2048. 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.
2049. 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.
2050. 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.
2051. 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.
2052. 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.
2053. 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.
2054. 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.
2055. 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.
2056. 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.
2057. 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.
2058. 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.).
2059. 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.
2060. 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).
2061. 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.
2062. 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).
2063. 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).
2064. 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.
2065. 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.
2066. 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.
2067. Disclosing Matters Detrimental to Third Party.—In what cases is it lawful to disclose to others matters that will be detrimental to the reputation of a third party?
(a) If the communication is false, it is never lawful, no matter how important the reason; for the end does not justify the means. It is sinful, therefore, to resort to calumny as a defense of one’s own reputation or dignity (see 2035, 2036).
(b) If the communication is truthful and the matter is already well known to the persons addressed, there is no defamation, unless the communication makes these persons strongly convinced, whereas they had been rather uncertain before, or reveals to them some important detail about which they had been in ignorance.
(c) If the communication is truthful, but the defects are secret and unknown to the parties addressed, there is defamation, unless the person whose defects are revealed has lost his right to good name on account of the right of another person which has precedence and cannot otherwise be upheld (cfr. 2035). In this latter case there is no obligation to maintain silence, neither from justice (since the lesser right must yield to the greater right) nor from charity (since this virtue does not oblige at the cost of great inconvenience). Thus, Our Lord made known to the Apostles that the Pharisees were hypocrites (Luke, xii, 1; Matt., xvi. 6), and St. Paul told Timothy that Alexander and Hymeneus had neither faith nor a good conscience (I Tim., i. 20).
2068. Rights that Have Precedence over a False Reputation.—(a) The public good is to be preferred to a false reputation, for the public welfare is the ground for the right to such reputation, the subject himself being unworthy of the good name he bears (see 2037). It is right, therefore, to denounce criminals or conspirators to the proper authorities, or to testify against them. Employers have the duty to discuss together the failings or imperfections of their employees that interfere with the business; subjects should manifest abuses about which they are asked in a canonical visitation; students in a college should give information about companions who are depraving the morals of the student body or exercising an evil influence on the other residents, etc.
(b) The private good of innocent parties may be preferred to the fame of one who enjoys a false reputation. One may reveal secret defects for one’s own defense; for example, a person whose life, honor or property is being unjustly attacked may reveal sins of the guilty in order to deter them or weaken their authority; a person who has been injured by his superior or another party may speak of this to a friend for the sake of obtaining consolation, or to a confessor, a lawyer or other adviser for the sake of obtaining counsel or assistance. One may also reveal secret defects for the protection of others; for example, one should put unsuspecting persons on their guard against seducers, impostors, quacks; one should reveal impediments that stand in the way of a marriage, or should warn a young woman that the man to whom she is engaged is a criminal or diseased; one should make known the true author of a crime for which an innocent person is about to suffer; one should tell the truth to inquirers about the incompetency of servants or other persons whom one has employed.
(c) The higher good of the person whose faults are revealed may also be preferred to the lower good of his false reputation; for it is to his interest that his higher good be promoted, even at the expense of an inferior good. It is lawful to tell parents about the misdeeds of their children (e.g., that a daughter is involved in a scandalous liaison), in order that the latter may be corrected; or to speak to the friends of wayward persons about the misconduct of the latter in order that prayers may be said for their conversion.
2069. Unlawful Attack on Another’s False Reputation.—If the false reputation of another is not the unjust cause of a loss that is feared, it is not right to deprive him of his good name. Examples: (a) It is not lawful to accuse a person who is about to be promoted to some office or dignity of which he is worthy, if the motive of the accusation is to secure the honor for oneself or one’s friend; otherwise ambitious persons would be encouraged to practise spying, manufacturing of evidence, etc., and the public peace would be greatly disturbed. (b) It is not lawful to accuse a person who is giving one no offense, if the motive of the accusation is to distract attention from oneself or to make oneself shine by the comparison.
2070. Conditions that Justify Revelation of Another’s Defects.—In revealing defects on account of some necessary good, one must observe the conditions for an act of double result (see 103).
(a) Thus, the action itself must not be evil, and hence one may not break the seal of secrecy to which one is bound (as will be said in the next Article in discussing violations of secrets), nor make use of knowledge unjustly acquired, nor reveal more or to more persons than the case demands, nor reveal anything, if a warning to the offender will suffice (see 1286).
(b) The good result must be intended, and the evil result of detriment to fame must be only permitted. Those who assign pious motives (pity, zeal, sincerity) for talk against a neighbor, but who are really actuated by hatred, revenge, ambition to defeat a rival, or other like passion, sin on account of their wrong intention. A hypocritical form of defamation is practised by some persons exteriorly devout, who under the pretext of asking prayers for their neighbor’s conversion spread stories about those whom they dislike.
(c) The reason for permitting the evil must be sufficiently weighty. Hence, the good result intended must be one that is likely to follow on the revelation, and it must be of some importance; for it would be cruel to throw away a neighbor’s good name on the mere possibility that a considerable good would be secured, or on the certainty that only a slight benefit would be obtained. It does seem, however, that the good which is hoped for must be of an equal dignity with the good of fame, since the innocent and the guilty party are not on the same footing, and furthermore all admit, for example, that the fame of an employee who is stealing from his employer is not to be preferred to the goods of the employer. In doubt about the seriousness of the evil following on revelation, the innocent party is to be favored.
2071. Revelations about Public Officials or Candidates for Public Office.—(a) These are lawful when the public good calls for them (e.g., when a man has used corrupt practices in order to be elected, or when he is incompetent, or when he has been guilty of malfeasance in office), and the conditions of the previous paragraph are observed.
(b) These revelations are unlawful when the public good suffers from them (e.g., when the safety or dignity of society itself would be injured by attacks on the head of government), or when the due conditions are not observed (e.g., when one resorts to personalities about a deserving public official, or practises muckraking because of mere prejudice or partisanship). The law permits fair comment on public persons or works, but it also grants an action for criticism that contains unfair aspersions of personal character or unjust accusations about public conduct.
2072. Revelations about Historical Personages.—(a) These revelations are not lawful unless there is a proportionate reason that justifies them. For historians there are sufficient reasons to narrate impartially the crimes as well as the virtues of those who appear in their pages. These reasons are: the nature of history as a record of facts and causes (“the first law of history is that it dare not tell any untruth, that it fear not to tell any truth,” Leo XIII); the rights of the persons who are treated in the annals (e.g., it is often impossible to understand the deeds of one character in history or to do him justice unless the secret crime of another character is revealed); the rights of the readers (e.g., the reader has the right to know that the persecutors of religion have been wicked in their personal lives). The historian, therefore, may search for material bearing on the lives and deeds of historical personages of the past, he may collect similar material relating to current events, he may narrate defects or delinquencies of the past that were unknown or forgotten. But matters of a purely private character that have no bearing on public events do not belong, according to some moralists, to the legitimate province of the historian; for otherwise there would be an end to the rights of the dead over their fame. Moreover, there is the risk of calumny and of violation of elementary justice, since the historian is a self-appointed judge and the person condemned is not able to defend himself.
(b) These historical revelations are not lawful unless the conditions mentioned in 2070 are observed. Thus, a historian should not write down details that were told him in confidence by a person long since dead; he should not be swayed either by unreasonable likes or unreasonable dislikes in the expression of his views; he should not publish what will cause harm rather than good, such as circumstances in the lives of persons recently deceased which, if revealed, will be detrimental to living persons.
2073. It is not always easy to determine whether more harm is likely to result if the persons whose glory is dimmed are high in public esteem on account of the prestige of their office or their great exploits. Much will depend on circumstances and on the author’s manner of treatment.
(a) Thus, _per se_, or from the nature of things, it does not cause greater harm to narrate truth about the imperfections of great men, for only error or prejudice or evil has reason to fear the truth. The inspired Scriptures themselves deal candidly with the public failings of personages who were high in religious or civil position, for example, the hesitation of Moses, the infidelity of Aaron, the fall of King David, the disobedience of the prophet Jonas, the denials of Peter, the doubts of Thomas, the treason of Judas. These histories are not harmful, but, on the contrary, contain most useful lessons of instruction, warning and direction.
(b) _Per accidens_, or on account of special conditions, it may be more harmful to write of the failings of the great (cfr. 1001). Thus, the class of persons for whom one is writing may be immature (e.g., a textbook of history for children would give scandal if it spoke openly of sexual crimes), the conditions of the time may be unfavorable (e.g., a new historical production might lead to injury to some class of persons at a time of great prejudice against them), the total effect of a book may be bad (e.g., chronicles of scandals, historical biographies or novels or plays written in a seductive manner). The class of modern writers known as “debunkers,” whose aim it is to destroy all hero-worship, offend against truth and ideals by the prominence they give to evil, while the so-called psychological historians are frequently purely subjective as well as immoral.
2074. Revelations about Persons Who Figure in the News of the Day.—(a) If the matters revealed are of a public nature, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the revelation will depend on the reasons for it and the manner in which it is given. In discussing political affairs, a newspaper has the right to call attention to mistakes and faults of public men, since the freedom of the press in this respect is a protection to liberty and to progress, and those who enter public life implicitly consent to criticism of their conduct; in reporting the news, a newspaper has the right to speak of murders, robberies and other public crimes that have been committed, since the common good requires that the authors of public offenses be known as such. But if this kind of news is disserviceable in any instance to the order, peace or dignity of the community, or if the news is obtained in unjust or dishonorable ways, or if the motive is merely to gratify curiosity, to indulge prejudice, or to make money, the newspaper management is morally guilty, even though it may be legally within its right. Yellow journalism and “tabloidism” are reprehensible because they are injurious to the minds and morals of their readers on account of the undue prominence given to crime, even of the most disgusting sort, and the appeal made to sense and emotion rather than to thought.
(b) It the matters revealed are of a private nature, the morality of the revelation has to be judged by the principles given in 2067 sqq. It would be wrong to make a practice of spying into the private life and affairs even of public persons merely to add interest to one’s columns; but if there is some really important advantage to the public or to a private person that will be served, and if the other conditions are observed (see 2070), one may publish even private defects that are real and certain.
2075. Injustice in Professional Critics.—(a) Injustice is done by professional critics (such as book reviewers, dramatic and art critics, and the like) to the persons who rely upon their opinion, if there is a compact with them to give a competent and unbiased judgment and the compact is not lived up to by the critic with resultant damage to the client (see 1793). If there is no compact, the critic is nevertheless guilty of deception and uncharitableness, if he performs his office carelessly (e.g., by eulogizing a worthless book or play or picture).
(b) Injustice is done the person criticized, if his work is undervalued purposely (e.g., because the critic is jealous, or in an ill humor or is hired by others to dispraise), or if uncalled-for personalities are indulged in at the expense of the person’s fame. A carping critic may by the stroke of the pen spoil the work of years, and hence ignorance does not excuse those censors who practise wholesale and unfair denunciations (see 905).
2076. Cooperation in Defamation.—Not only the defamer sins, but also those who cooperate with him. Among the cooperators with defamation are those who give orders for defamation, those who show how it can be done, those who protect defamers, and those who participate in defamation by directing the conversation to a certain subject or by joining in the criticisms. The most ordinary form of participation in defamation is that of the listener, for no one defames successfully unless he has a sympathetic listener. Those who listen to detraction in such a way as to consent to what is said share in the guilt of the detraction. This happens as follows:
(a) the listener consents directly to defamation when he spurs the speaker on (e.g., by saying, “Tell us about So-and-So,” by insincerely praising an absent person in order to excite dispraise, by nodding approvingly, cheering, or smiling, by showing great marks of favor to those who bring him news against others or of disfavor to those who refuse to do this), or when he rejoices internally at the defamation he hears, because he hates the victim:
(b) the listener consents indirectly to defamation when he does not spur the speaker on nor approve of what is said, but omits to stop the defamation or to protest against it, when he could and should do one or the other of these things.
2077. Sinfulness of Direct Consent to Defamation.—The listener who consents directly shares in the guilt of the defamer according to the words of St. Paul: “They who do such things (detractors, etc.) are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them” (Rom., i. 32), Indeed, St. Bernard says that it is not easy to say which is more deserving of condemnation, to defame or to listen to defamation. But we may distinguish as follows:
(a) he who spurs the defamer on is more guilty than the defamer. This listener sins against the detractor whom he scandalizes by inducing to sin, against the detracted whom he deprives of his good name. Thus, he is both uncharitable to the detractor and unjust to the detracted, and is the moving cause of all the harm that is done (cfr. 2065);
(b) he who hears the defamer willingly may be more guilty internally than the defamer, since his hatred of his neighbor and his love of injustice may be more intense; but externally his sin is less, since, as is supposed, he is not bound to resist the defamation and he does not give any cooperation to the external injustice. He sins against justice affectively (i.e., in wish), but not effectively (i.e., in word or deed).
2078. Persons Who Listen from Curiosity.—What of those listeners who hear defamation willingly, not because they approve of the harm or evil that is being done, but because they are unusually curious or the speaker is unusually interesting?
(a) If these listeners could and should stop the defamation, they consent to it indirectly by their silence and thus are guilty (cfr. 2079).
(b) If these listeners are not able or are not bound to stop the defamation, some would nevertheless hold them guilty of grave sin, since they wish to hear something only because the knowledge will give them pleasure, knowing all the while that this knowledge cannot be had except at the expense of the good opinion they have of a neighbor. But the general view is that in this case there is no grave sin; for the listener does not approve of the moral evil (he is interested only in the graceful or eloquent or witty manner of the speaker, or the strangeness of the things related, or he is only concerned to hear the latest news, cfr. 234), and what he hears does not cause the lowering of his neighbor in his own opinion. But here it is supposed that the listener in no way encourages the defamation and that he is not bound to stop it. Curiosity about things that do not concern one is, however, a venial sin.
2079. Sinfulness of Indirect Consent to Defamation.—The listener who consents indirectly to defamation by not impeding it as he should is also guilty of sin, and in Scripture his conduct is strongly forbidden: “Have nothing to do with detractors” (Prov., xxiv. 21); “Hedge in thy ears with thorns, hear not a wicked tongue” (Ecclus., xxviii. 28).
(a) It is commonly admitted that the listener in question sins doubly against charity, and grievously if the defamation is seriously harmful; for he sins against the detractor by refusing to give a brotherly correction (see 1258 sqq.), and he sins also against the one detracted by refusing to raise his voice in behalf of the absent who cannot defend himself.
(b) It is also commonly admitted that, if the listener is the superior of the defamer or of the person defamed, he sins more gravely, since he is specially bound to correct his subject who is detracting in his presence, or to defend his absent subject who is being defamed. If the listener is a private person not responsible for the defamed person’s reputation, he does not sin against justice by his indirect consent to the defamation. Indeed, the inferiors or equals of the defamer rarely sin gravely by their neglecting to oppose his defamatory remarks.
2080. Guilt of Superior Who Consents to Defamation.—Is the superior who indirectly consents to defamation of a non-subject by a subject guilty thereby of injustice?
(a) As regards the spiritual injury (i.e., the guilt of sin incurred by the defamer), the superior is guilty of injustice towards his subject, if by reason of his office or contract he is bound to correct faults and neglects to do so. Thus, a bishop or pastor is supported by his people, and there is at least an implied agreement that he will direct them in spiritual matters and reprove their faults. Hence, it seems that a spiritual superior of this kind is unjust, if he fails to correct a subordinate who carries defamatory tales to his ears.
(b) As regards the temporary injury (i.e., the detriment to fame incurred by the person maligned), all depends on whether the superior is bound by reason of his office or contract to prevent injury to non-subjects by those who are his subjects. If the superior exercises his authority in the temporal order and has an agreement with those not subject to him to protect them against defamation by his subjects, he is bound in justice to abide by his agreement. But the common opinion is that a superior in the spiritual order is not responsible _ex officio_ for the fame or other temporal welfare of those not subject to him.
2081. Is the superior who indirectly consents to defamation of a subject guilty thereby of injustice?
(a) If the superior has authority in the temporal order, he is unjust by his inaction, in so far as law, custom or agreement hold him to prevent the defamation of his subject. Thus, a guardian entrusted with the care of his ward’s reputation is unjust if he makes no effort to prevent defamation of the latter.
(b) If the superior is in the spiritual order, some believe that he is unjust by inaction, since fame is closely connected with spiritual goods, being necessary for moral influence over others and useful for personal perseverance in virtue. But others—and it seems more commonly—deny this, and state that the relation between fame and spiritual goods is only accidental.
2082. Circumstances Which Lessen Guilt of Indirect Consent.—Indirect consent to defamation is often only a venial sin. (a) Thus, by reason of the lightness of the matter, as when only trivial defects are mentioned by the defamer; (b) by reason of insufficient reflection, as when the listener is distracted in mind and does not clearly advert to the sinfulness of the words he hears; (c) by reason of insufficient consent, as when the failure to stop or protest against the defamation is due to slight laziness, to bashfulness, or to fear of the speaker, at least when the defamation is not extremely harmful to fame or other good, or gravely slanderous.
2083. Inaction in the Face of Defamation.—Inaction in the face of defamation of a third party is sometimes no sin at all.
(a) Thus, there is no sin when one is unable to act (e.g., when a slanderous speech is being delivered by a person in authority who will not suffer any interruption to be made), or is unable to act with any success (e.g., when the attempt to correct would provoke worse defamation, when the listener is too unskilled to refute or remonstrate). Scrupulous persons should not attempt to correct, since they are not suited for this. Their attempts to defend an absent person would generally make them ridiculous, and would often be unjust to the person whom they suspected of defamation.
(b) There is no sin when one is not obliged to act (e.g., when interference will expose one to very serious evils, when the defamation is not grave or is not taken very seriously, when the listener is uncertain whether the speaker is really guilty of defamation or whether he himself is bound to intervene). It is sometimes unwise to interrupt a defamatory story, for many such story seems to promise dire disclosures at its beginning, but when heard to the end is seen to be an affair of no importance or to contain little that is new or startling or credible.
2084. Ways of Opposing Defamation Made in One’s Presence.—(a) Positive resistance is made by a command to the defamer to be silent, or by refutation of his words if they are false, or by a rebuke if his words are true. This mode of correction is generally required if the listener is the superior of the defamer, and is sometimes suitable if he is the latter’s equal.
(b) Negative resistance is made by leaving the company, by having no share in the conversation, by changing the subject, by showing displeasure or at least gravity in one’s looks or acts: “The north wind driveth away rain, as doth a sad countenance a backbiting tongue” (Prov., xxv. 23). This mode of resistance is usually the proper one for an inferior, and as a rule is found more satisfactory even between equals (see 1267).
2085. Restitution for Defamation.—Restitution for injuries committed is necessary (see 1759), and hence it is required of the defamer. In the language of Scripture (Prov., xiii. 13), he that speaks ill of his neighbor obliges himself for the future. The two injuries to be repaired are: (a) the unjust taking, that is, the fame of which he has deprived his neighbor; (b) the unjust damage, that is, the detriment to fame or the losses that resulted from the defamation (such as failure to obtain or keep a position, decline of business, etc., which were foreseen at least in a confused manner). It is clear there is no duty of restitution, if in spite of talk against a neighbor he suffered no loss (e.g., if the listeners gave no heed or credence to the talk).
2086. Gravity of Obligation of Restitution.—The obligation of restitution for defamation is grave or light according to the degree of injury done, and the grave obligation binds even at the expense of serious inconvenience, the light obligation at the cost of small inconvenience. But the following points should be noted:
(a) the injury is not necessarily grave if the defect imputed to another is grave, for many circumstances have to be considered (e.g., blasphemy is a serious charge, but it would not be very harmful to a man publicly known as very impious, see 2053 sqq.);
(b) the injury is not necessarily slight if the defect imputed is slight, for circumstances may make the injury considerable (e.g., it is not very defamatory to say that a woman is very talkative, or unable to speak or spell correctly, but this would be very damaging if it lost the woman a very lucrative position as secretary).
2087. Conditions Which Entail Duty of Restitution.—Restitution is not obligatory unless one is the unjust and efficacious author of the damage (see 1763). Hence, disclosures unfavorable to the reputation of others entail the duty of restitution only when the following conditions are present:
(a) the detriment to fame or other loss must be unjust objectively, and hence those who have a just reason for exposing the vices of others are not held to restitution;
(b) the detriment must be unjust subjectively, and hence one who in good faith speaks of a neighbors sin, thinking that it is true and public, whereas it is false or secret, is not bound to restitution, if he discovers his error after the results of the defamation have been removed (see, however, 2102). But if he discovers his mistake while the neighbor is still under a cloud because of the report, he becomes from that moment responsible and subjectively unjust, if he does not take steps as far as he conveniently can to correct the error (see 1769);
(c) the detriment must be due to oue’s act as to its efficacious cause, and hence one is not bound to restitution if a listener understands one to disparage when in fact one has not disparaged.
2088. Cooperators and Restitution.—Those who cooperate in injustice are also held to restitution (see 1778 sqq.), and hence the following are bound to indemnify a defamed person:
(a) positive cooperators are held to restitution, such as those who command, counsel, or encourage defamation. The same is true of those who share in a defamatory conversation or who merely listen, but by their questions, or show of interest or approval, induce the defamer to continue, or to speak with more assurance;
(b) negative cooperators are also held to restitution, if they were bound in justice to resist or impede defamation. This will apply chiefly to a superior who does not prevent, as he should, the defamation of his subject or community, whether by a subject or a non-subject (see 2080 sqq.).
2089. Circumstances of Restitution.—We shall now speak of the circumstances of restitution for defamation: (a) the persons bound to restitution besides the defamer, namely, his heirs, the listeners, etc.; (b) the persons to whom restitution is to be made; (c) the manner of making restitution; (d) the time for making restitution (see 1781 sqq.).
2090. Restitution for Defamation to Be Made by an Heir of the Defamer.—(a) For the injury to fame, it seems that the heir is not bound, since the duty of restitution of fame is a personal one, that is, an obligation to perform an act of retraction or apology, not an obligation to pay compensation (see 463). But some hold that defamation may be satisfied for by pecuniary compensation (1750, 1802), and that, if the injured party should insist on this kind of compensation for the infamy suffered, the heirs would be obliged to pay it.
(b) For the damages resulting from injury to fame the heir is bound, since restitution for losses is a real one and rests upon the property or estate of the deceased. But those who are in good faith are sometimes to be left undisturbed, lest they become guilty of formal sin.
2091. The Persons to Whom Restitution for Defamation Is to Be Made.—(a) To the person defamed restitution of fame is owed, and this is true even when the person is already dead. Just as one who dishonors the dead by desecrating their tombs or their remains owes it to their memory to make reparation, so one who defames the dead owes it to their reputation to make restitution. In fact, the heirs may be bound in conscience to insist upon this restitution, and it seems they cannot condone it, since it is not their own fame that has been hurt.
(b) To the listeners restitution is not owed, since no injustice was done them, but reparation for scandal given them may be obligatory. And, since justice to the person defamed requires retraction or other reparation, the defamer must recall his words before the persons to whom he addressed them. Hence, if defamation appeared in a journal, the honorable reparation should also appear in the same journal and with the same prominence given it as was given the offensive remarks.
2092. Responsibility of Defamer for Spread of Defamation.—Is the defamer bound to recall his words to the wider audience that learned them from his first listeners?
(a) If the defamer is not responsible for the spread of his talk beyond the circle which he addressed (e.g., if he imposed strict silence upon his listeners or had good reason to think that they would keep his remarks to themselves, and his words nevertheless leaked out), the common opinion is that he is not held to reparation before the subsequent listeners.
(b) If the defamer is responsible for the spread of his talk (e.g., if he gave his listeners permission to quote or repeat, or if he knew well that they would carry his words far and wide), he is bound to reparation before the later listeners, in so far as this is possible, especially if he was guilty of calumny. Whether he or his listeners have the first duty of restitution will depend on the relationship in their cooperation (see 1784). If he can do nothing better, he should admonish his listeners to retract before their listeners.
2093. The First Way of Making Restitution for Defamation.—(a) If the defamation was by calumny, the defamer (and also the propagator) must take back his words, admitting that what he said was untrue. If necessary, he should also make affidavit to this effect, or even admit that he lied. The reason is that the innocent party has a greater right to his fame than the guilty party. But the defamer is not obliged to confess his own malice, when this is not necessary, and it may suffice to say merely that his former statement was not correct.
(b) If the defamation was by detraction, the defamer cannot truthfully say that his words were false, and he must counteract directly or indirectly the effect of his defamation by something favorable to the person he has injured. If the listeners will not be confirmed in their belief by his explanation, the defamer should explain to them that his statements were unjust, that he had no right to make them, that he wishes them to regard as unsaid all that he said, etc. (direct revocation). If this cure would be worse than the sickness by strengthening the belief of the listeners that the defamation was true, the defamer should be silent about his former statements. But he should so honor or praise the person defamed that others will be led to believe, not that restitution is being made, but that the former good opinion they had of the person defamed was correct (indirect revocation). Thus, if the defamer knows that the injured person has reformed, he may call attention to and emphasize the virtues he now has; if the defamed person has still the same failing, he may be excused, when possible, or praised for the good qualities he does possess, or he may be spoken of in general terms of esteem; if the listeners have been led to dishonor the person who was detracted, the defamer may show special signs of esteem or confidence to the latter, etc.
2094. Other Methods of Making Restitution.—If the listeners will not be impressed by any of the methods of satisfaction just indicated, what should be done?
(a) If, in the case of calumny, the listeners are unwilling to accept the formal statement that the defamation was untrue, the defamer is obliged to nothing more. For the slanderer has done all that is possible to change the erroneous view of the listeners, and the bad opinion they have of their neighbor must now be attributed, not to the defamer, but to their own wickedness or stubbornness.
(b) If the listeners cannot be properly impressed by the direct or indirect revocation of detraction, the defamer, being unable to make honorable compensation by restoration of fame, should make a profitable compensation by the bestowal of a benefit that will in some way be commensurate with the good of reputation and be acceptable to the other party. Thus, if the person defamed is satisfied with money or something measurable in terms of money, he should be given damages; if this kind of compensation is of little use or is not esteemed (few persons of honor would take money alone as pay for a lost reputation), he should be given some other good which in his own judgment and that of a prudent man is more nearly an equivalent for the good of which he has been deprived. An apology is not sufficient, since the begging of pardon does not restore what was taken; neither is it generally advisable, because the admission to another that one has been secretly defaming him and is now sorry for this may lead to quarrels and hatreds rather than to forgiveness and peace.
2095. Legal Reparation for Defamation.—One who has been sentenced by a lawful judgment of court to reparation and penalty for defamation is obliged to obedience, but if the satisfaction decided on by a jury is excessive or meager, it can be set aside by the court. In Canon Law (Canon 2355) one who has been convicted of defamation may be sentenced: (a) to satisfaction; (b) to damages; (c) to suitable penalties, even to suspension or removal from office or benefice.
2096. The Time When Restitution for Defamation Is to Be Made.—(a) It should be made as soon as possible, for the longer it is delayed the greater the injury that is suffered, since defamation becomes harder to correct as it progresses, or at least has a longer life when it is not corrected early. But prudence will sometimes dictate that one await a psychological or favorable moment for a retractation. (b) Restitution should be promised before absolution is given, and, if there is a well-founded doubt about the sincerity of a promise, the confessor may delay absolution until restitution has been made.
2097. Cessation of Duty of Restitution.—The duty of restitution ceases, at least temporarily, in certain cases (see 1797 sqq.), and hence one who has been guilty of injustice through defamation is sometimes excused from reparation. (a) Thus, one is excused temporarily on account of impossibility; (b) one is excused permanently on account of the cessation of the other party’s good name or the termination of one’s own obligation.
2098. Excuse from Restitution on Account of Impossibility.—(a) Physical impossibility excuses, for example, when one does not know who the persons were before whom one detracted, or cannot recall who the person was whom one defamed. But in this case the defamer should at least make satisfaction by praying for the person whom he defamed, or by having Masses offered for him.
(b) Moral impossibility excuses from restitution, as when the defamer will suffer a far greater loss than he inflicted on the person defamed (e.g., if the defamer cannot retract without losing his life, or a reputation which is far more valuable than that of the obscure person who was defamed). But if the defamer has subjected the injured party to the peril of death, or if he has calumniated an innocent man, he must make satisfaction even at the peril of his own life or at the cost of his own fame; for the right of the innocent prevails over that of the guilty defamer.
2099. Excuse from Restitution on Account of Cessation of Other Party’s Good Name.—The defamer may also be excused from restitution on account of cessation of the other party’s good name through another cause, as when the secret defect first made known by the defamer becomes public from another source.
(a) The detractor is excused from the duty of restoring reputation, since the person he defamed has now independently of the first defamation lost his right to reputation (see 2053 sqq.).
(b) The detractor is not excused, however, from payment for damages which the defamed person suffered from the first defamation or for expenses which it caused him. Some moralists hold him obligated also for some compensation for the infamy suffered before the crime became public through others.
2100. Excuse from Restitution on Account of the Termination of Obligation.—(a) The act of the defamed person ends the obligation, when, without injury to others, he expressly or tacitly condones the offense; for he has dominion over his own fame, as he has over his own money or lands. Thus, it may often be presumed that parents overlook the restitution owed them by their children for criticisms made by the latter.
(b) The act of the defamed person also ends the obligation, according to the common opinion, when he has inflicted an equal injury by defaming his defamer and is unwilling to make satisfaction for the injury; for though it is unlawful to repay evil with evil, and though one damage does not cure another damage, he who will not pay a creditor cannot insist that the creditor pay him an equal debt. Thus, if Titus has burned the barn of Claudius and Claudius then burns the barn of Titus, and neither will pay damages, the debts neutralize each other, if the losses are equal. The same principle applies in defamatory recriminations.
2101. Right of Defamed Person to Condone Injury.—The person defamed has the right to condone the injury, if it is only personal to himself, but he has not always the right to condone the injury when the defamation causes harm to others.
(a) Thus, the defamed person would sin against justice and his act would be invalid, if he forgave the debt of restitution despite the fact that his own fame was necessary for the fame of others (e.g., when a monk loses his good name, the monastery is also disgraced), or was necessary for the fulfillment of duties owed by him in justice to others (e.g., when a prelate, priest or public official loses his good name, the good influence he should exercise over his subjects is ended). This conclusion is probable.
(b) The defamed person would sin against charity, but his act would be valid, if he forgave the debt of restitution despite the fact that his fame was necessary for the fulfillment of charitable duties owed to others, or that his silence in the face of defamation would cause great scandal (e.g., when a preacher loses his reputation, his words do not move, and thus he is unable fruitfully to accomplish works of charity by instructing the ignorant, etc.).
2102. Excuse from Restitution When Reputation Has Been Recovered.—The obligation of restitution for defamation also ceases when reputation has been recovered without any act on the part of the defamer; for it is clear that one is not bound to give back that which is already had. But restitution may be due, nevertheless, for damages incurred, and some think that compensation (e.g., apology, honor, praise) should be made for the injury of infamy that existed before the good name was regained.
The usual ways in which reputation is recovered without the act of the defamer are: (a) by overthrow of the defamation, as when the facts against it become manifest, or when witnesses prove its falsity, or when a tribunal declares it a criminal libel; (b) by oblivion, as when a misdeed of years ago has faded entirely out of the public memory. If the defamer is uncertain whether his past defamations have been forgotten, he has to act with great prudence; for, if he makes inquiries the memory of the defamations may be awakened, while if he says nothing, the defamations, because never corrected or retracted, may break out anew. He should consider the circumstances, therefore, and treat the defamed person as he would wish himself to be treated in a like case.
2103. Whispering or Tale-Bearing.—Whispering (_susurratio_), also called mischief-making and tale-bearing, is a speech unfavorable to another person secretly made with the purpose of breaking up a virtuous friendship.
(a) It is unfavorable speech, that is, the whisperer says something to his listener that will turn the latter against the person spoken about. The thing attributed to the absent person may be either something evil or something that is only seemingly evil, but in either case it will be something displeasing to the listener. Whispering, therefore, does not necessarily include defamation.
(b) It is secret, that is, the whisperer speaks privately, and usually in the way of confidence to the person whose mind he wishes to impress. Often, however, he goes now to one of the friends, now to another, speaking in different senses to each, to make his work doubly effective. This kind of whisperer is known as double-tongued: “The whisperer and the double-tongued is accursed” (Ecclus., xxviii. 15).
(c) It is aimed at the breaking up of a friendship, that is, the whisperer intends to destroy the feeling of respect and affection which his listener has for the absent person, or even to instill into the listener’s mind a feeling of disrespect and dislike for the absent person. Whispering, therefore, is incomplete when it ends a friendship, and complete when it makes enemies of those who had been friends and sows discords and quarrels: “A passionate man kindleth strife, and a sinful man will trouble his friends, and bring in debate in the midst of them that are at peace” (Ecclus., xxviii. 11); “When the tale-bearer is taken away, contentions shall cease” (Prov., xxvi. 20). Whispering, then, differs from simple defamation, whose purpose is to steal away fame, for the mischief-maker intends to steal away friendship.
(d) It is directed against a virtuous friendship, for there is no sin but rather an act of charity in the effort to end a sinful or harmful friendship, as when a parent tries to keep his daughter away from a wicked man with whom she is infatuated, or his son away from a disorderly set whose companionship appeals to the youth (see 1353).
2104. The Sinfulness of Whispering.—(a) Theological Species.—Whispering is from its nature a mortal sin, since it is hateful to God (the soul of the Lord detesteth “him that soweth discord among brethren,” Prov., vi. 19), and deprives man of the boon of a virtuous friendship, the greatest of external goods. “A faithful friend is a strong defence, and he that hath found him hath found a treasure. Nothing can be compared to a faithful friend, and no weight of gold and silver is able to countervail the goodness of his fidelity. A faithful friend is the medicine of life and immortality” (Ecclus., vi. 14-16). Whispering is a greater sin than contumely or defamation, since honor is less esteemed than friendship, and reputation is only a means to friendship.
(b) Moral Species.—Generally, whispering is a sin against justice on account of the unjust means (e.g., force, fraud, lies, detractions) to which it resorts; but from its nature it is only a sin against charity, for the injured party has no strict right to friendship, which is a free relationship that may be terminated at will by either of the parties.
2105. Circumstances Which Affect the Species of Whispering.—Is the species of whispering changed by circumstances?
(a) The theological species is changed when the sinful act is imperfect in malice (e.g., when the whisperer had not reflected well on the evil that would be caused by him), or when the harm done is slight (e.g., when no enmity was caused and the friendship broken up was not strong or important to the friends). It is not a small matter, however, to destroy friendships that are very necessary, such as the friendship between husband and wife, between parent and child.
(b) The moral species is not subdivided, for, though there are different kinds of friendships (see 1111), whispering is not directed against the special features, but against the general character common to all of them, namely, unity of soul and mutual affection. Hence, the whisperer is not obliged to mention in confession whether the friendship he broke up was based on utility, or pleasure, or virtue. It is clear, however, that a new species may be added to whispering. Thus, he who separates husband and wife, intending to secure the wife for himself, is guilty also of adultery; he who separates a business man and his patrons, intending to attract the trade to himself, is guilty also of theft; he who separates ruler and subjects by his whispering, is also guilty of sedition, etc.
2106. Derision.—Derision is a jest that reproaches another with some defect or evil in order to put him to confusion.
(a) It is a jest, that is, it is spoken in fun and consists in making the defects of another person the object of laughter or amusement. Thus, it differs in manner from contumely, detraction and whispering, which are spoken seriously.
(b) Its purpose is the confusion of the person ridiculed, that is, it intends to take from him the good opinion that he is entitled to have of himself and the peace of conscience that he enjoys. Thus, it differs in object and purpose from the other injurious words hitherto considered (see 2009). The intention to put another person out of countenance by ridicule is either formal or material, according as the purpose before the mind is to disconcert that person, or only to have one’s joke, though one sees that this will mean shame and suffering for the victim of the joke.
2107. Distinction between Derision and Jesting.—Moderate jesting at another’s expense is not derision, nor sinful, if it is justified by a reasonable motive. (a) Thus, a serious motive for jesting at another is fraternal correction. To ridicule a person who is making a fool of himself is often the best way to correct him, for many persons are less moved at being called wicked than at being called absurd. Similarly, a satirical rebuke sometimes serves to abash a person who has an exalted opinion of himself. In such cases a truth spoken in jest is an act of charity to a sinner. (b) A playful motive for jesting at another is recreation. The good-natured exchange of banter about trivial defects between persons who enjoy this give and take is a reasonable form of amusement in itself; indeed, it pertains to the virtue known as _eutrapelia_. But some persons who enjoy a jest at the expense of another are extremely sensitive to ridicule and fly into a rage if fun is poked at themselves, or even if they suspect that someone is laughing at them.
2108. Even jesting whose purpose is good may be sinful on account of the offensive or immoderate way in which it is conducted (see 2010). There are three general forms of jest, but they do not constitute distinct species of sin when jest is unlawful, since the difference between them is accidental as far as morality is concerned.
(a) Thus, jest of the mouth is one that is made by words or laughter.
(b) A jest of the face is made by the expression of the countenance (e.g., by wrinkling up the nose, sticking out the tongue).
(c) A jest of act, or practical joke, is some trick played on another, horseplay, and the like.
2109. The Sinfulness of Derision.—(a) When the derider makes light of a grave evil, he commits a mortal sin, for he shows grave contempt towards the person derided, treating the latter as if he were entirely worthless—one whose misfortunes were matters for joke. Indeed, derision is a more serious injury than contumely, for the contumelious person treats the evil of his neighbor as something serious, whereas the derider makes sport of it and is thus more insulting. In Scripture grave punishment is threatened to deriders: “God shall scorn the scorners” (Prov., iii. 34). But if an evil grave in itself is commonly looked upon as light on account of the inferior condition of the person who has the defect (viz., because he is an infant or an idiot), there is no grave sin of contempt.