honors and dignities as means of acquiring virtue."
13 "Honores mutant mores."
The foundation of true happiness is neither honor nor wealth, but honesty, sincerity, and trust in God. Human glory frequently evaporates like smoke, but nobility of character is a stable possession. "The Lord rewards his servants, not according to the dignity of their office," says St. Francis de Sales, "but in proportion to the humility and love with which they discharge the same."14
c) Every man is bound to preserve his honor and good name by faithfully complying with the duties of his vocation, leading a pure and upright life, and avoiding whatever might justly cause offense to others. If, despite all reasonable care, he has the misfortune to give scandal, either by making mistakes or letting his zeal run to ex- cess, let him candidly admit his fault and humbly seek forgiveness. One whose honor is unjustly attacked has the right to defend it, nay, he is in duty bound to do so if his office, or the interest of his family, or the good name of those associated with him, or the danger of scandal render it necessary. Sometimes, however, it is an act of heroic virtue to suffer persecution silently, like Christ and His Apostles, or to sacrifice one's good name for the honor and glory of God. Our Lord says: " Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake."15 And St. Paul: "We labor, working with our own hands, we are reviled, and we bless; we are persecuted, and we suffer it."16 A good conscience and the conviction that an omniscient God governs the universe and draws good out of evil, will give us the consoling assurance that we have nothing to fear, especially since we know from Revelation that the names of Christ's faithful servants, even though they be traduced by men, are held in high honor by God and indelibly graven in the Book of Life.17
15 Matth. V, 11; Luke XVII, 3.
16 1 Cor. IV, 12; Col. III, 12; 1 Thess. V, 15; 1 Pet. II, 23.
17 Luke X, 20; XII, 7; Phil. IV, 3. —Cfr. St. Augustine, De Bono Viduitatis, c. 22: “Since no amount of human caution can in every respect avoid the suspicions of the very malicious, when we have done whatever we rightly can for our reputation, if some try to discolor our reputation either by inventing evil things about us or by wrongly believing them, let there be the consolation of conscience and indeed even joy, because our reward is great in heaven, even when men say many evil things about us who nevertheless live piously and justly (Mt. V, 11-12). For that reward is like the pay of those who fight with the weapons of justice (2 Cor. VI, 7-8), not only on the right hand but also on the left—that is, through glory and dishonor, through ill repute and good repute.” (Migne, P. L., XL, 449).
When a man has lost his good name through his own fault, silence and patience may be recommended as suitable means of atonement. A person who has been innocently robbed of his good name and sees his career endangered or ruined, may find that the simple continuance of his accustomed mode of life is the most effective weapon of self-defence. Where deeds fail to convince, words generally prove of little or no avail.
It is never allowed to employ immoral means, such as lies or duelling, for the restoration of one's honor.
To hide secret sins and defects from others, in order to preserve one's honor and good name, is not forbidden. No human authority can pass judgment upon the secret deeds and motives of men. ("De internis non iudicat praetor.")
d) If a man has lost his good name through his own fault, he must try to regain it as soon and as fully as possible. The means by which it may be regained depend as a rule on the manner in which it was lost. A reputation that is completely shattered may be difficult to rebuild; but the obligation of trying to do so remains and binds especially in those cases where the welfare of a family or the good name of a community depend upon the honor of the individual member.
If honor has been lost through neglect or the commission of some minor fault, it may be restored by increased zeal, fidelity, diligence, and prudence. If the fault was grievous, sincere penance and a genuine purpose of amendment are not only a strict duty, but the only suitable means of making amends for the sin committed and repairing the scandal given. However, as Christ has expressly declared that there will be more joy in Heaven over one sinner who does penance than over ninety-nine just who need it not, every penitent sinner who atones his fault, regains the right to his good name, and it must not be denied him. Nor should it be forgotten that even in the impenitent sinner, no matter how deeply he may have fallen, there is always the human dignity to be respected.18
18 Cfr. Luke XV, 7, 10; Gal. VI, 1; Eph. VI, 8 sq.; Jas. II, 1-9.
α) The teaching of Catholic Moral Theology on the subject of honor has been denounced as a hindrance to progress and as subversive of that self-respect which no man can afford to surrender. This is a grievous mistake. Seeking honor and fleeing from it seem indeed contradictory acts, but the apparent contradiction is solved by a higher unity. In preaching contempt of the world and of oneself19 the Church does not mean to imply that, to be truly humble, a man must be indifferent to mundane things, but merely that he who is truly humble will patiently suffer contempt for Christ's sake, though he will never stoop to anything that would degrade his dignity as a man. Inordinate self-humiliation is not a virtue, but a sin (per excessum) against humility, which consists essentially in submission to God, and to men for God's sake,20 in the service of truth and charity.21 Humility, therefore, keeps the pursuit of honor within the bounds of reason and, together with charity, is the foundation of the Christian life. This noble virtue was practiced in a preeminent and exemplary degree by Jesus Christ, "the truth, the way, and the life," who was able to say of Himself: "Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart."22
19 "Spernere mundum, spernere sese, spernere nullum, spernere se sperni."
20 St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 161, art. 1, ad 5. —St. Bernard, De Gradibus Humilitatis, c. 1, n. 2: “Humility is the virtue by which a man, through the truest recognition of himself, becomes lowly in his own estimation.” (Migne, P. L., CLXXXII, 942).
21 Matth. XX, 28; XXIII, 11; Gal. V, 13. —St. Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia, c. 34, n. 38) “It is rightly held that humility should be placed rather on the side of truth, not on the side of falsehood,... lest humility, placed on the side of falsehood, lose the reward of truth.” (Migne, P. L., XLIV, 265).
22 Matth. XI, 29; John XIV, 6.— Cfr. St. Augustine, Ep., 118 (al. 56), c. 3, n. 22: “I should wish you, my Dioscorus, to submit yourself to Him [Christ] with complete piety, and to prepare for yourself no other way for pursuing and obtaining truth than that which was prepared by Him who, as God, saw the weakness of our steps. The first thing on that way is humility; the second, humility; the third, humility; and however many times you were to ask, I should say this.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 442).
Catholic ascetics neither condemns the striving after honor nor justifies carelessness in this regard, but merely forbids vainglory (gloria vana), which has for its end and purpose not God, but self.
Contempt of worldly distinctions and honors does not imply want of self-respect if it is inspired by a desire for eternal glory. This desire lives only in noble souls. St. Paul, who did not hesitate to say of himself that he had labored more than all the rest and was "made a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men,"23 nevertheless declared: "I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle."24
23 1 Cor. IV, 9.
24 1 Cor. XV, 9 sq.
β) The question has been raised whether a man may deprive himself of his good name (seipsum infamare). In answering this question the casuists draw a distinction. If one can defame himself without detriment to his vocational duties and without injury to others, they say the sacrifice is permissible because it violates neither justice, as man has full ownership of his good name (dominium famae suae), nor charity, because charity requires regard for external goods only in so far as they are necessary for one's own salvation or the salvation of others. According to Gury and others of this school, however, it would be grievously sinful to deprive oneself of one's good name if the latter were an indispensable requisite of one's official position or if the defamation would result in danger to one's own life or injury to the good name of others.25
25 J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 469: “It is asked whether it is lawful to defame oneself. The answer is affirmative in itself, if it is done with a right intention, scandal and harm to others being excluded. The reason is that it is not contrary to justice, since each person is the owner of his own reputation, nor contrary to charity, because charity does not bind one to preserve external goods except insofar as one’s own salvation or that of one’s neighbor requires it. But accidentally you will sin, and indeed gravely, if your reputation is necessary for your office, or if harm to your life or infamy to others ought to follow from this.”
We cannot quite agree with this view, but maintain that defamation of one's own character is forbidden for reasons which may be briefly stated as follows: a) To preserve one's honor and good name is a precept of the moral law of nature as well as of divine law, and the duty arising from both, while it differs in pro- portion to the concrete conditions or circumstances of each, can never cease entirely. b) Self-defamation no matter by what motives it is inspired or how useful it may appear to be, by its very definition presupposes the telling of a lie. Now, no one is allowed to attribute to himself sins or vices of which he is not guilty because to lie is forbidden absolutely and in all circumstances.
To reveal one's real but secret faults (e. g., to a superior) is not self-defamation but an act of humiliation or the expression of a strong purpose of amending one's life and correcting the fault in question. Such an act of humility, far from injuring one's good name, is apt rather to enhance it.
For the rest, there is hardly a vocation in which men do not feel the need of occasional recognition and encouragement from their fellowmen.
READINGS.—H. Noldin, S. J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 76 sq., 656 sq. —Thos. Slater, S. J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, New York 1919, p. 346.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, 11th ed., pp. 818 sqq.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. II, 6th ed., Paderborn 1909, pp. 326 sqq.—J. E. Ross, C.S.P., Christian Ethics, pp. 258 sqq.