(a) Thus, a witness is unreliable either through his own fault (e.g., if he is regarded in his community as below the standard in truthfulness, or has the reputation of being a calumniator) or without his own fault (e.g., if his powers of observation or his memory are subnormal, or he is devoted or hostile to or dependent on one of the contending parties). It is a duty, indeed, to presume good of a person in whom the opposite does not appear, if he is the only one whose interests are concerned; but when there is danger to a third party, one must be on one’s guard (see 1744). Hence, St. John admonishes not to believe every spirit (I John, iv. 1).
(b) Testimony is unreliable because of the number of the witnesses (e.g., one witness is often legally insufficient to prove, especially in graver matters), or the quality of their evidence (e.g., because in substantial points a witness contradicts himself or is contradicted by his co-witnesses, or because there are signs of collusion or conspiracy), or the counter-evidence of the opposition.
1985. Obligation of Freely Appearing as a Witness.—(a) There is an obligation of commutative justice to offer testimony, if one is under contract to do this, as when one is hired as a detective or agent to gather evidence against lawbreakers.
(b) There is an obligation of legal justice to testify, even at the cost of serious inconvenience, if the testimony is necessary for averting a serious evil that threatens the common welfare. A person who knows of a plot against the peace of the State should bring this to the notice of the authorities, even at the risk of his life. But a person who knows that a crime has been committed, is not bound to give witness about it, if the escape of its author will not be a serious detriment to public or private welfare (e.g., if one knows that an apparent case of suicide was really a homicide committed by accident).
(c) There is an obligation of charity to testify (but not at the cost of serious inconvenience), if the testimony is necessary for averting a serious evil that threatens a private person. A person who can prove that the evidence which is about to hang an innocent man is false should testify for the accused, unless the testimony will bring an equal evil upon himself.
1986. Obligation of Appearing under Lawful Citation to Give Testimony.—(a) He who avoids citation (e.g., by flight into another jurisdiction, by concealment of his person when the subpoena is being served), more probably does not violate legal justice by this act, since a precept that has not been received cannot be violated. (b) He who disregards citation offends legal justice, since the summons to appear has a claim on his obedience. But it does not seem that he violates commutative justice, unless the party for whom he could testify has a strict right to the testimony.
1987. Obligation of Witness to Answer Truthfully.—A witness who is questioned legitimately (i.e., by one who has the authority to question him) and juridically (i.e., according to the form and order prescribed in law) is obliged _per se_ to answer according to the truth as he knows it, for one is bound to obey a superior when he gives a lawful command. But there are exceptions to this rule _per accidens_, that is, when a higher law exempts one from the necessity of divulging a certain matter, or when the question asked refers only to what one knows juridically. In all these cases the witness may answer that he does not know, for he has no knowledge that he may, or should, or must use.
(a) Thus, the natural law permits reticence when a revelation would work notable damage to the witness or those closely related to him, for the command of a superior does not oblige under such great inconvenience. This supposes, of course, that the revelation is not required in order to prevent a great harm to the commonwealth or a far greater harm to a private person than that which threatens the witness. A person who knows that he will be assassinated if he testifies against a powerful criminal is not ordinarily bound to make the sacrifice. Canon and civil law excuse witnesses from making disclosures that would expose them to prosecution or penalties (see Canon 1755, Sec. 2, n. 2).
(b) The natural law commands reticence when a revelation would be injurious to divine, public or private rights.
1988. Matters Regarding Which a Witness Should Not Testify.—There are certain cases in which natural law forbids a witness to make known a fact about which he is questioned.
(a) A witness may never testify to matters known to him only from Sacramental Confession, for to break the seal of confession is an injury to the rights of God. In an ecclesiastical process a priest may not testify from Sacramental knowledge, even though he has the penitent’s permission (Canon 1757, Sec. 3, n. 2).
(b) A witness may not testify as a rule to matters that are known to him only in a confidential way, such as the communications between lawyer and client, physician and patient; for the public interest as well as the interest of individuals requires that generally there be security against defamation for those who give their confidence to others, especially if they are in great need of professional assistance. Privileged communications are recognized both in Canon Law (Canon 1755, Sec. 2) and in civil law. But knowledge obtained as a secret may be used when this is necessary in order to avert a great evil that threatens the public welfare or the welfare of an innocent person, whether this person be the giver of the secret, or a third party, or oneself; for to oblige to secrecy in these cases would be to throw protection around crime. Thus, a lawyer may make disclosures of confidential knowledge, if this is necessary in order to defend himself against the false accusations of a client, or to prevent a crime which the client intends to commit.
(c) A witness may not testify to matters about which he has unjust knowledge (e.g., by wire-tapping, by unjust coercion, by intoxicating another person, by reading private papers without permission), for, as the knowledge was unjustly acquired, it cannot be justly used (see 2420).
1989. There are also certain cases in which a question refers only to what the witness knows juridically, or in which he is called upon to answer according to the mind of the questioner.
(a) If the witness is asked to state what he knows about a case, he is not obliged to mention what he merely thinks or what he is uncertain about; and if he is asked what he has heard, he is not obliged to state what was told him by persons of poor authority.
(b) If he is asked whether the accused was to his knowledge guilty of a crime, he is not obliged to mention an act of the accused that was unlawful but done in good faith. But in a civil case, in which inquiry is made about juridical faults, the witness should testify even to the existence of delinquencies in which there was no element of theological fault.
(c) If he is the only one who has knowledge of a delinquency and it will be certainly useless for him to testify about the matter without corroboratory evidence, it seems that he may keep silence about what he knows. But if the testimony of one witness is sufficient according to law, then the witness should speak of the facts known to him.
1990. Sinfulness of False Testimony.—When we speak of false testimony, we mean testimony which the witness knows to be false.
(a) By reason of his false oath, the witness is guilty of perjury, which is a grave sin against the virtue of religion.
(b) By reason of the injury done by the testimony, the witness is guilty of injustice, which from its nature is a grave sin. In the Decalogue (Exod., xx. 16) false testimony is forbidden among the sins against justice: “Thou shalt not bear false testimony against thy neighbor.” Legal justice is offended, since false testimony is an act of disobedience to lawful authority, and usually commutative justice is also violated, since by false testimony one of the litigants as a rule suffers loss.
(c) By reason of the deliberate falsehood, the witness is guilty of lying, which, however, is not always a grave sin.
1991. It may happen then, though rarely, that false testimony is only a venial sin, for example, when the witness is not under oath and he gives false testimony in a matter of small importance, or without full deliberation on what he is saying, or when he forges or corrupts a document to supply for another that has been lost and from which his certain right could be proved.
1992. Obligation of Witness to Make Restitution.—The obligations of restitution by a witness on account of failure to perform his duties properly are as follows:
(a) if the witness has not sinned against commutative justice, there is no obligation of restitution (see 1753). Hence, if he has evaded testimony to which he was bound in legal justice or charity alone, he is guilty of sin, but he is not held to restitution. Similarly, if he has given false testimony and thereby deprived the State of a fine under a penal law, or saved a guilty party from punishment, he has sinned against legal justice, but is not obliged to make good the fine or pay damages;
(b) if the witness has sinned against commutative justice, materially but not formally, he is not the gravely guilty cause of damage, and hence is not obliged from justice (but there may be an obligation from charity) to make restitution (see 1764). But if he perceives that his testimony was materially or venially unjust and will cause serious damage, he is obliged to recall his testimony, or in some other suitable way prevent the damage, if this is possible (see 1769);
(c) if the witness has sinned against commutative justice formally, he is the efficacious and culpable cause of the damage that results, and hence is bound to restitution, unless there is an excusing cause (see 1797 sqq.). Thus, if false testimony, or testimony about matters which the witness had no right to disclose, has led to the death sentence for an innocent man, the witness who gave that testimony must retract, even at the risk of his own life; for in equal danger the rights of the innocent have the preference. Again, if Titus by false testimony has saved Balbus from paying damages for injury done to public property, Titus must make restitution for the loss caused, if Balbus will not make reparation.
1993. Is a witness guilty against commutative justice when he unlawfully conceals facts and damage results thereby to another person? (a) If by concealment is meant the destruction of evidence (e.g., the burning of a will or letter or forging), the witness or other person responsible is guilty of a positive act of commutative injustice and is bound to restitution. (b) If by concealment is meant silence about material facts that the witness is lawfully called on to disclose, distinction has to be made between the witness who is not obliged from contract to give evidence and the witness who is so bound. The former witness is a negative cooperator and sins against legal justice and charity; the latter witness is a negative cooperator and sins against commutative justice (see 1780).
1994. Payment of Witnesses.—Is a witness permitted to accept pay for giving true and lawful testimony?
(a) For the testimony itself a witness may not accept pay, for he is bound to tell the truth freely, just as the judge is bound to dispense justice freely.
(b) For the expenses he incurs and the time he loses by reason of his assistance in court, he may accept pay; since, as St. Paul says, he who does a service for another is not required to meet the expenses of the service (I Cor., ix. 7). Both Canon and civil law make allowances for suitable compensation to be granted to witnesses (see Canons 1787, 1788). But if a witness receives compensation in excess of what is allowed by law, the court and the adverse party have a right to be informed of this.
1995. Lawyers.—Lawyer is the general term used to designate all those who are versed in the law and who give assistance to others in legal ways during lawsuits or apart from them.
(a) Thus, apart from lawsuits a lawyer may act as legal adviser, giving instruction, information or direction on rights and duties under the law.
(b) During a lawsuit he advises about the case (jurisconsult) or carries on for clients the prosecution or defense in a court of justice. The lawyers who attend to only the more mechanical parts of a suit are sometimes called attorneys, in distinction from counsellors or counsel, who argue and plead in the courtroom, but generally “attorney-at-law” and “lawyer” are synonymous terms. The counsellors are known in England as barristers when they conduct cases in superior courts; they are called solicitors in chancery, and advocates in Roman law. Canon Law distinguishes between the advocate who defends, and the procurator who represents, a litigant; the former argues for his client by invoking the law in his favor; the latter acts merely as the representative of his client and is restricted by his commission.
1996. The Qualifications of Lawyers.—(a) The mental and moral requisites are competency in the knowledge of their profession and devotion to justice, morality, the constitution, and law (see 1943). A lawyer should be zealous for the dignity and reputation of the bar and loyal to associates, but not afraid to take action against practices that are detrimental to his honorable profession.
(b) The legal requisites for practising as a lawyer vary with the place or government. In Canon Law, it is necessary that an advocate be a doctor or expert in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, that he be twenty-one years of age, duly approved, etc. (see Canons 1657 sqq.).
1997. The Duties of a Lawyer in Introducing Cases.—(a) He may not stir up litigation, as a means of bringing himself occupation and gain. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Translated into English with Notes (Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., New York City, 1923), p. 475, denounces this practice as among the chief violations of the Tenth Commandment. Among lawyers it is regarded as unprofessional, and at common law it is an indictable offense.
(b) A lawyer may not take or assist an unjust cause—one, namely, that is in opposition to moral or positive law, as when a party comes to him with the request that he conduct a spite case whose purpose is to harass or oppress an innocent person. He who defends injustice is a cooperator, and is therefore guilty (see 1779). But if a case has a good foundation in law, the lawyer is not bound to inquire into the subjective dispositions or the conscience of the client in the matter, and he may take the case even though he does not know that the client is in good faith.
(c) A lawyer should not refuse a just cause, merely because the person he is asked to assist is indigent or not in favor. Commutative justice does not oblige him to offer his services to one in need of them; but there is a duty of legal justice to give his best efforts if he is appointed as counsel for a poor person, and also at times a duty of charity to do this if he is asked for legal help by one who is in need.
1998. The precept about works of mercy, being affirmative, does not oblige for every instance, but only when the due circumstances of time, place, opportunity, etc., are present. Hence, a lawyer is not obliged by charity to devote himself to every deserving case that is presented to him (see 1227). (a) Thus, as to place, charity does not require that one go about looking for the needy, but that one help those who are at hand. (b) As to time, charity does not require that one take care of future needs, but that one help those who are in present distress. (c) As to persons, charity does not require that help be given to all alike, for some have a greater claim on one’s charity than others (I Tim., v. 8). (d) As to need, charity does not command that help be given those who can easily help themselves, or who can obtain it from third parties who are better fitted to bestow it.
1999. Charity does not oblige to works of almsgiving, if the inconvenience to the donor is out of proportion to the distress from which the donee is rescued (see 1158). The inconveniences that correspond with the various degrees of distress are thus explained by theologians:
(a) if distress is extreme (e.g., a prisoner is about to be sentenced to death unjustly), a proportionate inconvenience is, according to some, a grave loss, or, according to others, the loss of at least a part of the necessaries of one’s state (see 1231, 1251);
(b) if distress is very grave or grave (e.g., an accused man will be sentenced unjustly to a long and harsh imprisonment), the loss of goods without which one’s state of life cannot be maintained so becomingly is, according to one opinion, not excessive; but, according to another view, any notable loss or inconvenience is excessive;
(c) if distress is ordinary (e.g., an accused will be unjustly sentenced to a small fine), the loss of goods that are purely superfluous is, according to some, a proportionate inconvenience, but others think that only such assistance need be given as will cause no inconvenience whatever, such as advice or other service given during spare times.
2000. When Is a Cause to Be Regarded as Unjust?—(a) In civil cases the suit or defense is unjust when it clearly has no moral right. A lawyer who recommends litigation in a case of this kind is unjust to the adverse party, if that party loses; he is unjust to his client, if the client loses and is thus put to unnecessary expense. Generally speaking, a Catholic lawyer ought not to accept a divorce case. The lawyer’s position is different from that of a judge. Occasionally a judge cannot refuse a case without serious inconvenience to himself (see 1949, 1997); the lawyer, however, is free to accept or refuse these cases. The general prohibition is founded on the fact that in this country most divorce cases are means to an invalid remarriage. Some theologians argue that since it is the remarriage, not the divorce, that is intrinsically evil, a lawyer might accept a divorce case for a very grave reason, e.g., to relieve desperate financial conditions. In practice, however, owing to the danger of scandal, the exception would be rare. Exceptions which are possible include cases where divorce is sought for a marriage that is invalid _coram ecclesiam_, e.g., civil marriage of Catholics, or simply for the settlement of civil effects Where no danger of remarriage is involved. In all cases involving Catholics, the lawyer should bear in mind the necessity imposed upon Catholics by the Third Council of Baltimore to consult ecclesiastical authorities before seeking civil separation from bed [and board.]
(b) In criminal cases the prosecution is unjust if the accused is clearly innocent. But the defense is not unjust, even though the accused is known to be guilty, for both natural and positive law give the accused a right of defense, and hence he may choose or may be given an advocate, in spite of his guilt.
2001. 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.
2002. If a lawyer through ignorance takes an unjust case, thinking it just, he is excused or not excused according to the character of his ignorance (see 28, 249). (a) Thus, antecedent ignorance excuses from sin and restitution; (b) concomitant ignorance excuses from restitution, but not from sin; (e) consequent ignorance excuses from neither sin nor restitution, if it is crass or affected, but it diminishes responsibility, if it is only slightly sinful.
2003. Duty of a Lawyer Who Discovers that a Case Is Really Unjust.—(a) A lawyer who took a case in the belief that it was just, but discovers that it is really unjust, owes it to himself to abandon the case, for he cannot honorably cooperate with iniquity. The same principle applies, if a client insists upon unjust courses in the support of his case, even though the cause itself be just.
(b) The lawyer owes it to his client in the hypothesis we are considering to preserve the latter’s confidence inviolate (see 1988). He should endeavor to persuade the client to abandon the case; but since the client’s case is unjust, he may not recommend a compromise, except perhaps in reference to expenses.
2004. Lawyer’s Duties towards Client.—Since every contract depends on the mutual consent of the contractants, and since the purpose of the person who retains a lawyer is to receive honest advice and assistance and to give in return a fair compensation, it follows that the lawyer’s duty to a client is to give what is thus expected and not to exact more than this deserves.
(a) Before the case the lawyer should be perfectly candid with the client as to the advisability of litigation or of the employment of himself as counsel in the case. If there is a reason why he would be a less desirable advocate in the case, he should speak of this, so that his consultant may have freedom of choice. He should also study the question presented to him, and give his honest opinion on the strength of the case. If a fair and amicable adjustment outside of court can be made, the lawyer should recommend that this be done, and if it is not clear which party is right, he should advise a compromise.
(b) During the case the lawyer should be faithful to the interests of his client and diligent in the affairs for which he is engaged. Loyalty demands that the advocate give his undivided devotion to his client (e.g., he may not give assistance to the adverse party, he may not receive gifts or compensations from that party; see Code, Canons 1666, 2407), and that he respect the client’s confidences (e.g., he may not use to the client’s disadvantage the information given him). Diligence requires that the lawyer use his best ability and efforts to the end that the client, no matter how poor or unpopular or persecuted, may receive all the remedies or defenses that the law grants him, and that his case may be terminated with all possible speed.
(c) After the case he should be honest in his charges and true to the confidence that was reposed in him. The compensation for the lawyer’s services should be just, that is, a fair return for what he gave. The amount of the fee should be fixed, therefore, by such standards as the law or custom, or by the value of that which the lawyer devotes to the case (e.g., his time and labor, his loss of other employment or prospects, the risk he takes in undertaking the case), or of that which the client receives (e.g., the amount which he gains, the benefit he receives). The wealth of a client does not justify an excessive charge, but the poverty of the client makes it a duty of charity at times to lessen the charges or to make no charges at all (see 1236-1239). It is clear that a lawyer should not compensate himself from the client’s business contrary to the latter’s just wishes.
2005. Lawyer’s Duties towards Other Parties.—The duties of the lawyer to his client do not exempt him from certain duties to other persons who have a part in the trial; for he is responsible to his own conscience and cannot act on the principle that he must win at any cost, or that the client takes all the blame for anything dishonorable that is done.
(a) Thus, respect is due to the judge and politeness to the opposite party, his lawyers and witnesses. Abusive language and improper personalities, therefore, should not be resorted to, and customary courtesies should be shown.
(b) Truth and fair dealing are due to those to whom or against whom the pleading is directed. It is contrary to truthfulness to cite statutes or decisions that are no longer in force, to misquote laws, testimony or the language of opponents, to assert as a fact what has not been proved, to introduce false witnesses or documents, to coach clients or witnesses in untrue stories, to resort to quibbles or sophistry, etc.; it is unfair to attempt to gain special favor from a judge or a jury, to make improper statements or remarks with a view to influencing the jury or the bystanders or the public; to conceal the arguments upon which one relies until the opposition has no opportunity to reply; in a word, to practise any of the tricks of pettifoggery.
2006. Concealment of Truth in Presenting a Case.—Is concealment of the truth in the presentation or defense of a case sinful?
(a) If concealment is not unjust or mendacious, it is lawful. Indeed, a lawyer should conceal such facts as would be harmful to his own case (e.g., incidents that are really of no moment, but that would create prejudice against his client), or as he has learned in confidence. This is not unjust, since the opposite party has no right to the knowledge, and it is not deception, since it does not cause but merely permits others to draw erroneous conclusions. Neither is an advocate bound in justice to point out to the opposition matters favorable to their case, of which they are ignorant or which they do not notice.
(b) If concealment is unjust or mendacious, it is unlawful. Thus, if a lawyer discovers that serious fraud has been practised or that the court or the opposition has been harmfully imposed upon, he is unjust if he takes advantage of this through silence. Similarly, a prosecutor is unjust if he suppresses facts or testimony or papers that would establish the innocence of an accused person.
2007. The Sinfulness of Introducing False or Corrupted Documents.—(a) Truthfulness is sinned against by this practice, whether the document be entirely fictitious or a copy substituted for an original that has been lost, or an authentic instrument has been changed or interpolated (see 1980 a, 1991).
(b) This practice is also against legal justice, since the law requires that no misrepresentations be made about the evidence produced. Indeed, this is a very serious matter, for, if it were ever permissible to tamper with documentary evidence, a way would be opened to frauds innumerable to the great detriment of the public.
(c) Commutative justice is offended by this form of dishonesty, if the cause defended is not certainly just; for the opposite party, since justice is perhaps on his side, has the right that he be not defeated by untruthful means. But if the cause defended is certainly just, there is not _per se_ any violation of commutative justice, since the adverse party is not deprived of anything that is his, but is rather prevented from doing injustice; _per accidens_, though, there might be commutative injustice (e.g., if the use of a forged exhibit was known to be risky and did actually lose the case for a client).
(d) Charity to self is violated by this deception, since a lawyer should not value his client’s interests above his own conscience, reputation and prospects.
2008. When a Lawyer Is Bound to Restitution.—(a) Unjust damage obliges to restitution (see 1763), and hence a lawyer must indemnify his client or the opposite party for the losses either one suffers through his unjust conduct. The client has a right to restitution if he was put to unnecessary expense because his lawyer did not tell him the case was hopeless or too risky, or if he lost a case because the lawyer was very incompetent or negligent or helped the opposite party, or if he was injured in his reputation or prospects by the violation of his confidences. The opposite party is entitled to restitution if he lost a right or was condemned because the lawyer unjustly took the case against him, or if he suffered other injuries because the lawyer employed foul means to his disadvantage. If a lawyer acts as the mandatary of his client in the use of injustice, the duty of restitution rests primarily on the client and secondarily on the lawyer (see 1783); if the lawyer alone is guilty, he is responsible for all the damage done. There is no duty of restitution if only legal justice is violated (e.g., if some deception is practised in order to win for the side that is in the right), or if charity is wronged (e.g., if one refuses to take the case of a person who is in need).
(b) Unjust possession also obliges to restitution (see 1770), and hence a lawyer who appropriates goods of his client against the latter’s right, or who charges exorbitant rates for his services, or who drags out a case for lucre’s sake, or who has not refunded when he withdrew from a case, should restore his ill-gotten goods. If the amount of a fee is settled by law, an attorney who takes more than the legal sum does not necessarily incur the duty of restitution. All will depend on the character of the law, whether it is penal or preceptive, and if preceptive, whether it obliges in virtue of legal or of commutative justice.
2009. Unjust Words.—We shall now take up the injustice that is done through words spoken outside of a judicial process, or the classes of verbal injustice that are not peculiar to courts, but are committed on all sorts of occasions, public and private. The principal sins here are distinguished according to the different injuries intended by the sinful speaker, and are as follows:
(a) sinful words that signify or effect in another person the evil of guilt, thereby depriving him of benefits that are connected with virtue. Some evil speakers deprive their neighbor of tributes that are paid to virtue by others, such as honor (injury by contumely), fame (injury by defamation), friendship (injury by whispering); while other evil speakers deprive a person of the tribute of virtue paid by his own conscience, namely, self-respect and peace of mind (injury by derision);
(b) sinful words that signify or effect against another person the evil of punishment. The words are known under the general name of cursing.
2010. Contumely.—Contumely is unjust dishonor shown to a person in his presence.
(a) It is unjust, and hence those are not guilty of contumely who speak words that are not honorable to persons deserving of reproof (e.g., in Luke, xxiv. 25, Our Lord calls the two disciples “foolish and slow of heart”; in Gal., iii. 1, St. Paul addresses the Galatians as “senseless”). Similarly, it is not contumelious to call another person by a name that sounds somewhat disrespectful, if this is done in banter or pleasantry and will be taken in good part by the other and do no harm. Thus, to send a comic valentine or good-naturedly to ridicule some of the spectators at a farce is not contumelious as a rule, since most persons are not galled by these gibes, nor are the jokes taken seriously as a rule by the public. But care must be exercised both in serious and playful rebukes to keep within moderation. St. Augustine declares that even in corrections one should use reproachful terms sparingly and only in case of great necessity.
(b) Contumely is dishonor, and so it is distinguished from injurious words that offend some other right (e.g., detraction offends reputation). Honor is an external manifestation of the respect felt for another’s excellence or superiority in some natural or supernatural perfection given by God, such as virtue, authority, nobility, rank, wealth, etc. Contumely, therefore, is either negative, as when one ostentatiously refuses to show another the honor due him (e.g., the salute or title or deference which custom allows him), or positive, as when one manifests signs of disrespect (e.g., names derogatory to virtue or intelligence, or which mean that the person addressed is vile and contemptible).
(c) Contumely is shown to another in his presence, that is, it is an affront directed to his person immediately (e.g., the mockery of Eliseus by the little boys near Bethel, in IV Kings, ii, 23), or mediately (e.g., the dishonor of David’s ambassadors by the Ammonites, in II Kings, x), or at least to his knowledge (e.g., the enemies of St. Paul in Phil., i. 17, who spoke of him insultingly in the expectation that their words would be carried to him).
2011. Are all persons deserving of honor? (a) If honor be taken in its strictest sense for reverence shown to a person who is one’s superior in some good quality, or for veneration for the proper excellence of mankind (viz., virtue), then honor cannot be shown except to those who are more exalted than oneself or to those who are virtuous. (b) If honor be taken in its wider and more usual sense for respect for a good quality, natural, moral or supernatural, in which a neighbor is more worthy at least than some others, then honor can be shown to every rational creature (except the damned, who are irretrievably wicked and outside the pale of friendship); for there is no one, however bad or lowly, in whom there is not something that deserves respect. St. Paul exhorts Christians to be beforehand in honoring one another (Rom., xii. 10), and he urges that each esteem the other as better than himself (Philip., ii. 3).
2012. Various Forms of Contumely.—(a) By reason of the signs used or the external form it takes, contumely is either in words (e.g., the names “thief,” “lunatic,” “bastard”) or in deeds that are equivalent to word (e.g., offensive cartoons or caricatures, insulting valentines or postcards, “poisoned pen” letters, lampoons, scurrilous or opprobrious gestures or acts, sardonic grins, mimicry).
(b) By reason of the thing signified or the contemptible quality that it ascribes to another contumely is also distinguished into reproach, which accuses another of sin (e.g., of drunkenness), revilement (_convicium_), which ascribes to another either a fault or its consequences (e.g., drunkenness or imprisonment, or diseases of alcoholism), taunting (_improperium_), which twits another with misfortunes or inferiority (e.g., his lowly origin or poverty or the favors one formerly showed him).
2013. Manner of Confessing Contumely in the Sacrament of Penance.—(a) Circumstances that are of an essential kind, that is, those that change the species or add a new species, must be mentioned (e.g., the fact that contumely was blasphemous or calumnious or scandalous or directed against a cleric or parents). (b) Circumstances that are merely accidental, such as those given in the previous paragraph, need not be mentioned, for they are merely various ways of committing the same sin of contumely.
2014. The Sinfulness of Contumely.—(a) From its nature contumely is a grave sin of injustice, for it robs one of honor, which is more prized than any other external possession, since it is a testimony to virtue and to the esteem of fellowmen honestly earned. Hence, men will often sacrifice health or wealth or life itself to save honor. He who calls his brother a fool is deserving of hell (Matt., v. 22), and the contumelious are classed with those who are delivered over to a reprobate sense (Rom., i. 30). But, as sins of the tongue are imputable only in so far as they express the mind of the speaker, contumelious words are gravely sinful only when they proceed from a direct purpose to inflict serious disgrace (e.g., Titus applies to Balbus an epithet that is not regarded as very abusive, but his purpose is to manifest his supreme contempt), or from an indirect intention to effect this (e.g., Claudius jokingly addresses Sempronius by a very disgraceful title, not meaning any great harm, but knowing that Sempronius will feel this deeply or that in the eyes of the bystanders he will be greatly dishonored).
(b) From the imperfection of the act or the smallness of the matter, contumely is made a venial sin. Thus, if one who is suddenly carried away by anger or who is not thinking of what he says calls another person a very vile name, there is not sufficient advertence for a grave offense; and if one who is acting with full deliberation addresses another in language that is only slightly disrespectful, there is not sufficient harm done to constitute a mortal sin.
2015. The gravity of the matter in contumely depends, not only on the character of the signs of disrespect, but also on the persons concerned.
(a) Thus, the less the respect which the offender owes the offended party, the less the offense. Hence, for a subordinate to call his superior a liar or an ass is a more grievous fault than for a superior to give the name to his subordinate.
(b) The less authoritative the word of the person who utters contumely, or the less evil animus that attaches to his speech, the less the dishonor and the sin. Thus, fishwomen were once notorious for vituperation, but little attention or weight was given to their words. A person of that character, then, might commit only a venial sin by a very abusive word, whereas a person of more respectable character would sin mortally by using the same expression. Similarly, when parents or teachers berate their subjects as fools, blockheads, dunces, etc., there is generally no bad spirit behind these exclamations, and hence the use of such expressions is not very sinful, even when correction is not being made.
2016. Is the gravity of contumely lessened by the fact that the offended person feels the injury less?
(a) If the contumely is felt less because the dishonor itself is less, the gravity of the sin is of course lessened, for example, if the person offended is less deserving, or the person who offends is not taken seriously (see 2015).
(b) If the contumely is felt less only because the person dishonored is very meek and patient, the gravity is not lessened, but is rather increased (see 1725). If the person offended does not feel the injury at all (e.g., because he is very thick-skinned or is very fortunate), less damage is done, but the wrong remains, otherwise, theft from the rich could be excused on the plea that they will not miss what is stolen.
2017. The Causes of Contumely.—(a) Pride is sometimes a cause, inasmuch as those who consider themselves better than others are quick to express the contempt they feel for others, if they hope that this will add to their own glory (Prov., xi. 2). But a proud person will just as often disdain to revile those whom he despises.
(b) Foolishness (see 1621) is sometimes a cause of contumely, for the foolish man speaks without thinking as he should or without caring what damage his words may cause (Prov., xx. 3). Hence, those who speak abusively to others merely in order to raise a laugh among the bystanders, little caring about the disrespect they show, cannot excuse themselves on the plea that it was all a joke.
(c) Anger is the usual cause of contumely, for the angry man seeks to show his revenge in some open and manifest way, and there is no easier or more ready means to this end than bitter, scornful or jeering words. Hence the danger of contumelious reprimands given by superiors. The subject will be enraged by the hard names applied to him, and the superior in his wrath will easily go to extremes, even of mortal sin, on account of the language he uses (e.g., exaggerated invective) or on account of circumstances (e.g., the scandal given).
2018. The Duty of Bearing with Contumely.—(a) As to the internal disposition, one should be ready and willing to suffer insults without making any answer to them, if this is necessary. For the precept of patience requires that one be prepared in mind to tolerate injuries and to give place to wrath, should the circumstances at any time call for such restraint. In this sense Our Lord spoke when He commanded that one turn the other cheek to the striker (Matt, v. 39), and He practised His teaching by making no reply to the insolence of those who were implacable or who only sought material for accusations.
(b) As to external conduct, one should repel contumely when there are good and sufficient reasons for this course, and hence Our Lord protested against the unlawful blow given Him in the court room, and which the judge should have reprimanded (John, xviii. 23). He also refuted those who decried Him as a blasphemer, or glutton, or demoniac, or political disturber. But if no good end will be served by self-defense, or if greater evils will follow from it, no answer should be made. One should be more desirous to possess the right to honor and fame—viz., virtue and a worthy life—than to possess honor and fame themselves, for goodness is always a blessing, but prosperity is not unfrequently a real misfortune. Indeed, Our Lord says that to be persecuted, reviled and calumniated places one in the same class as the good men of the past (Matt., v. 11).
2019. The Chief Reasons for Resistance to Contumely or Detraction.—(a) The good of the offender, in order that his boldness be subdued and that he be deterred from such injuries in the future, is a sufficient reason. Hence the words of Proverbs (xxvi. 5) that one should answer a fool, lest he think himself wise.
(b) The good of others is another reason, in order that they be not demoralized by the vilification of one whom they have looked up to as an example and guide, especially if silence will appear to be a sign of weakness or carelessness or guilt. Hence, St. Gregory says that preachers should answer detractors, lest the Word of God be without fruit.
(c) The good of self is a third reason for replying to contumely, for to enjoy the respect and esteem of others helps many a good person to act worthily of the opinion in which he is held, and it restrains many a sinner from descending to worse things than those of which he is guilty. Hence, Eccl., xli. 15, admonishes that one take care of a good name, and Prov., xxii. 1, places a good name above wealth.
2020. The Duty of One Who Answers Contumely or Detraction.—(a) The spirit of the answer should be that of charity, not that of revenge or of unquiet or exaggerated anxiety about personal honor or fame; otherwise one becomes like to the offender (Prov., xxii, 2). A person would sin even by silence in the face of contumely, if the spirit behind his non-resistance was malicious (e.g., if he intended to enrage the other party the more by disregarding the attack).
(b) The manner of the answer should be moderate, and the reply should not go beyond the bounds of reasonable self-defense (see 1833). It is lawful to deny the charge, or by retort to turn the tables on the assailant, or to sue him for slander or libel; but it is not lawful to challenge him to a duel or to utter calumnies (see 1843).
2021. The Duty of Making Restitution for Contumely.—(a) If contumely is not contrary to commutative justice, there is no duty of restitution. Hence, dishonor that is purely negative, such as the refusal to uncover on meeting a clergyman, does not oblige one to make restitution, for the omission is contrary to the virtue of observance or reverence but not to commutative justice. The case would be different, however, if negative dishonor were so marked or noticeable as to be equivalent to positive disrespect, as when at the entrance of a distinguished personage all in the room arise except one man who remains seated and gives a bitter look at the newcomer.
(b) If contumely is contrary to commutative justice, restitution is due. All agree that commutative justice is violated when contumely becomes vilification, or when an insult is committed in the presence of onlookers with the purpose of making the offended person seem contemptible in their eyes. But there are two opinions about the case when contumely is merely revilement, or an insult offered when there are no others present and the purpose is to make the offended person appear vile in his own eyes.
2022. Opinions on the Duty of Restitution for Revilement.—(a) One opinion holds that injury is done, not damage, and hence that satisfaction is owed rather than restitution. Further, it is held that satisfaction is penal and so not obligatory (except out of charity) before judicial sentence.
(b) Another opinion says that damage is done as well as injury, since men regard an insult, even though offered in private, as an unjust deprivation of a great good. Satisfaction of a very humiliating kind, such as the begging of pardon on bended knees, as being penal, can await an order from authority, but the ordinary forms of reparation, such as expression of regret or request for forgiveness, should be made without any such order (Matt., v. 24).
2023. What Kind of Reparation Should Be Made for Contumely?—(a) In general, the rule is that contumely should be repaired by a bestowal of the same kind of goods as those of which the offended party was deprived; and hence dishonor is repaired by honor, disrespect by respect. The injured party should be aware that reparation is being made, or at least that honor is being shown him. If by reason of contumely one is responsible for other damages that followed (e.g., if one foresaw that one’s affront would lead to money losses, enmities, quarrels, bloodshed, etc.), one is duty bound to make good these losses also.
(b) In particular, the honor that should be offered in atonement is generally an apology, for this is both satisfaction for the wrong done and a token of esteem. At times, according to some, more is required, for if the insult was very gross, a mere request for pardon is perhaps not sufficient; on the other hand, less may suffice, as when the indignity was slight. Many authors hold that a respectful apology is sufficient reparation for any contumely. Among the lesser forms of restitution for dishonor are signs of friendship, courteous greetings, a pleasant chat, an invitation to call at one’s home, a dinner or toast, a eulogistic speech, etc.
2024. The Manner of Making Apologies.—(a) They should be made with at least as much formality as accompanied the insult. Hence, if the injury was public, the acknowledgment of error should also be public. (b) They may be made either personally or by intermediary. If the guilty person cannot very well appear before the offended person, he may send his regrets by letter or through a representative.
2025. Since the gravity of contumely depends on the relations between the parties and other circumstances, an apology is not always necessary.
(a) Thus, if the offender is an inferior or an equal, an apology should be made for a serious insult, at least when the offended person insists on it. Thus, a cheerful salutation by a child does not atone for a vile name applied to his father. If an inferior dishonors a superior through ignorance, he makes amends by acknowledging his ignorance and showing respect, as was done by St. Paul (Acts, xxiii. 5).
(b) If the offender is a superior, an apology is never necessary, lest by abasing himself he lose the prestige which his office should have. Hence, if a father has used harsh language to his child, it would not be seemly for him to ask the child’s pardon, but he should show some mark of kindness to heal the wound.
2026. Cessation of Obligation of Restitution.—The obligation of restitution for contumely ceases in certain cases (see 1797, 1798). (a) Thus, impossibility excuses, as when one cannot make reparation without renewing an old feud that has been buried and forgotten. (b) Forgiveness by the offended person excuses. The offended party forgives the debt expressly when he says or shows that he does not care to have an apology; he forgives implicitly, when he retaliates by an equally injurious action, defends himself by retorting equal contumely on his adversary, or obtains equivalent satisfaction from a court of justice.
2027. A confessor should not impose the duty of an apology in certain cases.
(a) Thus, if this command would be harmful, it should be omitted, as when a penitent is in good faith and would be put in bad faith by the admonition. (b) If this command is not necessary, it should be omitted, as when the duty of an apology has ceased for one reason or another. In the case of children who speak or act disrespectfully to their elders, it may at times be taken for granted that the elders, especially the parents, do not expect an apology for trifling cases of disrespect. But, on the other hand, it may often be advisable to require such children to apologize for their rudeness, in order to cure them of it.
2028. 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.
2029. 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.
2030. 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.
2031. 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.).
2032. 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).
2033. 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.
2034. 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.
2035. 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.
2036. 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.
2037. 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.
2038. 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.
2039. 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).
2040. 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.
2041. 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).
2042. 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.
2043. 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.
2044. 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).
2045. 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.).
2046. 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).
2047. 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.