detraction

[LBP]

I was just looking for some clarification upon understanding the sin of detraction. From what I can remember, the Catechism specifies that detraction invovles the sin of disclosing the faults or failings of someone to a third party that did not know of these faults, unless there is an objectively valid reason.

Let me be clear that I do not deny that detraction exists as a sin. In my imagination, the essence of detraction is using the truth as a weapon to harm another person. For instance, suppose a long-time friend of yours commits a serious injustice against you, and, in anger, you try to get back at him by revealing all of this friend’s faults to all of your mutual friends. You can ruin lives, careers, relationships, and a whole slew of things by speaking garbage at people, even if its their garbage to begin with. So I have no problem in admitting that detraction can be classifed as a sin.

My question arises in the clause stating that an objectively valid reason seems to allow faults to be disclosed. The thing is, if you were to go by the strict formula, you wouldn’t even be able to discuss common history or the news without risking detraction. For example, as a student fo history, if I were to discuss some less savory aspects of a historical figure to someone who did not presiouvly know the information I was presenting, I would be guilty of detraction, unless I had an objectively valid reason. Similarly, if I watch the news, and I see that a certain individual is guilty of drug smuggling, or that a certain celebrity is pregnant and yet not married, and I convey this information to a third party that has not already come across the information, I could also be in danger of detraction.

So my question is, what “objectively valid reasons” exist? I am having a hard time drawing a definitive line. If I watch a sit-com, and a character divorces and remarries, would it be detractory to relay this information? Similarly, if someone in your community is divorced, and remarries, is divulging this detraction? It is information that can be ascertained from living in the community, but, if nobody ever talked about it, then, somehow, there might be a way to keep the information from spreading?

Does detraction pertain to hidden faults or just any old fault (ie: people who are proud of their defiance of morality)

Cheers

 

[Trelow]

" of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;"

The reference is Sir 21:28.
A slanderer besmirches himself, and is hated by his neighbors.

---

I think you’re being a bit scrupulous here.

Obviously the intent your your divulging the information would be important. Also if the information was widely available, ie your tv / history questions then the information is not private /hidden and therefore your intent would be the entire basis of wither or not one would be committing the sin of detraction.

Using the reference in Sirach we can see the line of thought, and how to more easily mold our behavior.

I’d be happy to give more of my insight if necessary, but for now it’s back to work.

 

[Benedictus]

LBP:

In my imagination, the essence of detraction is using the truth as a weapon to harm another person.

It need not be done with the intent to harm another person. For example, gossipping about a spouse to a friend is detraction. Even if the point is not to make the friend think less of the spouse, the effect is there.

The thing is, if you were to go by the strict formula, you wouldn’t even be able to discuss common history or the news without risking detraction.

If something is public knowledge, then sharing it is not detraction, even if the person you’re talking to was unaware of it. My telling someone who had been living in a cave on Mars that Bill Clinton fooled around with Monica Lewinsky is not detraction because it is common knowledge. Now the first person who let that slip before it was common knowledge probably committed detraction.

Similarly, if someone in your community is divorced, and remarries, is divulging this detraction?

Marriages and divorces are a matter of public record. Not detraction.

Does detraction pertain to hidden faults or just any old fault (ie: people who are proud of their defiance of morality)

The former is detraction; the latter is not.

 

[kmmd]

I often confess the sin of detraction, although I rarely call it that. My problem is with the heterodox priests in this area and with our Bishop. For example, I have heard the Bishop publicly declare that he thinks that Bishops should be elected and that women should be eligible to be ordained. Discussing these things with other people is not productive, but wow is ever hard sometimes to keep quiet.

The Bishop is the man that God has selected to lead this diocese at this time. My job is to respect and honor him, not to bring his faults to the attention of others.

If I wrote a letter to the Apostolic Nuncio and described what I heard and saw and asked for help, that would not be a sim. But if I tell a friend what I heard the Bishop say, just because I am appalled, that is a sin. There is no reason for them to know.

 

[Benedictus]

kmmd:

For example, I have heard the Bishop publicly declare that he thinks that Bishops should be elected and that women should be eligible to be ordained. Discussing these things with other people is not productive, but wow is ever hard sometimes to keep quiet.

Well, the Church has had its bishops elected before (like St. Ambrose was), so that doesn’t make him heterodox, just a little silly. Ordaining females is another matter, of course.

If I wrote a letter to the Apostolic Nuncio and described what I heard and saw and asked for help, that would not be a sim. But if I tell a friend what I heard the Bishop say, just because I am appalled, that is a sin. There is no reason for them to know.

If the bishop’s statements were public, then merely repeating that public information is not a sin. If you are just doing it out of hatred, well, maybe it is, but the sin wouldn’t be detraction, but hatred. I don’t agree that there is no reason for the friend to know your bishop is a heretic. That is useful information.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Benedictus:

It need not be done with the intent to harm another person. For example, gossipping about a spouse to a friend is detraction. Even if the point is not to make the friend think less of the spouse, the effect is there.

If something is public knowledge, then sharing it is not detraction, even if the person you’re talking to was unaware of it. My telling someone who had been living in a cave on Mars that Bill Clinton fooled around with Monica Lewinsky is not detraction because it is common knowledge. Now the first person who let that slip before it was common knowledge probably committed detraction.

Marriages and divorces are a matter of public record. Not detraction.

The former is detraction; the latter is not.

After reading the catechism, I disagree with you on this, even if the person is proud of their faults, if the one you are telling did not know it, and you have no objectively valid purpose in telling them, then it would still be detraction. Same with any other scandal, etc.

"2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. 278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them; 279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them."

 

[Benedictus]

The usual definition of detraction is that it is the unnecessary revelation of a hidden failing. That the new Catechism doesn’t make this clear is unfortunate; although, I would argue that it is implicit in the definition given in the new Catechism.

From Fr. John Hardon’s Catholic Catechism (p. 408):

The essence of detraction is the unwarranted disclosure of a hidden failing, which implies that there are occasions when the disclosure can and even should be made.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent defines a detractor as:

[one] who gives publicity to the secret sin of any man, in an unnecessary place or time, or before persons who have no right to know

Note the word “hidden” in the former and “secret” in the latter.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Benedictus:

The usual definition of detraction is that it is the unnecessary revelation of a hidden failing. That the new Catechism doesn’t make this clear is unfortunate; although, I would argue that it is implicit in the definition given in the new Catechism.

From Fr. John Hardon’s Catholic Catechism (p. 408):

The Catechism of the Council of Trent defines a detractor as:

Note the word “hidden” in the former and “secret” in the latter.

Very good explanation of what detraction atually is, Benedictus.
Here are some scriptural passages about detraction:

“Remove from thee a forward mouth and let detracting lips be far from thee” Prov 4:24

**“For confusion and repenatnce is upon a thief, and an evil mark of disgrace upon the double-tongued, but to the whisperer, hatred and enmity and reproach” Ecclus. 7 16&17

“Hast thou heard a word against thy neighbour? Let it die within thee, trusting that it will not burst thee” Ecclus. 19:10

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Benedictus:

The usual definition of detraction is that it is the unnecessary revelation of a hidden failing. That the new Catechism doesn’t make this clear is unfortunate; although, I would argue that it is implicit in the definition given in the new Catechism.

From Fr. John Hardon’s Catholic Catechism (p. 408):

The Catechism of the Council of Trent defines a detractor as:

Note the word “hidden” in the former and “secret” in the latter.

I don’t mean this in a bad way, but how do you know that the new revision of the Catechism did not state it this way purposely to include any fault, not only the ones that are not publicly acknowledged. I there is no good reason to share someone’s fault with someone else, why would they need to share it?

 

[Benedictus]

lifeisbeautiful:

I don’t mean this in a bad way, but how do you know that the new revision of the Catechism did not state it this way purposely to include any fault, not only the ones that are not publicly acknowledged.

Well, I’m not clairvoyant, but I ascribe it to the general sloppiness of the new Catechism. Precision is very wanting throughout the Catechism. It’s not that the Catechism is wrong, but that it’s not clear.

The passages on the nature of Original Sin, for example, leave a bit to be desired. The Catechism doesn’t have a clear answer to the question “what is Original Sin?”. Is it inherited guilt, or is it something else? It also tends to blur the line between Original Sin and the effects of Original Sin. The passage on capital punishment is also ambiguous (Karl Keating wrote an E-Letter on this a year or so ago).

At any rate, the Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t “overturn” the definition of detraction given in its predecessor, the Roman Catechism, so I still maintain that detraction does not include “revealing” public information. You cannot reveal something that is already common knowledge.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Benedictus:

Well, I’m not clairvoyant, but I ascribe it to the general sloppiness of the new Catechism. Precision is very wanting throughout the Catechism. It’s not that the Catechism is wrong, but that it’s not clear.

The passages on the nature of Original Sin, for example, leave a bit to be desired. The Catechism doesn’t have a clear answer to the question “what is Original Sin?”. Is it inherited guilt, or is it something else? It also tends to blur the line between Original Sin and the effects of Original Sin. The passage on capital punishment is also ambiguous (Karl Keating wrote an E-Letter on this a year or so ago).

At any rate, the Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t “overturn” the definition of detraction given in its predecessor, the Roman Catechism, so I still maintain that detraction does not include “revealing” public information. You cannot reveal something that is already common knowledge.

I’m sorry you feel this way about the Catechism.

What makes that fault of that person common knowledge? If you still have to tell people, then it may not be that “common”. And even if it were pretty common, why do you need to tell anyone, injuring the reputation of the person with the fault, without just reasons to do so? If everyone knows, why say it. If not everyone knows,why say it?

Also, from the Catechism of the Council of Trent you quoted from, a little further down from your quote it states: “To all conscientious persons is addressed the divine command that in all their intercourse with society, in every conversation, they should speak the truth at all times from the sincerity of their hearts; that they should utter nothing injurious to the reputation of another, not even of those by whom they know they have been injured and persecuted.”

Informing someone of someone else’s fault would be injurious to their reputation.

 

[paramedicgirl]

lifeisbeautiful:

What makes that fault of that person common knowledge? If you still have to tell people, then it may not be that “common”. And even if it were pretty common, why do you need to tell anyone, injuring the reputation of the person with the fault, without just reasons to do so? If everyone knows, why say it. If not everyone knows,why say it?

Informing someone of someone else’s fault would be injurious to their reputation.

I can give you some examples that I talked to my priest about. If the other person has a vested interest in knowing, such as their own safety, or in order for them to take the neccesary precautions in dealing with that person, then it is not detraction.

It is fair to warn someone about another’s intentions when you know that harm will be caused to that individual by not telling them.

It is not right to disclose information about another person just for the pleasure of gossiping, but there are times when it is not a sin to do so, and then, it should be done in a charitable way.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

paramedicgirl:

I can give you some examples that I talked to my priest about. If the other person has a vested interest in knowing, such as their own safety, or in order for them to take the neccesary precautions in dealing with that person, then it is not detraction.

It is fair to warn someone about another’s intentions when you know that harm will be caused to that individual by not telling them.

It is not right to disclose information about another person just for the pleasure of gossiping, but there are times when it is not a sin to do so, and then, it should be done in a charitable way.

Yes, that would be the objectively valid reasons we are talking of. We are not debating whether objectively valid reasons exist, since I believe we both agree they do. The discussion is whether or not it would be detraction to tell someone about the faults a third party has and is proud of.

 

[kmmd]

Benedictus:

I don’t agree that there is no reason for the friend to know your bishop is a heretic. That is useful information.

This is very difficult. The ordination of women is only one example. Our Bishop actively promotes many ideas contrary to the faith. Currently there is no priest in charge of our parish. A variety of priests come to say Mass on Sundays and he is rarely allowed to give the homily. The diocese has a list of approved “preachers”. The deal is that these “preachers” (mostly women, some of whom are divorced and remarried without annulments) do say the “homily”; the priest is to “introduce them” in his “homily” (which basically consists of his “introduction”).
Confessions are scheduled for 15 minutes twice a month. The deacon in charge of our parish told me that he doesn’t believe that Jesus intended to found just one church. Combine this with the recent newspaper editorials that slander the Church and I am convinced that my experience is similar to those of faithful Catholics during the time of Martin Luther. I am certainly blessed to have websites like this and ETWN to comfort me with the certain knowledge that to suffer for the truth of the faith is a great blessing.

On the other hand, how is it helpful to go around bad mouthing every one in charge?

I have decided that my charge is to do my best to become personally holy and to learn all that I can about the truth of the faith, with the hope that I will be prepared when called upon to defend what I believe.

 

[Ruthie]

You are dealing with, among other things, liturgical abuse. Only a priest or a deacon may give the homily. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=55853&highlight=homily

Here is some good advice about dealing with liturgical abuse:

adoremus.org/1295Bruno.html

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=55702&highlight=liturgical+abuse

 

[kmmd]

Ruthie:

You are dealing with, among other things, liturgical abuse. Only a priest or a deacon may give the homily.

Ruthie,
Thanks for the advice. I have actually been a member of Adoremus for close to 10 years. I have also been in touch with the St. Joseph’s foundation in San Antonio. We have done our homework and now we are waiting and trying to be patient. Please remember us in your prayers.

 

[Fortiterinre]

I think the most common form of detraction for many of us is when we become offended at someone who disagrees with us, possibly on a small issue, and we begin searching our memories for any small detail that will support our new conclusion that the person has become an enemy through his/her disagreement. The detail might be true, it might be a fault or sin of the person we mentally “investigated,” but when we start blabbing the detail for the purpose of shoring up our mental case against the person rather than for a legitimate reason, we become detractors.

 

[LBP]

Actually, my main question in asking this was to search for the “objectively valid reasons” and try to name them, and, more specifically, if the fact that something was common knowledge was one of these objectively valid reasons, because repeating it would be essentially repeating a fact.

I agree that it is evil to engage in character assasination, but the Catechetical formula provided seems to be quite tight, and a scrupulos person like myself could misinterpret it for the worse. The litmus test I always get is “did we NEED to know that” and that is a statement easily abused.

I am a student of history. If I were to discuss the exploits of a cruel dictator from a third-world country the size of Rhode Island, would I be detracting? On one hand, I am definitely revealing faults of another person. Suppose this guy was a murderer? I’d be telling you, the uninformed audience, about these crimes, and due to the fact that murder is such a grave and notorious offense, it may be justified, But then again, we’re talking about a guy who ran a country that nobody has ever heard of and, outside of this obscure historical community, nobody has heard of him in the Western world. You don’t NEED to know, it’s not like there haven’t been other tyrrants that we could learn lessons from so that history doesn’t repeat itself. See where it gets difficult? A lot of biographies deal with information that is similarly challenging in terms of evaluating this commandment.

Let me throw another example at you. A few years back, in the middle of a Chicago White Sox game, some guy ran onto the field and attacked the first base coach for the Kansas City Royals. Should the evening news censor the footage of the attack because it might damage the reputation of someone who knowingly attacked someone in the view of national television. What if, ten years later, I’m sitting on a porch with some friends of mine discussing how baseball has gone downhill and I use that as an example?

What do you do about people who willingly destroy their own reputation? Atheists who write books about atheism have reputations for being atheists and writing books about it. At the same time, mentioning the fact that someone is a dye-in-the-wool atheist to all of his Catholic friends that he went to Catholic school with before he was an atheist DOES cause a more-than-appreciable drop in his reputation. But atheism is also dangerous, scandalous, and may be a badge of honor to an atheist.

I think it’s a more difficult issue to resolve than it seems. But I do value the discussion. I think most of the points brought up are valid and have considerable weight. I am simply wondering if there is any way we can better codify “objectively valid reasons.”

 

[Pug]

LBP:

Actually, my main question in asking this was to search for the “objectively valid reasons”

Hmmm. Do all the cases you cite involve harm to the reputation of the person? Usually that is the problem with simple detraction. There is also detraction out of malice, but that is not what you are considering.

Here is a hypothetical situation. You know Mr. X is an incompetent builder. You know Mrs. Y is going to contract his services to build grab bars in the shower for her handicapped son. I think you can consider advising Mrs. Y not to contract his services, accepting some forseen harm to Mr. X. This is not detraction, I think. Any thoughts?

 

[thistle]

I hadn’t noticed this thread until now but have two questions.

1. Is the sin of detraction a mortal or venial sin?
2. I am owed a lot of money and there is a written agreement for the loan. For over a year no repayments have been made to me. It was discovered that the money had been borrowed (by someone thought trusted) under false pretences with it going to a different use and the borrower knowing they would not be able to pay anything back at the time of borrowing. Obviously I’m not overjoyed that I haven’t got my money back and its a big amount which is causing me some financial distress. My wife is uptight about this due to our situation and wants to show the loan agreement to people who know the borrower (we found out some people already knew this person had other unpaid loans but we didn’t at the time so in a way its public knowledge although not our case). The borrower still has their own company and carries on business. I guess my wife wants to do it partly to warn others not to lend money to this person but partly because she is angry and wants to get back the borrower. Personally I don’t want my wife to do this, even if it wasn’t a mortal sin. I would rather pray for the borrower to see what they are doing is wrong and find a way to pay us back. In case I can’t stop my wife is what she wants to do a mortal sin or venial sin?