Defamation

Duty of a Lawyer When the Justice of a Cause Is Doubtful.—(a) In a civil cause, the lawyer may act, whether for the plaintiff or for the defendant. He may even take a case whose justice seems less probable, for the purpose of the trial is to settle the doubt, and not infrequently the cause that seemed doubtful or less probable at the outset is vindicated by the examination. Some moralists distinguish for cases in which the doubt is one of fact between the defendant and the plaintiff: if the former’s case is less or equally probable, they say, one may take it, but not so if this is true of the latter’s case.

(b) In a criminal case, when life, reputation or other grave issue is involved, the common opinion is that a lawyer may not prosecute if the case of the people is doubtful or less probable, but he may defend, as was just said, even though he is certain that the accused is guilty. The office of the prosecutor is not necessarily to secure a conviction, but to see that justice is upheld, while the office of the defender is to take care that an accused person is deprived of no right or protection that he should have under the law.

Defamation.—Defamation (backbiting) is the unjust blackening of the reputation of another person by secret words.

(a) It is unjust, that is, it has no reasonable motive to justify it. Defamation differs from just revelation of secret faults.

(b) It is a blackening or besmirching, that is, a taking away or lessening of fame. Defamation casts a shadow over or totally obscures the brilliance of a good reputation.

(c) It is against reputation, that is, against the favorable opinion and report of the public on the virtue and character or other good qualities of a person, Thus, it is defamation to say that an individual is a drunkard, or that a professional man is incompetent, if these persons are not known to have such defects. If a person has no reputation here and now, except a bad one (e.g., a criminal who has just been convicted and sentenced to prison, a loafer who is often seen intoxicated on the streets, a woman who is often heard peddling scandals), it is not defamation to speak about the true and public faults of this person; nor is it sinful to speak thus if there is some suitable reason (e.g., to discuss a murder trial that is being reported in the papers, or to tell a humorous incident that will do no harm). But those who uselessly or harmfully discuss the known weaknesses of their neighbors are sinners called gossipers or fault-finders.

(d) It is against the reputation of a person, that is, of an individual possessed of right. The party offended by defamation can be a natural person (i.e., a rational being, whether infant or adult, high or low, rich or poor) or an artificial person (i.e., a society, group or collection of individuals endowed with reason); he can be either a living or a deceased person, for death does not destroy the soul nor take away the right to reputation.

(e) It is against the reputation of another, that is, defamation as now used is a sin of injustice, and one cannot be strictly unjust to oneself; but “self-defamation” may be used in a wider sense to designate a sin opposed to charity (see 1575 sqq.).

(f) It is accomplished by means of words, that is, by oral communication or its equivalent. One can defame, therefore, by word of mouth, by deaf and dumb language, by writing, by a gesture, by silence, or by a look.

(g) It is done by words or signs that are secret, that is, by words or signs expressed before others but in the absence of the person who is defamed, or at least when he is thought to be absent (backbiting). The defamer is like the thief who wishes to do harm but does not wish the victim to know the author of the harm.

The Differences between Defamation and Contumely.—(a) They differ in their purposes, for the defamer intends to hurt another in his reputation before the public, while the contumelious man intends to hurt another in his honor, either in his own eyes or in those of others. (b) They differ in their manner of procedure, for defamation is behind the back, contumely before the face, of the party who is injured. The defamer has some respect for his enemy, for he fears to face him and resorts to undermining, but the contumelious sinner despises his enemy and shows it by insulting him to his face.

Various Forms of Injury to Good Name.—(a) By reason of the intention, the injury is either defamatory (as when derogatory things are said about another behind his back) or contumelious (as when derogatory things are insultingly said to him in his presence). Hence, there can be injury to reputation that is not contumelious (e.g., the secret spreading of a rumor that Balbus is a drunkard); there can be contumely that is not injurious to fame (e.g., the addressing of Balbus as a drunkard when no else is by, or when those present know already that he is a drunkard), and contumely that is injurious to reputation (e.g., when one calls Balbus a drunkard before others who thought he was a sober man).

(b) By reason of the purpose, defamation is willed either explicitly or implicitly. In the former case the defamer expressly intends the blackening of his neighbor’s reputation; in the latter case he intends something unnecessary, such as mere indulgence of levity or talkativeness, though the blackening of his neighbor is foreseen. Explicit defamation is regularly a mortal offense, implicit defamation a venial one; but the degrees of sinfulness may be changed, if the former sin causes slight, or the latter sin serious damage.

(c) By reason of the injury done defamation is either detraction or calumny. Detraction blackens a reputation by revealing faults or defects that are real; calumny (slander) injures reputation by stories that are untrue. A common form of calumny is a mixture of truth and falsehood (e.g., when a historian ascribes to a villain, in addition to real crimes, faults of which the latter was innocent), or of half-truths that convey the impression of what is untrue (e.g., when a historian narrates that a certain character killed a man and does not give the background or causes of the killing, such as provocation, challenge, mistake; or when a biographer tells of the crimes of his subject and glosses over the virtues, or makes no mention of his amendment).

(d) By reason of the means used defamation is either direct or indirect. Direct defamation is more open and positive; indirect defamation is rather concealed or negative. There is also the distinction of slander (which is oral) and libel (which is written or printed). Libel is more grievous, since it has a permanence that is not found in spoken words.

Examples of Indirect Defamation.—(a) Faint praise is a subtle mode of defamation, as when one says of an absent person that he has not committed murder yet, or that like everyone he has some good points, for to the listeners this indicates that the speaker does no hold a high opinion of the person discussed.

(b) Silence is also at times a hidden form of defamation, as when Titus says to Balbus that the absent Caius is good and Balbus out of malice answers: “Let’s talk about something else; we must be charitable”, or when Sempronius falsely declares in company that the absent Claudius is to the knowledge of Julius a depraved character and Julius, who is present, makes no protest against the misrepresentation.

(c) Depreciation is defamatory, as when one says that a person who is being discussed is not as pious or reliable as is commonly believed, or that there is great room for improvement, or that he is much better now than in times past, or that there is another side to the picture, or that he is good, but....

(d) Denial of good qualities is defamatory, when it lessens the esteem in which a person is held. The good qualities here referred to are those that render a person distinguished or commendable among his fellows: chiefly these are moral qualities (viz., virtuous habits, dispositions and acts); secondarily, natural and internal qualities (such as learning, quickness of mind, experience, strength and health of body, and in women, beauty); finally, natural and external goods (such as wealth, famous ancestry, able assistants in business, or the excellent merchandise supplied, etc.).

Examples of Direct Defamation.—The following are examples of direct defamation:

(a) sinister interpretation, as when one states that words or acts of a neighbor that were good or at least open to a good interpretation, were dictated by greed, ambition, pride, etc.;

(b) unjust revelation (detraction), as when one reveals secret faults or crimes;

(c) exaggeration, as when one magnifies a venial into a mortal sin, an exceptional or indeliberate fault into an habitual or deliberate sin; or when one distorts a sin of one species into a sin of another and far more heinous species, or accuses a whole class or body of men because one of their number has fallen. Those who add their own little detail or circumstance to a defamatory tale as they pass it along are proverbial examples of exaggeration: “Fama crescit eundo”;

(d) false accusation (calumny) is the worst kind of defamation. Innocent XI condemned the proposition that one may probably use calumny without serious sin as a defense of one’s own justice and honor (see Denzinger, n. 1194).

Direct defamation is committed either by plain words or by insinuation. (a) Examples of defamation by innuendo are those ambiguous expressions or half-veiled accusations that arouse suspicion and often do more injury than plain accusations. Thus, to say with a laugh or in an ironical tone that a certain person is human, or broadminded, or prudent may be equal to volumes of abuse, since the words can have a bad meaning as well as a good one. Similarly, such expressions as, “What I know about him is not to be told,” “I know what no one would believe,” etc., may be taken for slurs on character.

(b) Examples of defamation by plain speech are all those innumerable statements which, either in general terms (e.g., that another person is a scoundrel, a villain, a reprobate) or in specific ones (e.g., that another person is a blasphemer, a thief, a liar), tend to blacken the good name of a neighbor.

Good Repute or Fame.—Good repute or fame is of various kinds. (a) Thus, by reason of its object, good reputation is either negative or positive. A negatively good reputation consists in the absence of any unfavorable opinion or belief about a person, while a positively good reputation is the common judgment in favor of a person’s worth. (b) By reason of its relation to the real character of a person, it is either true or false. Thus, if a man is regarded by the community as honest, his reputation is true when he is really honest, but it is false when he is in fact dishonest. (c) By reason of its degree, it is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary good repute is that which every person needs, and it consists in the public belief that an individual is trustworthy and competent in the affairs and duties that pertain to his state or occupation. Extraordinary fame is that which is not necessary, such as the celebrity which a person enjoys for unusual ability as a statesman, orator, financial expert, mathematician, or for virtue that is far above the average.

The Right to Good Reputation.—(a) Those who are absolutely unknown (i.e., both as to their identity and their character) have no right to reputation, since reputation attaches to one who can be named or described, and hence it is not defamation (though it might be rash judgment) to say that a stranger who passed on the street and was lost in the darkness must have been a criminal.

(b) Those who are known by sight or name, but who have not as yet shown what they are, have a right to a negatively good reputation, for a man should not be considered evil until his conduct has given ground for unfavorable judgment (see 1727 sqq.). It is not defamation to say about an unknown family that has moved into a locality that we do not know what kind of people they are, but it is defamation to say that they are likely undesirable.

(c) Those who are known in a place and who have already acquired a good name there have a right to a positively good reputation; for, if the reputation is true, it is a good which they have honestly acquired; if it is false, it is a good of which they are in possession, and possession itself is entitled to respect.

Sinfulness of Detraction.—The civil law does not generally punish slander if the slanderer can prove that his statements are true, but this does not make veracious defamation morally lawful. God detests and punishes crimes (e.g., fornication) of which human law sometimes takes no account. The harmfulness of veracious defamation is both public and private.

(a) Defamation Does Public Harm.—The peace and order of the community would be seriously disturbed, if it were lawful to attack reputations simply because one was persuaded that they were unfounded: the person detracted would be hampered in his official business and social relations, innocent persons would be blackened as well as the guilty, and the friends and relatives would suffer with the person detracted.

(b) Defamation Does Private Harm.—The peace and security of the individual would be uselessly assailed. Reputation is profitable both in spiritual and temporal ways, and it is therefore a ruthless act to rob a person of it, when he has done nothing in public to forfeit it and its possession by him is harmful to no one.

Right to True and False Reputation. There is, nevertheless, a difference between the right to a true and the right to a false reputation.

(a) Thus, the right to a true reputation is an absolute and universal right, one which does not cease in any case, for truth and justice demand that one should not represent as evil a person who is really good. This right applies to an extraordinary, as well as to an ordinary reputation.

(b) The right to a false reputation is a relative and limited right, one which ceases when the common good on which it rests no longer supports it (e.g., when it cannot be maintained without injustice). Moreover, there is no right to an extraordinary reputation, if it is based on false premises, for the common good does not require such a right, and hence it is not detraction to show that the renown of an individual for superior skill or success is built up on advertising alone or merely on uninformed rumor.

Sinfulness of Gossip or Criticism about Real and Known Defects.—(a) It is not unjust, per se, since it does not take away fame, that being non-existent. (b) It is sinful, if there is no sufficient reason for it, but not mortally sinful per se, since grave harm is not done to the reputation of one whose reputation is already bad. The sin committed is usually that of idle talk or of uncharitableness, by reason of the disedification offered the listeners, or the malice that prompts the speaker, or the sadness that is caused to the person gossiped about. Gossip is dangerous, since it prepares the way for detraction, as detraction prepares the way for calumny.

Moral Species of Defamation.—(a) Moralists agree that wrongful defamation is a sin against justice and charity. It violates justice, since it infringes a right which is not less strict than that of proprietorship over goods of fortune; it violates charity, since it is opposed to friendship and love of neighbor. They also agree that other species of sin can be added to defamation (e.g., infidelity, as when one denies that Christ was sinless, or blasphemy, as when one defames a Saint).

(b) Moralists disagree on the question whether certain forms of defamation are distinct sub-species or only degrees of one lowest species. Some hold that detraction and calumny are distinct species, because calumny adds mendacity to defamation; others say that detractions about specifically different sins are distinct kinds of detraction (e.g., that it is one species of sin to say that a neighbor is a drunkard, and another species to say that he is a thief, and the reason is that the reputation for temperance is a different thing from the reputation for honesty, etc.); still others hold that defamation of parents and other immediate relations is a special form of defamation, as being contrary to piety. There are, on the contrary, theologians who reject all these distinctions and hold that the difference between defamations is only one of more or less, since all of them have the characteristic note of attack on reputation, which is one right. Hence, just as the stealing of a cow and the stealing of a cat are only greater and lesser forms of the sin of theft, so likewise calumny and detraction, etc., are only major and minor degrees of the sin of defamation (see 2012, 2013, 2115).

Species of Sins of Defamation.—Since the species of sins must be particularized in confessions, the question of the distinction between defamations has practical importance. The common opinion on the line of action to be observed seems to be as follows:

(a) the penitent is obliged as a rule in serious matters to tell whether his defamation was simple detraction or calumny. The reason for this, according to some, is the specific difference between these two sins; according to others, the reason is that otherwise the confessor cannot know whether the sin was mortal or venial, or what restitution is to be imposed. As to detraction of parents or superiors, it seems that the quality of the person detracted should be mentioned, if there was any incitement to disrespect or disobedience;

(b) the penitent is not obliged to mention the sins or defects he ascribed to the person he defamed. Nor should the confessor inquire about this unless it is necessary in order to know what was the gravity of the sin or what kind of reparation should be enjoined (cfr. 2013). Moreover, questions about what was said might easily lead to a disclosure of the name of the person defamed, and thus the confessional would be turned into a place of defamation.

The Numerical Multiplication of Defamations.—(a) They are multiplied when there are many sinful acts about distinct objects; for example, when Balbus calumniates Caius today as a thief and Claudius tomorrow as another thief, there are two calumnies (see 209).

(b) Defamations are multiplied when there are many sinful acts about the same object; for example, when Balbus calumniates Caius today as a thief and repeats the same calumny tomorrow, there are two calumnies. But if Balbus begins his story today and does not finish it till tomorrow, there is one calumny (see 214, 215).

(c) Defamations are multiplied when there is one sinful act about many distinct objects; for example, when Balbus calumniates by saying that the two worst thieves he knows are Caius and Claudius, there are two sins. But if Caius and Claudius are regarded as a unit (e.g., if they are the firm of Caius and Claudius), there is one sin. A like calumny would be that Caius came from a dishonest family (see 216-219). If Balbus calumniates Caius before ten persons, he does not commit ten defamations, it seems, but ten scandals, since the ten form a body in the matter of fame, but are individuals in the matter of example. If Balbus calumniates by saying that Caius has broken all of the ten commandments, there may be ten calumnies or but one calumny, according to the intention and the effect (see 217, 218).

The Theological Species of Defamation.—(a) From its nature defamation is a mortal sin, and hence the Apostle declares (Rom, i. 29, 30) that detractors are hateful to God. In the first place, it inflicts an atrocious injury on the public welfare, sowing everywhere hatreds, dissensions and disorders—so much so that detractors are rightly called an abomination to mankind (Prov., xxiv. 9).

(b) From the smallness of the matter or the imperfection of the act defamation may be only a venial sin. Criticism of others is a vice so widespread that almost all mankind (even pious persons) would be involved in continual mortal sins, were it not for the fact that sins of speech are frequently the result of ignorance, thoughtlessness, or sudden passion (James, iii. 2 sqq.), and that the things said are frequently of no great harm to the person criticized.

The gravity of the harm done by defamation is well expressed by St. Bernard when he says that defamation at one blow inflicts a mortal Wound on the person defamed, on the defamer himself, and on the listener.

(a) Thus, the person defamed is robbed and often irreparably of a good name, one of the most esteemed of possessions; he is deprived of many spiritual and temporal opportunities, and is frequently dragged down to social and moral ruin, and even to suicide. Scripture says that the tongue of the detractor has the sharpness of a razor, and it compares him to an arrow dipped in poison, and to a biting serpent.

(b) The defamer destroys his own good name, at least in the sight of God, for he defiles his own soul with guilt; he disgraces himself before others, since it is well known that defamation is the vice of those who feel themselves inferior or guilty. And, worst of all, his sin is seldom repented of or repaired by satisfaction, since the defamer is generally too proud, hateful, jealous or revengeful to acknowledge his error, or is so blind that the thought of the harm he has done and of the grave obligation of satisfaction never crosses his mind.

(c) The listener is scandalized and contaminated by what he hears, his ideals are shattered, his respect for virtue or religion is destroyed, and he is encouraged to continue the work of the defamer.

Comparison of Defamation with Other Injuries against the Neighbor.—(a) Defamation is less sinful than injuries to internal goods, and hence homicide and adultery, which are opposed to the good of the body and of life itself, are graver sins than defamation.

(b) Defamation is less sinful than injury to higher external goods perpetrated in a contemptuous manner, for defamation being secret does not add insult to injury. Hence, just as robbery is more offensive than theft, so is contumely more sinful than defamation.

(c) Defamation is more sinful than injury to lower external goods, such as lands and money, for fame along with honor approaches spiritual things on account of their relation to virtue, whereas wealth is of the order of corporeal things. Hence, the Scriptures teach that a good name is more important than great riches (Prov., xxii. 1), more enduring than thousands of vast and precious treasures (Ecclus., xli, 15).

It should be noted that the foregoing comparison is based on the nature of the sins compared, for by reason of circumstances the order given may be reversed; for example, a slight indignity is less serious than an outrageous calumny, the theft of thousands of dollars is far more sinful than the circulation of a ludicrous story that is harmful, but only in a slight degree, to the reputation of a neighbor (cfr. 220 sqq.).

Rule for Determining the Seriousness of Defamation.—The rule for determining whether the matter of defamation is serious or not is the amount of harm done by the defamation, and hence not one but several factors have to be considered.

(a) Thus, the defect ascribed to the neighbor has to be considered, for some kinds of defects (e.g., littleness of body or prodigality) are less disgraceful than others (e.g., dwarfishness of mind or soul or niggardliness), and it is more harmful to reveal one mortal sin than to reveal a hundred venial sins.

(b) The person defamed is to be considered, for imputed defects that are not harmful to one person may be harmful to another (e.g., the charge of being a toper might be considered praise among persons of gay or rough habits, but it would be regarded as disgraceful among serious and refined persons).

(c) The person who defames is also to be considered, for little attention is paid to the talk of some, but much weight is given to the slightest words of others. Indeed, some persons’ condemnation is equivalent to praise.

(d) Finally, the persons before whom the defamation is spoken are to be considered, for everyone knows that it is much more harmful and dangerous to speak ill of others before certain ones than before others (cfr. 1461, 1462).

The Harm Done by Reason of the Defects Revealed.—(a) If the defects are natural imperfections of soul or body that do not connote moral stain or turpitude, and if no great detriment is caused by revelation (e.g., to say that another person is deaf, hunchbacked, a beggar, or dense), disclosure is not in itself serious, or even sinful; for little or no harm is done, and the defects are of such a character that they can be readily discovered by observation. But if the defects are very ignominious or harmful, defamation is a grave sin (e.g., to say that a very distinguished person is illegitimate, or of a mixed race, or that his immediate relative was a criminal).

(b) If the defects are related to moral stain, but do not imply it, revelation of them is not a grave sin, provided no great loss is caused by it (e.g., to say that a person is scrupulous about himself, or has certain peccadillos or human imperfections). If a shortcoming is usually understood as a propensity rather than as a fault (e.g., quick temper, high-strung disposition, pride, closeness with money), there is little if any harm done by speaking of it. But if the defects mentioned are such as imply or insinuate actual moral lapses (e.g., to say that a person has a venereal disease and the cause is unknown, or that he has delirium tremens or morphinism, or is of a very passionate nature), the revelation is defamatory and more or less sinful.

(c) If the defects are moral, he who reveals them is guilty of sinful defamation. But the harm done by the imputation of moral guilt is greater in some cases and less in others. Some sins are more disgraceful from their degradation (e.g., carnal sins, see 224), and from this point of view it is worse to accuse a neighbor of gluttony or sexual irregularity than of pride. Some sins (e.g., solicitation, sodomy) are especially heinous in the eyes of the law and produce legal infamy, because they are more harmful to the public or more subject to public contempt (see Canons 2320, 2328, 2343, 2351, 2356, 2357). There are also some defamations that are less harmful to reputation, but more damaging to material prosperity (e.g., it is usually more hurtful to the prospects of a person in business to be charged with incompetency, dishonesty, or carelessness than to be charged with religious indifference or impurity). Finally, there are gradations in the malice of the same kinds of sin (see 197), as in the angry thought, the angry word, the angry deed, in tipsiness and drunkenness, in occasional and habitual lying, etc.

Is it sinful to narrate the secret faults of another, if at the same time one tells of his repentance and amendment?

(a) If the infamy remains in spite of the remarks about a change of life for the better (as is generally the case), the narrator is guilty of sinful detraction. Thus, it is very harmful to one in an exalted position if it is given out that he was at one time bibacious, but succeeded in thoroughly curing his appetite. The same principle applies to those who praise in one matter and detract in another (e.g., by stating that a person is very learned, but also very dishonest).

(b) If the infamy does not remain, because the atonement is so extraordinary as to make the hearers think little or nothing about the fault, the narrator is not guilty of sinful detraction. Thus, it is not detraction to narrate that a saint was so grieved over a lie he told that he did lifelong penance for it, or that a person who was once lukewarm—a thing that is quite common—has in later years become fervent in an uncommon degree. But the stigma that attaches to uncommon sins or carnal sins is hardly overcome by the mention of repentance, unless the person spoken of is already long dead or is one from whom very little is expected.

The Harm Done by Reason of the Person Defamed.—(a) Serious faults are sometimes attributed to certain persons without serious sin, because, on account of the life led by these persons or the notoriety they have already achieved, they suffer no serious detriment when defects like to those already known are charged against them. Thus, if it is well known that a person keeps company with a fast set or consorts with a tough gang, he suffers little if one reveals that he uses profanity, gambles, drinks to excess, etc.; and if it is known that a person has these vices, he is not harmed much by mention of a particular instance or by the additional report that he has been arrested for cheating and disorderly conduct. But the case is different if defects unlike those already known are charged (e.g., if one says of a person known as a liar that he is also a thief), unless the person spoken of has so black a name as an all-around cheat that no new crime charged to his account can give a deeper dye to his reputation.

(b) Light faults or acts that are not sinful in themselves are sometimes matter of grave defamation when spoken of certain persons, namely, when so much is expected from these persons that even minor defects are serious blots on their fame. Thus, to say that a layman is a confirmed liar or loves the opposite sex might be only a venial sin or no sin at all, but the same statements about a grave cleric would be seriously defamatory.

Defamation supposes that the party who is injured is in possession of a good name. But it is possible that the same individual who enjoys a good name in one place or time, has a bad name in another place or time. Hence, a number of special cases on defamation present themselves for consideration.

(a) Thus, there is the case in which a person who has a good name here is juridically infamous elsewhere; that is, he has lost his good name elsewhere through a final and valid sentence, conviction, or confession made in a public trial (see Canon 2197).

(b) There is the case in which a person who has a good name here is actually infamous elsewhere, that is, his crime is known to so many persons there that it is morally impossible to keep it secret or excuse it.

(c) There is the case in which a person who has a good name now was in bad repute formerly; that is, his bad name of the past has been forgotten or has been obliterated by many years of good living.

Meaning of the Expression “Infamous in a Certain Place.”—(a) The place referred to is either a closed community (e.g., a monastery, a college, a family) or an open community (e.g., a village, a neighborhood, a parish, a town, a city); (b) the notoriety referred to is either universal (i.e. known to all the community), or general (i.e., known to the greater part of the community), or sufficient (i.e., known to so many and such talkative persons that the whole community will shortly be made to share in it). A crime known only to one or two, or to a small circle of Christian-living persons, is not notorious.

Number of Persons Who Are Required for Sufficient Notoriety.—(a) Some authors assign certain definite figures for this purpose—for example, in a closed community of thirty or a hundred members a fact is notorious if known to seven or fifteen; in a neighborhood of forty persons, if it is known to eight individuals from different families; in a village whose population is one thousand, if it is known to twenty here and there; in a town of five thousand people, if it is known to forty here and there.

(b) Other authors hold that no invariable rule can be given, but that in each case the matter has to be determined by a prudent judgment based on the character of the crime, the quality of the guilty person and of the persons present at the time, the publicity of the place, etc. Thus, if the crime was committed in some central spot from which news was quickly disseminated, a smaller number of spectators would make a deed notorious in the surrounding territory.

Publicity of Commission or Report.-Actual infamy or disrepute is produced either by the publicity of the crime or by the publicity of the report.

(a) Thus, a crime has publicity in its commission when it was done in a public place (e.g., on the street, in a public room) or in a private place but before a considerable number of persons, or when its indications were publicly given (e.g., by a confession, by maintenance of a suspected woman in one’s home), or when it was submitted to public notice or judgment (e.g., the acts of one in public office, the words of one who delivers a public address, the deeds of one who boasts about them).

(b) A crime has publicity in its report, when it is widely known, whether due to the talk of the people, or to presumptions or suspicions.

Revelation about a Person Who Is Juridically in Disrepute Elsewhere.—(a) This exposure is not contrary to commutative justice, according to the common opinion, for the condemnation deprives the criminal of his right to fame (as regards the matter in which he is found guilty) in all places, and it is often to the interest of the public to know who has been convicted of crime elsewhere. Exception should be made for the case in which a trial is conducted secretly in order to spare the reputation of the condemned, as when a corporation expels one of its members after a hearing and an unfavorable vote (see 2057).

(b) This revelation is contrary to charity when it deprives a person without reason of the good fame which he possesses and which he would not otherwise have lost; for we should love our neighbor as ourselves. Example: Balbus served a term in jail in the town of A, on account of drunkenness. He then moved to the distant town of B and by his good conduct built up an excellent reputation. Claudius from A arrives and maliciously spreads around the news that Balbus had been once in jail for drunkenness. Claudius sins gravely against charity.

Revelation about a Person Who Is Actually in Disrepute Elsewhere.—If the person in question will in all likelihood soon lose the reputation he has here, the following cases must be considered:

(a) if the disrepute is based on the publicity of a misdeed, the revelation is not opposed to commutative justice; for he who sins publicly thereby resigns his right to reputation as regards all those persons and places to which knowledge of his delinquency is likely to arrive. The revelation is against charity, however, if there is no sufficient reason for it; but since the news would be soon brought hither from other sources, no great harm is done and no serious sin committed by the revelation;

(b) if the disrepute is based on public rumor and the rumor is unjust, revelation, according to some, is opposed to commutative justice, since it is nothing but a continuation and extension of the original injury. Others hold that, unless one knows the rumor to be false, revelation is not unjust in this case, since, as is supposed, the revealer was not the author of the rumor, and those to whom he spoke would have learned it shortly even without him. Of course, if the person about whom the revelation is made suffers some considerable damage by reason of the early loss of his good name, the person who makes the revelation unnecessarily is guilty of serious sin. And rumor should never be represented as an established fact.

If the revelation is made about one who is actually in disrepute elsewhere, but who is in little danger on that account of losing the good name which he has here, opinions differ regarding the extent of the guilt.

(a) Some hold that revelation in this case is a grave sin against charity, since in a serious matter it saddens a neighbor, and thus violates the rule of love to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and others add that it is also a grave sin against justice, if the party spoken against is solicitous about his fame, since it deprives him without reason of a great good to which he is entitled on account of undisturbed possession.

(b) Others hold that this revelation is not a grave sin, either against justice (since the right of the community to know about crimes that were committed elsewhere prevails over the right of the individual) or against charity (since charity does not oblige under grave inconvenience).

(c) Others again distinguish between different cases, Thus, some say that, if the crime in question is one that is very detrimental to the public (e.g., murder, treason, white slave traffic, scandalous impurity), the opinion under (b) is true; whereas, if it is one that is not of that character (e.g., drunkenness in a private person), the opinions under (a) are true. Some also distinguish in the case of non-pernicious delinquencies between those that are notorious elsewhere by reason of the public way in which sin was committed and those that are notorious only on account of rumor; in the former case, they say, the manifestation is not unjust, for, although public good does not call for it, the guilty person himself has forfeited his right by the public manner in which he sinned; but in the latter case it may easily be unjust (see previous paragraph). The mere fact, however, that a fault which contains no threat to the public welfare was committed in a public manner does not seem to be a sufficient reason for manifestation (e.g., when it will injure a man in earning a living or in supporting his family), and we believe that one who speaks of such a fault without necessity sins against charity, if not against justice, and that the sin is often mortal.

Notoriety in a Closed Community.—Notoriety in a closed community is not absolute publicity, and hence the conclusions just given on absolute publicity do not apply to closed communities.

(a) Thus, if a fault is actually notorious in a closed community, the members may speak about it to one another, if there is any sufficient reason for this. Hence, if the majority of the members of a religious house know about a fault that has been committed there, it may be divulged to one who is in ignorance about it for his instruction or warning. Similarly, servants in a house may tell other domestics about faults which are commonly known in the house.

(b) If a fault is notorious in a closed community but not outside, the members as a rule may not speak or write about it to outsiders without injustice, for generally speaking there is no reason arising from necessity or utility for such a revelation. Moreover, the community itself suffers in repute from such disclosures, since outsiders will be impressed with the thought that the community has wicked members or is lax, and that there is a lack of unity among them. To carry stories from one monastery or house to another (even of the same Order) is a form of detraction to outsiders, according to St. Alphonsus.

Revelation about a Person Formerly in Disrepute.—When the revelation concerns one who was in disrepute formerly, but who has a good name now, either because his crime has been forgotten or because he has lived it down, a distinction must be made between juridical and actual notoriety.

(a) If the former disrepute was juridical notoriety, the revelation of it is not unjust, since condemnation pronounced in a court of law gives the right to others to make the sentence known in any place or at any time; but more probably it is mortally uncharitable, if made without necessity, since it harms the other person or his family in the reputation which he has honestly recovered, thus depriving him of a good most useful to him and hurtful to no one else.

(b) If the former disrepute was actual notoriety only, the revelation is uncharitable, according to all, since it does not observe the golden rule of doing to others as we would be done by. Many hold that it is also unjust, since an obliterated crime is the same as an occult crime, which cannot be divulged without injustice (see 2067). Moreover, the person who has built up for himself a new reputation has a right to it, and by the revelation of the old reputation this right is infringed, inasmuch as his present good name is also lost or made useless. It should be noted that the common good sometimes makes exceptions, and thus it is not forbidden to historians to make revelations about happenings that throw a new and unfavorable light on the youth or earlier years of persons no longer living (see 2072 Sqq.).

Case in Which the Name of the Person Defamed Is Not Given.—(a) If there is nothing to indicate the individual and no reflection is cast on a body to which he belongs, per se no sin is committed. Hence, if one says, “A certain person whom we shall call Balbus stole a sheep,” there is no defamation in the narrative, even though a real happening is described. Similarly, if one says that in the city where he is speaking there are many criminals, or that even among his numerous auditors there are doubtless some who are living in mortal sin, there is no defamation.

(b) If there is something to indicate the individual meant, or if reflection is cast on a body to which the individual belongs, sin is committed by the remarks. Hence, if the narrative about Balbus and the stolen sheep went on to describe incidents so that the hearers could easily perceive that Balbus was a person known to them, this person would be injured in his fame. Again, if one states that in a certain city which one names 90% of the married people are addicted to drunkenness, or that the party who was guilty of some scandalous act was a member of a Religious Institute, harm is brought directly upon individuals or damage is done to societies. It is true that an organization is not really discredited by the misdeeds of one of its members, but in popular opinion very often the disgrace of one is the disgrace of all.

Defamation of Deceased and Legal Persons.—(a) Defamation of the dead, whether they be long or only recently dead, is sinful per se, since the departed are capable of a glorious or inglorious memory, and it is reasonable that one should wish one’s good name to be respected after one’s death, both for one’s own sake and for the sake of others. Hence the saying, “De mortuis nil nisi bonum.” But per accidens it is not sinful to make revelations about the dead when this is necessary for historical truth (see 2072 sqq.). Defamation of the dead in itself is less sinful than defamation of the living, since the dead have less need of a good reputation; but circumstances may be such that one who defames a dead person does serious harm and commits a mortal sin.

(b) Defamation of legal persons is also sinful per se, since these bodies possess along with other rights of natural persons the right to a good name. Public esteem is very necessary for them, and they are protected in their enjoyment of it by the laws. Thus, it is injurious to state that a certain Religious Order or monastery or diocese is relaxed, or that a certain business corporation is not well managed. But per accidens it is not sinful to make revelations about organizations, when there is a sufficient reason for the revelation (see 2067). For example, if a political party is preying on the citizens, or if a mercantile house is practising frauds, the common good would require one to make these facts known. Neither is it sinful to mention faults or defects that are notorious, for example, that a certain government is warlike, that a certain people is backward, that a certain group is devoted to erroneous principles or practices (Tit., i. 12).

The Harm Done by Reason of the Person of the Defamer.—(a) The person of the defamer increases the harm when his authority is greater. A person who is supposed to be better informed (e.g., one who reports that he was an eyewitness of the event he narrates), or who enjoys a better reputation for truth (e.g., one who is in an official position, or who is thought to be honest and disinterested), does more harm by defamation than another whose authority is weak.

(b) The person of the defamer decreases the harm when his authority is less. Hence, those who give out unfavorable reports about others with reservations (such as “perhaps,” “it is not impossible,” “it seems so, but I would not swear to it,” etc.), and also those whose weight as authorities is light (such as talkative, lightminded, envious, gossipy, or untruthful persons), do less harm than persons who are held in higher repute. The confessor should not let these defamers off easily, however, since many of them act on the principle that if enough mud is thrown, no matter how foolish the charges, some of the mud will stick.

One of the commonest forms of defamation is the narration of some crime or defect at second hand, as when the defamer introduces his remarks as follows: “They say,” or, “It is reported,” or, “I hear,” etc.

(a) The mode of defamation here lessens the sin when it weakens the effect of the story upon the hearers. Hence, if one says that the talk of the town is that Claudius is a heavy drinker, and the listeners gather from this only that there is a vague rumor which cannot be traced to any source or be confirmed by any fact and which is therefore unreliable, the harm is less.

(b) The mode of defamation here does not lessen the sin when it does not weaken the impression of the story; on the contrary, it increases the sin when it adds strength to the story. Hence, if one says that Claudius is said to be an excessive drinker, and if from the phrasing the listeners will understand that the report originated with very good authorities, or that it is based on general knowledge of the public, the harm is greater. Justice is violated if the narrative itself inclines the hearers to sinister thoughts or suspicions, for then the narrator causes the harm; charity alone may be violated if it is only the character of the listeners (e.g., their suspicious or frivolous minds or their own guilt) that engenders in them evil opinion, for then the narrator only occasions the harm (cfr. 1447, 1464).

The Harm Done by Reason of the Listeners.—(a) The quality of the listeners makes a difference, since it may cause the person defamed to suffer more or less readily in their eyes (e.g., if they are suspicious, or prejudiced, or credulous, or guilty themselves, they will more easily believe evil about others) or in the eyes of others (e.g., if the listeners are newsmongers or enemies of the person defamed, the spread of the defamatory story is more certain). The loss itself may be greater or less on account of the character or position of the listener (e.g., loss of reputation with a friend or a virtuous person is felt more, loss of reputation with customers or employers is more damaging, etc.).

(b) The quantity of the listeners also makes a difference, since it is more harmful, other things being equal, to be defamed before several than before one. Hence, the fact that many persons are present when the defamation is uttered is an aggravating circumstance of the sin. Whether it multiplies the sin numerically, so that one commits as many sins of defamation as there are persons who hear and are impressed, is a disputed point. Those who hold for multiplication argue that the defamed person has a distinct right to his reputation with each person present; those who deny multiplication contend that the right to reputation is a single object, since reputation is the opinion of others, whether they be many or few. This latter view seems to be more common, and its practical bearing is that a penitent need not mention the number of persons before whom he defamed his neighbor (see 217).

Is the malice of defamation aggravated by the fact that the listeners are peculiar and think the defect mentioned is far more serious than it really is?

(a) If only the harm to reputation is considered, it does not seem that the over-strict notions of the listeners increase the sinfulness of defamation; for the harm to reputation is to be measured by the common opinion, not by the singular ideas of certain persons. Example: Sempronius tells that Balbus wastes a little time in telling humorous incidents and reading detective stories. The small group of auditors think that this is one of the blackest of crimes.

(b) If other harms are taken into account, the peculiar ideas of the listener may add to the sinfulness of defamation. Thus, if a young person of delicate conscience will be scandalized at hearing that Caius plays cards, or if older listeners will be led by this remark to take their trade away from Caius, the sins of scandal and of unjust damage are added to defamation. Defamation often destroys in the listener all faith in humanity, or all belief in religion.

Detraction to One Discreet Person.—Is detraction a mortal sin, if the revelation of a serious sin is made without sufficient reason but to only one prudent and discreet person, who will neither divulge the information, nor be influenced by it to the harm of the party spoken against?

(a) If the purpose of the speaker is to inflict serious injury on his neighbor, mortal sin is committed, since the gravity of the sin is measured by the malevolence of the will.

(b) If the purpose of the speaker is not to inflict serious injury, but only to indulge his love of talk, levity of mind, etc., the gravity of the sin depends on the actual harm that is done; for one wills indirectly the harm connected with one’s acts, even when one does not desire it directly (see 102). Hence, if the harm is in fact serious, mortal sin is incurred by the detractor, unless he is excused from it by the imperfection of his deliberation or consent. How much harm, then, is done in this case? Most moralists, it seems, think grave harm is done, since the loss of good name with one prudent man is generally more distasteful than its loss with many light-minded persons. Some moralists, however, dissent from this view, and hold that the harm done is small. They argue that the loss of good name with one prudent person (exception being made for the cases when he is the one person whose esteem is prized above that of all others, or when the crime revealed is an enormous or very degrading one) is not a great blow to reputation, since reputation consists in the opinion of many persons, and since a prudent man will be inclined to help rather than harm one who has been defamed in his presence. The advocates of the first opinion appeal also to the analogy of contumely and rash judgment, for these two sins are grave, even when the loss of honor or good opinion is in respect to one person only. But their adversaries deny the assumed parity: for, while contumely includes the purpose to injure and rash judgment includes the imputation to another of a defect of which he is not guilty or not known to be guilty, the detraction now considered is innocent both of design to injure and of calumny. Both opinions are probable, but the former seems to be more common and more likely.

Belittling a Person to Himself.—It is not impossible to belittle a person to himself, for example, to make him believe that lie is illegitimate, that he is regarded with contempt by others, that his ability is mediocre or his character defective, etc. Is this defamation, or is it sinful?

(a) To lower a person in his own estimation is not defamation in the strict sense of the word, since defamation is properly an injury to the reputation that one has with one’s neighbors or with the public, not to the opinion one has of oneself. This sin belongs rather to derision (see 2106).

(b) To lower a person in his own eyes is sinful or not sinful according to the purpose intended or the means employed. Thus, if a parent, wishing to correct the pride or presumption of his son, gives the latter a true picture of his failings or limitations, the act is one of virtuous correction. But if an envious person, wishing to produce a sense of inferiority in another, deprives the latter of rightful peace of mind and of reasonable confidence in self, charity and justice are violated and there is a duty of restitution.

The sins against the honor we owe our fellowmen are partly internal and partly external. They differ in degree according to the nature of the attack and the relation existing between the offender and the offended.

The legal axiom that every man must be considered honorable until the contrary has been proved, embodies a truly Christian principle, for the essence of Christianity is charity, which “thinketh no evil.”¹ Whoever disregards this maxim, has either lost charity, or is about to lose it. Merely to entertain unfounded suspicion internally is an injustice to others and an act of infidelity to God.²

¹ 1 Cor. XIII, 5.

² Matth. VII, 1; Luke VI, 37; John VII, 24; 1 Cor. IV, 5; Jas. IV, 13.—St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 2a 2ae, qu. 60, art. 4: “By the very fact that someone holds a bad opinion of another without sufficient cause, he injures and despises him. But no one ought to despise another or inflict any harm whatever without compelling cause. And therefore, where manifest indications of someone’s malice do not appear, we ought to regard him as good by interpreting what is doubtful in the better part.”—Ibid., ad 2: “It is one thing to judge things and another to judge men. For in a judgment in which we judge things, . . . each person ought to strive to judge things according as they are. But in the judg- ment in which we judge men, . . . we ought rather to tend toward judging a man good, unless a manifest reason to the contrary appears.”—Hence the moral and legal axiom: “Nemo praesumitur malus, nisi probetur.”

1. The internal acts by which we violate the duty of honoring our neighbor, in so far as they influence our conduct towards him and thus cause him injury, are: groundless suspicion and rash judgment.

a) We are guilty of groundless suspicion against our fellowman if we doubt his virtue for altogether insufficient reasons (levia indicia). This sin usually begins with an unfounded doubt (dubitatio temeraria), which, if it is not promptly suppressed, engenders rash suspicion (suspicio temeraria).³

³ St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 2a 2ae, qu. 60, art. 3: “There are three degrees of suspicion. The first degree is when a man begins to doubt another’s goodness from slight indications; and this is a venial and slight sin, for it belongs to human temptation, without which this life is not lived. The second degree is when someone holds another’s malice as certain from slight indications; and this, if it concerns some grave matter, is a mortal sin, inasmuch as it is not without contempt of one’s neighbor. The third degree is when a judge proceeds from suspicion to condemn someone; and this pertains directly to injustice, whence it is a mortal sin.”—St. Augustine, Tract. in Ioa., 26, n. 2: “Noli velle iudicare, si non vis errare.” (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1607).

Unfounded suspicion of others usually comes from corruption in one’s own heart. If we were better men ourselves, says a modern writer, we should not consider others capable of so much evil. “He who is himself wicked,” says St. Ignatius of Loyola, “easily suspects others, just as he who suffers from vertigo, imagines that everything about him is moving round and round.”

b) Rash judgment (iudicium temerarium) consists in thinking ill of others without sufficient warrant. It differs from groundless suspicion only in degree: the former implies hesitation, whereas the latter does not.⁴ Holy Scripture tells us, and experience confirms it, that unfounded suspicion and rash judgment both originate as a rule either in malice, which sees nothing but wickedness in others, or in envy or hatred, which inspire ill will towards others. In some men these vices result from the bitter disappointments of a life-time. When they spring from malice, envy, or hatred, unfounded suspicion and rash judgment are invariably sinful, because they involve a lack of charity. The gravity of this sin may be gauged by the importance of its object and the degree of pleasure which the sinner takes in his uncharitable act.

⁴ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 481: “1. A rash judgment is a true assent, conceived from slight indications, concerning some sin or defect of one’s neighbor; 2. rash suspicion is a weak assent concerning one’s neighbor’s evil, or an assent concerning another’s stain conceived with fear of the opposite; 3. doubt is a suspension of the mind determining itself toward neither side.”

Merely to harbor a momentary and spontaneous (or involuntary) doubt regarding the virtue of another is, of course, no sin at all. Such judgments frequently flash through the mind—we are so quick and prone to judge ill of others without sufficient reason. All this is merely a temptation. But from the temptation we pass on to sin if, knowing the insufficiency of our reasons, we nevertheless deliberately form an unfavorable judgment regarding another’s virtue. “Suspicion,” says the Angelic Doctor, “denotes evil thinking based on slight indications, and this may arise from three causes. First, from a man’s being evil in himself, and from this very fact, as though conscious of his own wickedness, a wicked man is prone to think evil of others. . . . Secondly, it is owing to a man’s being ill-disposed towards another; for when a man hates or despises another, or is angry with or envious of him, he is led by slight indications to think evil of him, because everyone easily believes what he desires. Thirdly, it may arise from long experience, wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii) that old people are very suspicious, for they have often experienced the faults of others. The first two causes of suspicion evidently connote perversity of the affections, whilst the third diminishes the nature of suspicion, in as much as experience leads to certainty, which is contrary to the nature of suspicion. Consequently, suspicion denotes a certain amount of vice, and the further it goes, the more vicious it is.”⁵

⁵ St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 2a 2ae, qu. 60, art. 3: “Suspicion denotes an opinion of evil when it proceeds from slight indications, and this happens in three ways: first, from the fact that someone is evil in himself and, from this very fact, as though conscious of his own malice, readily thinks evil of others. Secondly, it arises from the fact that someone is ill-disposed toward another; for when someone despises or hates another, or is angry with or envious of him, he thinks evil of him from slight signs, because everyone readily believes what he desires. Thirdly, it arises from long experience. The first two causes of suspicion manifestly pertain to perversity of affection; but the third cause diminishes the nature of suspicion, inasmuch as experience advances toward certainty, which is contrary to the nature of suspicion. And therefore suspicion denotes a certain vice, and the farther suspicion proceeds, the more vicious it is.” (Vide supra, n. 3).—Gury, Comp. Theol. Moral., I, n. 482: “A rash judgment concerning a neighbor’s fault is by its kind a mortal sin against justice; for each person has a right to his good reputation in the judgment of individuals. . . . Often, however, it is venial because of the slightness of the matter or the imperfection of the act. Rash suspicion and doubt concerning a neighbor’s stain are only venial by their kind. The reason is that, because of their weak and readily changeable adherence, they ordinarily inflict only slight harm on one’s neighbor, since they do not destroy his reputation but only diminish it and render it doubtful.”

To entertain a sort of general distrust towards strangers or to reserve one’s judgment regarding their honesty or disinterestedness, in consequence of having had one’s goodness repeatedly imposed upon, is no sin, because there is some reason for such a general distrust. Still, we must always remember that Christian charity commands us to think good rather than evil of our neighbor.⁶ The Talmud lays down a prudent rule of conduct when it says: “Judge no one unless you have been in his place.”

⁶ Cfr. Is. XI, 3; Luke VI, 37; John VIII, 15 sq.; 1 Cor. IV, 5.—St. Augustine, De Agone Christ., c. 27, n. 29: “In that passage [Mt. vii, 1], where [the Lord] forbids judging, He admonishes us not to condemn anyone whose thought is not open to us, or of whom we do not know what sort of person he may afterwards become.” (Migne, P. L., XL, 395).

“Frequently there is a greater sin involved in judging rashly of another than in the act that is so judged. The wise men of the world (sapientes mundi) warn us not to outdo the sins of others by passing rash judgment upon them; how much more carefully ought we to consider our own conduct, lest we condemn petty faults in others and at the same time incur grievous sins ourselves.”⁷

⁷ Pseudo-Ambrose, Apol. II David, c. 2, n. 5 (Migne, P. L., XIV, 889).

“To have a low opinion of oneself and always to think well and commendably of others,” says Thomas à Kempis, “is great wisdom and perfection. If thou shouldst see another openly sin, or commit heinous crimes, yet thou oughtest not to esteem thyself better, because thou knowest not how long thou mayest remain in a good state. We are all frail; but do thou think no one more frail than thyself.”⁸

⁸ De Imitatione Christi, l. I, c. 2 (ed. Pohl, II, 8).

2. The chief external sins against the honor of our fellowman are contumely, calumny, and slander.

a) Contumely (contumelia) means casting a man's faults in his face to detract from his dignity. This may be done either in his physical or in his moral presence. Moral presence is assumed when the insult is uttered before those who know the victim and to whose respect he attaches weight.⁹ This includes publication in the press.

⁹ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 478: "A person can be present either personally or physically, or morally through an image or through something else in which he is represented to some extent."

Contumely implies insult. An insult is any remark or expression by which another is denied the dignity of a human being, or accused of a moral defect, or charged with a crime or an offense. It is not necessary that the utterance in question actually contain an expression of contempt or disrespect, but the intention of injuring the other (animus iniuriandi) suffices.

The seriousness of the sin of contumely is measured by the intention of the offender, the importance of the matter involved, and the dignity of the person injured. No contumely is committed by parents and superiors when they censure the sins and faults of their children or subjects, even if this is done in a humiliating way, though they should, of course, always remember that even just reproaches must be kept within proper limits and that brutality and unnecessary harshness often produce a contrary effect.

The ancients took cognizance of real contumely, but not of verbal, and the Roman law did not punish the latter, probably for the reason that in former times men were less sensitive in regard to verbal insults than they are now, but especially because the spoken word did not then enjoy the publicity now given to it through the press.¹⁰ St. John the Baptist and Jesus Christ Himself severely censured the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.¹¹ St. Polycarp, when asked by the heretic Marcion whether he knew him, answered: "Certainly I know the first-born of Satan!"¹²

¹⁰ Homer (Ilias, I, 210 sqq.) describes Athene as intervening between Achilles and Agamemnon with the words: "Do not engage in combat nor draw the sword, for you can insult him in words as much as you please."—Linsenmann, Moraltheol., p. 457; W. S. Lilly, On Right and Wrong, London, 1892, Ch. VII, "The Ethics of Journalism," pp. 150–173.

¹¹ Matth. III, 7; XII, 34, 39; XVI, 4; XXIII, 13–33; Mark VIII, 38; Luke III, 7; XI, 42–45; cfr. Matth. XV, 26; XVI, 23; Mark VII, 27; Luke XIII, 32; Acts XIII, 10; XXIII, 3; Gal. III, 1, 3; Phil. III, 2; Tit. I, 12 sq.

¹² Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, 3–4; cfr. Polycarp, Epist. ad Philipp., c. 7; Funk, Patres Apost., Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 304; Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb Classical Library), Vol. I, p. 293.

Contumely, says Fr. Slater,¹³ is of itself a grave sin against justice and charity, for it injures a man in what he values more than wealth, and as a rule an insult wounds the reputation as well as the feelings of him who is insulted. Christ shows how grievous a sin is committed by contumely when He says: "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."¹⁴ Like most sins against justice and charity, contumely may be a venial sin only, if the matter involved is slight. Chaff or banter, which is not intended to wound or irritate others is, of course, harmless, so long as it keeps within due bounds.¹⁵

¹³ Slater, Mor. Theol., I, 462.

¹⁴ Matth. V, 22.

¹⁵ Slater, ibid.

We insult a neighbor not only in words, but also by sending him abusive, immoral, or frivolous cards, a custom which exists in some countries and constitutes a serious abuse of the practice, in itself unobjectionable, of sending tokens of congratulation or remembrance at certain seasons of the year. The exhibition and circulation of offensive cards seriously menaces the morals of the young and promotes the world-wide movement against sound ethics.

b) Calumny (calumnia) or slander is committed by falsely imputing to another something which injures or destroys his reputation. This usually consists in accusing him falsely or exaggerating his faults or denying his good qualities or wilfully misinterpreting his intentions,¹⁶ and may be done in speech or in writing; in the latter case is called libel or pasquil.

¹⁶ Deut. I, 27; Mark VII, 22. On Matth. XII, 36 ῥῆμα ἀργόν, verbum otiosum, cfr. E. Nestle, Philologica Sacra, Berlin, 1896, pp. 58 sq.

Calumny involves three distinct acts; namely, first, a wilful lie, which is aggravated by the fact that it is told in secret and the injured person cannot defend himself against it; secondly, a sin against charity, and thirdly, a violation of justice (iustitia commutativa), because the injured person frequently suffers damage in his social position or good name.

If calumny is committed in general terms, i. e., if we declare our neighbor to be entirely bad without a redeeming trait, it is a mortal sin. If we impute to him only one fault, or several faults, the gravity of the sin committed varies according to the seriousness of the faults imputed, the consequences of the imputation, and the malice with which the calumniator strives to effect the moral or social ruin of his victim. The lighter the unjust accusation and the less intentional the imputation of evil, the smaller will be the guilt incurred.

In its worst form calumny is little less than spiritual murder and must be reckoned among the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance.¹⁷

¹⁷ Cfr. Ps. C, 5; Jas. IV, 11; 1 Pet. II, 1.—St. Jerome, Epist. 54 (al. 10), n. 13: "It is impossible for anyone to pass through the course of this life without being bitten by men, and it is the consolation of the wicked to carp at the good, while they think the guilt of sins is diminished by the multitude of sinners. Yet the fire of stubble soon subsides, and the overflowing flame gradually dies when nourishment fails."—Epist., 108 (al. 27), n. 19: "A slanderous tongue is accustomed to carp at saints as a consolation for the offender."—Epist., 148 (al. 14), n. 16: "Never detract from anyone at all, nor wish to appear praiseworthy by censuring others; learn rather to adorn your own life than to carp at another's. There are very few who renounce this vice, and rarely will you find those who wish to present their own life as blameless without willingly censuring another's. So great a lust for this evil has invaded men's minds that even those who have withdrawn far from other vices nevertheless fall into this one as though into the devil's final snare. But do you so flee this evil that not only do you yourself not detract, but you do not even at any time believe another who detracts. Nor by agreeing give authority to detractors, lest by nodding assent you nourish their vice. . . . Indeed, this vice is such that it should be extinguished among the first, and should be wholly excluded by those who wish to train themselves in holiness. For nothing so disturbs the mind; there is nothing that makes the mind so changeable and frivolous as readily to believe everything and to follow the words of detractors with the mind's rash assent. Hence frequent dissensions arise, hence unjust hatreds. This it is that often makes enemies even of the closest friends, when a malicious tongue separates souls that are indeed harmonious but credulous. On the other hand, it is great tranquility of mind and great steadiness of character not rashly to hear anything adverse about anyone. Blessed is he who has so armed himself against this vice that no one dares detract in his presence. But if there were in us this diligence not to believe detractors indiscriminately, everyone would now fear to detract, lest in detracting they make not others so much as themselves contemptible. But this evil is notorious for this reason, and this vice flourishes in many for this reason: because it is willingly heard by almost everyone." (Migne, P. L., XXII, 557, 896, 1211).

The varieties of this sin are described in the old memorial verse:

"Imponens, augens, manifestans, in mala vertens, Qui negat aut minuit, reticet laudatque remisse."

If one is calumniated, he should recall that it is not the worst fruit that is attacked by the wasps, as the German poet Bürger says, or, as an Arabian proverb puts it: "People do not throw stones at a tree unless it bears fruit."

Some men resemble bees, not by their diligence, but by their sting.

c) Detraction, or backbiting (diffamatio, detractio)¹⁸ is committed when one unjustly deprives another of his good name by revealing his real but secret faults in his absence. This is a sin against justice as well as charity, because every man has a strict right to his good name. The more uncharitable the disposition of the detractor or slanderer, the more unfavorable the light in which he places his neighbor, the more widely the detraction circulates, the more the victim's position or activity depends on his good name, and the worse the results of the detraction, the more serious is the sin committed. Another factor to be taken into consideration here, as in all sins of defamation, are the consequences resulting from detraction in the case of those who hear of it.

¹⁸ The older Scholastics designated both calumny and detraction with one word: detractio.—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 73, art. 1.—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 459, says: "Detraction is a secret and unjust violation of another's reputation, or the unjust blackening of the reputation of an absent neighbor. Reputation is the good estimation that others have of someone's life and morals. Detraction is called simply such if the neighbor's reputation is violated by reporting a true crime; it is called calumny if the violation follows from imputing a false crime."

Unsophisticated persons are apt to lose their good opinion of others generally (odium generis humani) and their reverence for virtue. Hence a sin of this kind, aside from the malice it involves, is more grievous when committed by persons in whose veracity and judgment one has great confidence.¹⁹

¹⁹ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 460: "The gravity of detraction is to be taken chiefly from the gravity of the harm that one's neighbor is foreseen to suffer from it, and not precisely from the gravity of the defect or crime related about him. Hence, to determine the gravity of detraction in a particular case, attention must be paid to the character: 1. of the detractor—whether he is serious and discreet, or talkative and frivolous; 2. of the injured person—whether he enjoys a good or bad reputation, etc. The reason is that greater or lesser credence will be given according as the speaker is worthy of greater or lesser trust; likewise, greater or lesser injury to reputation will follow in proportion to the greater or lesser esteem enjoyed by the injured person."

Like calumny, detraction can be committed against an entire community or class, and not only by word of mouth, but also in writing. To defame others in writing is a more grievous sin than to do so by word of mouth. Writings enjoy a certain permanency and therefore are able to exercise their influence not merely in the present, but likewise in the future.²⁰

²⁰ Cfr. St. Paul's judgment of the Cretans (Tit. I, 12), and the sayings: "Litera scripta manet" and "Literae non erubescunt"; i. e., one writes more boldly than one speaks.

Mendacity and detraction are the primary vices of the modern newspaper press. "Journalism is conducted under conditions which tend to nourish this vice. The newspaper is, by its very nature, an ephemeral production, read for an hour and then cast aside, and probably never looked at again. Its assertions have done their work before an opportunity of correcting them is presented. Besides, it rests with editors whether contradictions of false and misleading allegations, which their journals may contain, shall appear in them or not. And it is manifest to all men that the considerations by which this question is determined are, in a vast majority of instances, wholly unethical. Again, the conditions under which the newspaper publicist works are extremely unfavorable to the cultivation of the virtue of veracity. He is called upon suddenly to expound views which shall strike his readers as profound, well-considered, or original, about subjects of which, very likely, he knows nothing truly or exactly. Or he is summoned to essay the defense of 'principles' to which he is wholly indifferent. Or he is bidden to attack some institution, some interest, some work, which whatever there may be of good left to him confesses to be worthy of respect and support. A very few years' practice in a calling of this kind is apt to render him as indifferent to the goal whither his pen conducts him, as is a cab-horse to the destination whither the driver's 'fare' is conveyed. And the worst of it is that, in time, he comes to glory in his shame. Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, distinguishes between two kinds of liars; there is 'the liar who loves a lie for its own sake,' and 'the liar who lies to win reputation or to make money.' But many a journalist who, at first, belongs to the latter of these classes, and is perhaps a little ashamed, for a while, at finding himself there, passes pretty swiftly into the former. Thus does he anticipate in this life, the doom which Dante ascribed to the damned; he is in the miserable estate of those 'genti dolorose' who have lost 'il ben del intelletto.' And then, by a fatal and necessary law, his chief object, next to the provision of the means of 'agreeable feeling' for himself, is to bring down as many as possible to his own level. Nor does he find any surer way of effecting this, than by the persistent denial of those moral excellences which he has ceased to strive after, or even to venerate. Is a man the object of reverence and admiration, for patriotism, philanthropy, piety? Your newspaper censors, with due protestations of hatred of hypocrisy, will strip off the veneer which imposes on the unsuspicious; will show their readers that these pretended virtues are a mere cloak for some base or sordid end; will demonstrate conclusively that 'old Cato is as great a rogue as you.' And their efforts are only too successful. I think I may truly say that the newspaper press, during the last quarter of a century, has done more than anything else to de-ethicize public life; to lay the axe to the root of duty, self-devotion, self-sacrifice, the elements of the moral greatness of a nation, which is its true greatness."²¹

²¹ W. S. Lilly, On Right and Wrong, pp. 171 sqq.

Formal detraction differs from material in that it is intentional. Formal detraction, or, a fortiori, slander, be- ing contrary to justice and charity, which bind under a grave obligation, is of itself a grievous sin, though frequently only venial on account of the smallness of the matter involved. Material detraction usually proceeds from carelessness, lack of caution, love of gossip, or a desire to be entertaining and, therefore, as a rule, is a venial sin only, unless indeed it seriously injures the good name of others.²²

²² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 73, art. 2: "Verbal sins are to be judged chiefly from the intention of the speaker. Detraction by its nature is ordered to blackening someone's reputation. Hence, strictly speaking, he detracts who speaks ill of someone in his absence for the purpose of blackening his reputation. Now, to take away someone's reputation is very serious, because among temporal goods reputation seems to be more precious, through the loss of which a man is hindered from doing many good things (Eccli. 41, 15). And therefore detraction, strictly speaking, is a mortal sin. Yet it sometimes happens that someone says certain words by which another's reputation is diminished, intending not this but something else. This, however, is not detraction strictly and formally speaking, but only materially and, as it were, accidentally. And if someone utters words by which another's reputation is diminished for the sake of some necessary good, with the due circumstances observed, it is not a sin and cannot be called detraction. But if he utters them from levity of mind or for some unnecessary cause, it is not a mortal sin, unless perhaps the word spoken is so grave that it notably injures someone's reputation, especially in matters pertaining to uprightness of life, because from the very kind of words it has the character of a mortal sin."

Note that the guilt of detraction, aside from the underlying intention, is measured by the amount of injury done (gravitas damni), and that, consequently, attacks upon the good name of others are grievously sinful in proportion to the dignity or social position of the persons attacked. To attack the good name of a priest or superior, therefore, is more grievous than to attack the reputation of an ordinary citizen.

While it is never permissible falsely to impute a crime to another,²³ it may be licit, nay a strict duty, to reveal his true faults for a higher purpose. This is the case, for instance, when it becomes necessary to inform legitimate superiors, to warn inferiors, children, etc., or to protect oneself or others against serious injury, or if the faults revealed are already known in consequence of a public trial or the culprit's own admission (notorietate iuris) through the confession of confederates (notorietate facti) or through rumor (notorietate famae). Whenever the revelation of the sins or faults of another seems necessary as a means of reforming him or of averting a greater evil, it is morally licit, nay a duty, for the reason that the sinner has lost the right to his good name because he can not preserve it except to the detriment of others and to his own injury.²⁴ But even though his faults and crimes are notorious, charity commands us not to reveal them to persons to whom they would otherwise probably remain unknown. Besides rumors must never be represented as facts.

²³ Prop. damn. sub Innoc. XI, n. 44: "It is probable that one who imputes a false crime to someone in order to defend his own justice and honor does not sin mortally. And if this is not probable, scarcely any opinion in theology will be probable." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1194).

²⁴ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 461: "It is never permissible to impute a false crime to another. . . . It is permissible, however, for a just cause to reveal a hidden crime even with the loss of his reputation, because sometimes the public or a private good requires this, and then the neighbor's right to the preservation of his reputation ceases. The causes for which another's crime may lawfully be revealed are the following: 1. A notable advantage to the revealer himself, e. g., to seek advice or assistance in a grave matter, provided, however, that every disposition to detraction is excluded; 2. The advantage of the offender, namely, for his instruction or correction, etc.; 3. The public advantage, as for preventing evils threatening the state, religion, or some community; 4. A grave private advantage, either of the hearers or of others, e. g., that they may guard against evils, losses, or inconveniences that otherwise will certainly or probably befall them. The reason for these cases is that one who then reveals another's sin injures neither justice nor charity. 1. He does not injure justice, because the neighbor does not have so strict a right to his reputation that others are bound to conceal the truth when its disclosure is necessary to avoid grave harm, whether to oneself or to others. 2. He does not injure charity, because charity does not bind at so great a loss. For if you are not bound to prevent harm to your neighbor, even greater harm, at grave loss to yourself, neither are you bound in that case to conceal your neighbor's hidden crime." Cfr. ibid., n. 465–466.

Detraction comprises all evil speaking and criticizing of others through the spreading of tales to the disadvantage of their good name. This applies especially to suspicions cast upon the internal motives of our fellowmen.

A special kind of detraction is known as tale-bearing (susurratio), and consists in mischief-making between friends by telling tales to the disadvantage of one of them, with the object of sowing or promoting discord.²⁵ This sin is particularly detestable if it is directed to the destruction of mutual confidence between husband and wife.

²⁵ Prov. VI, 16 sqq.; XXVI, 20, 22; Ecclus. V, 16 sq.; XXVIII, 15.—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 2a 2ae, qu. 74, art. 2: "A sin against one's neighbor is graver in proportion as greater harm is inflicted on the neighbor through it. Harm, however, is greater in proportion as the good taken away is greater. Among the remaining external goods, however, a friend is preeminent (Ecclus. vi, 15). Reputation itself, which is taken away by detraction, is especially necessary for this, that a man be held fit for friendship. Therefore tale-bearing is a greater sin than detraction and even than contumely, because a friend is better than honor and to be loved than to be honored."

By listening wilfully or with pleasure to a detractor, or encouraging him by asking questions or applauding his tales, or not hindering them if we are able, we formally coöperate in his sin.²⁶

²⁶ Prov. XXV, 23.—Cfr. St. Bernard, De Consid., l. II, c. 13: "Whether to detract or to listen to a detractor—which of these is more damnable I would not easily say." (Migne, P. L., CLXXXII, 756).

Mockery or derision (derisio, irrisio, illusio, subsannatio) makes sport of another's honor. It sometimes runs counter to charity also by employing the faults or infirmities of others in order to make them a butt of laughter or contempt. The most grievous sin of this kind is the mockery of God and sacred things; next in order come mockery of parents, superiors, and virtuous persons.²⁷

²⁷ Is. XXXVII, 23; Prov. XXX, 17; Job XII, 4.—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 75, art. 2.—Possidius, Vita Sti. Augustini, c. 22 (Migne, P. L., XXXII, 52): "Whoever loves to gnaw at the life of the absent with words, let him know that this table is unworthy of him."

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 60, art. 3–4; qu. 73 (Rickaby, Aquinas Ethicus, II, 18 sqq., 82 sqq.).—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 962–977 (ed. Gaudé, II, 355 sqq.).—Jocham, Moraltheologie, Vol. III, pp. 400 sqq.—Schwane, Die Gerechtigkeit, pp. 77 sqq.—M. Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. II, pp. 110 sqq.—A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Pastor., Vol. III, pp. 156 sqq.—J. E. Ross, Christian Ethics, pp. 259 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 659 sqq., 678 sq.

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.

1. 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.