Author Topic: The mystery of the satanic detraction (Read 1055 times)

Dulcamara · « **on:** January 12, 2011, 01:07:38 PM »

Detraction

(From Latin detrahere, to take away).

Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.

An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true. Detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice. It is obvious, however, that the subject-matter of the accusation may be so inconspicuous or, everything considered, so little capable of doing serious hurt that the guilt is not assumed to be more than venial. The same judgment is to be given when, as not unfrequently happens, there has been little or no advertence to the harm that is being done.

The determination of the degree of sinfulness of detraction is in general to be gathered from the consideration of the amount of harm the defamatory utterance is calculated to work. In order to adequately measure the seriousness of the damage wrought, due regard must be had not only to the imputation itself but also to the character of the person by whom and against whom the charge is made. That is, we must take into account not only the greater or lesser criminality of the thing alleged but also the more or less distinguished reputation of the detractor for trustworthiness, as well as the more or less notable dignity or estimation of the person whose good name has been assailed. Thus it is conceivable that a relatively small defect alleged against a person of eminent station, such as a bishop, might seriously tarnish his good name and be a mortal sin, whilst an offence of considerable magnitude attributed to an individual of a class in which such things frequently happen might constitute only a venial sin, such as, for instance, to say that a common sailor had been drunk. It is worthy of note that the manifestation of even inculpable defects may be a real defamation, such as to charge a person with gross ignorance, etc. When this is done in such circuмstances as to bring upon the person so disparaged a more than ordinary measure of disgrace, or perhaps seriously prejudice him, the sin may even be a grievous one.

SJB · « **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2011, 04:42:19 PM »

Quote from: McHugh and Callan, 1929, Moral Theology

1270. The kinds of faults that call for fraternal correction are as follows:

(a) grave sins should be corrected, for otherwise one allows a soul to perish that might have been saved. (Matt., xviii. 14, 15);

(b) slight sins or transgressions of rules should also be corrected, when they are the occasion of grave scandal or disorder in a community, and superiors who are negligent about this commit mortal sin.

(c) slight sins or transgressions should not be corrected in ordinary cases, for these faults are so numerous that, if one had to correct them, an intolerable burden would be laid on everyone. Persons who scold and lecture over every trifling misdeed are regarded as pests and do more harm than good.

1286. In what cases should secret admonition he used?

(a) For public sins (i.e., real sins known or soon to be known to the larger part of the community), no secret admonition is required, since the guilt is already publicly known; a public correction, on the contrary, is necessary to remedy the scandal:
“Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear" (I Tim., v. 20).

(b) For occult sins that are against the common good or the good of a third person no secret admonition is required, but one should denounce them immediately; for the spiritual or corporal welfare of the multitude or of an innocent private individual is a greater good than the reputation of the guilty person. Exception should be made, however, for the case in which one is certain that by a secret admonition one can correct the sinner and prevent the harm that threatens others. Examples: If Titus knows that there is a plot to rob the house of Balbus, and that any effort to dissuade the criminals would only bring him into danger, he ought to warn Balbus or the authorities. If Claudius knows that in his school a certain student is teaching the other boys to steal and become drunk, he should make this known, and hence cannot be absolved if he refuses. But the seal of the confessional must be observed.

(c) For occult sins that are not against the common good or that of a third person, one should have recourse to secret admonition before making the sins known. This will save the sinner from loss of reputation and from consequent hardness in sin; it will also save others from a share in his infamy, or from the scandal caused by publicity.

1287. What is the obligation of reporting an occult sin that is doing harm in a community, when the person who reports will suffer for telling what he knows?

(a) If harm to the community will result from silence, one is obliged even at the cost of great inconvenience to speak (see 1284). Example: Claudius knows that a fellow-student has a bad influence over his companions, and is leading more and more of them into stealing, with the result that a large number will be corrupted and the institution disgraced. But he cannot speak without serious harm to himself, because he also has been implicated, or because informers are regarded and treated as traitors. (b) If some private harm will result from silence, one is not bound at the cost of great inconvenience to speak. Example: If Claudius knows that only one or two are being led astray, he is not bound to implicate himself or to incur the ignominy of being regarded as a spy.

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2011, 04:47:17 PM »

Quote from: McHugh and Callan, 1929, Moral Theology

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.

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 authority 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 he 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 or their children (e.g., that a daughter is involved in a scandalous liaison), in order that the latter may be corrected; to speak to the friends of wayward persons about the misconduct of the latter in order that prayers may be said for their conversion.

SJB · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2011, 04:50:36 PM »

Quote from: Fr. Faber, Spiritual Conferences

When you hear a man attribute meanness to another, you may be sure, not only that the critic is an illnatured man, but that he has got a similar element of meanness in himself, or is fast sinking to it. A man is always capable himself of a sin which he thinks another is capable of, or which he himself is capable of imputing to another. Even a well-founded suspicion more or less degrades a man. His suspicion may be verified, and he may escape some material harm by having cherished the suspicion. But he is unavoidably the worse man in consequence of having entertained it. This is a very serious consideration, and rather a frightening argument in favour of charitable interpretations.

From Spiritual conferences (1860)
By Fr. Frederick William Faber, D.D.

Quote from: Fr. Faber, On Judging our Neighbor

It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil, for thus we should speedily become unreal; but we must grow to something higher, and something truer, than a quickness in detecting evil.

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2011, 04:58:26 PM »

Quote from: Dulcamara quoting something

Detraction is the unjust damaging of...

The words "unjust" and "damaging" are not repetitive terms. An unjust disclosure of another's faults is sinful detraction. The just disclosure of another's faults is still a detraction, yet it is NOT a sinful detraction, or a sinful "taking away."

SJB · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2011, 07:02:26 AM »

Nothing to say, Dulcamara?