Section — Koch–Preuss
Section 3: The Duty of Restitution Arising From Calumny and Detraction
Detraction, calumny, and other like sins violate justice, and therefore involve the duty of making restitution, as far as possible, for the damage inflicted, and of seeking reconciliation with the person injured.
- An insult or contumely wilfully committed against a fellowman calls for an apology (deprecatio). However, a formal apology is, as a rule, demanded only of subjects; among equals an act of extraordinary benevolence will serve the same purpose; on the part of superiors in their relation to inferiors, a special sign of good will or amiability will suffice.1
1 St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 986–987 (ed. Gaudé, II, 373).—St. Augustine, Epist., 211 (al. 109), n. 14: "Whichever nun has injured another by abuse or cursing or even by charging her with a crime, let her remember to take care as quickly as possible, by making satisfaction, of what she has done, and let the one who was injured forgive without dispute. But if they have injured each other, they ought mutually to forgive the debts owed to each other, on account of your prayers, which you certainly ought to have holier in proportion as you have them more frequently. Better is she who, although often tempted by anger, nevertheless hastens to obtain forgiveness from the one whom she acknowledges that she has wronged, than she who is slower to become angry and is more reluctantly inclined to ask forgiveness. She who does not wish to forgive her sister should not hope to receive the effect of prayer; but she who never wishes to ask forgiveness, or does not ask it from the heart, is in the monastery without cause, even if she is not cast out from it. Therefore, for your part, refrain from harsher words; but if they have issued from your mouth, do not be ashamed to bring forth remedies from the same mouth from which the wounds were made. When, however, the necessity of discipline compels you to speak harsh words in restraining those younger than you, even if you feel that in those very words you have exceeded due measure, it is not required of you that you ask forgiveness from them, lest, while excessive humility is observed toward those who ought to be subject, the authority to govern be broken; nevertheless, forgiveness must be sought from the Lord of all, who knows with how much benevolence you love even those whom perhaps you rebuke more than is just." (Migne, P. L., XXXII, 964).
If the insult was committed in actions, it should not merely be apologized for, but restitution must be made for the material damage inflicted.
The duty of making restitution ceases when the victim has obtained satisfaction either by a judicial sentence or by self-help, e. g., by returning the insult.
- A calumny can be repaired by an unconditional retraction of the falsehood uttered (retractatio). This must be made orally or in writing in a way which men of good judgment deem sufficient. Public calumnies,—such as have appeared in newspapers, for instance,—must be publicly retracted by him who started them and in the same manner (verbo vel scripto) in which they were circulated. This obligation admits of no exception, and the claim of inability does not avail against it. The calumniator must ascribe all injurious consequences of his act to himself and, consequently, is bound to make restitution even when his own honor is at stake, for "melior est conditio innocentis quam nocentis," that is to say, the right of the innocent goes before that of the guilty. Besides, to retract a calumny, is not only a confession of the wrong committed, but likewise a proof that the sinner recognizes his fault and is willing to correct it.
The duty of retracting a calumny rests also upon those who have helped to spread it. In the event of their failure the obligation devolves upon the originator of the calumny. The latter is bound also to make good all the temporal or material damage arising from his sin, even that which results from the fact that the calumniated person can regain the confidence of his fellowmen only for a considerable time after the retraction of the calumny.
A person guilty of calumny may be excused from the duty of retraction for one or other of several reasons: (a) the unimportance of the matter involved; (b) the voluntary renouncement on the part of the victim of his right to a retraction;—this reason will hold, if the victim is in a position freely to dispose of his honor and good name, as, for example, members of a religious community are not;—(c) if the victim has in the meantime regained his good name by other means, as, for example, by a judicial sentence; (d) if, in consequence of the length of time that has elapsed, the matter has fallen into oblivion or those influenced by the evil report can no longer be reached.
- In case of detraction restitution may be made indirectly by excusing the faults of the victim as much as possible and emphasizing his good qualities, in order to enable him to regain the good reputation necessary for his social position, and by accusing oneself of having made unwarranted or unconsidered statements. In regard to the material damage done, the same rules apply as in the case of calumny. Though a retraction cannot always be strictly demanded, it will as a rule go far towards effecting a reconciliation.
The duty of restoring the good name of an injured neighbor is personal; that of making restitution for material damage caused by calumny or detraction falls also upon the heirs.2 To protect one's good name, as has been explained in a previous volume, is a duty, especially when a whole class of persons is involved. When this is not the case, a man may go far in humbling himself for Christ's sake,3 whose noble example encourages us not only to forgive our enemies, but also to suffer detraction and calumny in silence.4
2 Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 473.
3 1 Cor. VI, 7; IX, 13–15; 1 Pet. IV, 14–16.
4 Matth. XVIII, 21–35; XXVI, 62 sq.; XXVII, 12; John XVIII, 19–21; cfr. Ps. CVIII, 14; Prov. XII, 16; Matth. V, 44; XXIII, 34.—Seneca, Epist., 94, 28: "Iniuriarum remedium est oblivio."
"There are those who deem it weakness to forgive insults," says a modern writer; "if this view were correct, God would be the weakest Being in Heaven and on earth, for no one forgives as much as He."
The saintly Bishop Sailer said: "I would rather allow myself to be innocently calumniated for ten years, than spend one day in defending my honor."