What exactly is "detraction" and how can it be ever wrong to speak the Truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ToeInTheWater
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ToeInTheWater

Guest
I am not quite sure what the concept of “detraction” is, as most on CAF seem to think that if something is true, it is never wrong to discuss it publicly. I suspect many confuse “detraction” with “libel” and think that gossip is only wrong if it is unfounded or unconfirmed. However they would find no problem with stating “Bob is secretly gay and having sex with his roommate” or “Judy is cheating on Bill with Jim” if they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that such rumors are true.

Or perhaps “Jim and Judy have been married 10 years, but did you know that Judy used to be married to Bill? Everyone knows she was cheating on him with Jim, too. Yet every Sunday you see her up there, daring to take Communion. I hope for the sake of her soul that she got an annulment first!”

Would the latter also be a case of detraction, or merely speaking the Truth with the charitable intent of expressing concern for Judy’s soul?
 
It’s called “detraction” because you’re detracting from someone’s reputation. Just because something is true doesn’t mean it’s right to communicate it to anyone and everyone to the harm of the person being talked about. If you sincerely have a concern for Judy’s soul rather than a desire to spread lurid tales, talk to Judy in private.
 
In your last example, you are really gossiping, you don’t know enough of the story to comment. And is it really your place to comment? Unless the ‘facts’ you know will result in harm (like a record for child abuse or embezzlement for someone working with children or church funds) it’s likely no concern of yours, don’t put the false charity of ‘I fear for your soul’ on it, it very unbecoming!

I know you are only curious, please don’t take this as a condemnation, I have known several people like that over time and their only true motivation is making themselves appear superior!
 
ToeInTheWater said:
I am not quite sure what the concept of “detraction” is, as most on CAF seem to think that if something is true, it is never wrong to discuss it publicly.
Click to expand...
I offer this as an example. About fifteen years ago, a young man in my church and of my acquaintance came to me and asked to borrow a lot of money. He said he was in dire straits and needed to not lose his home and feed his family. I couldn’t help totally, but did give him a substantial amount. I knew him, his wife, and his children and we were friends. Long story short, he never paid it back. In fact, he lied numerous times and willingly and intentionally broke many promises to do so, some egregiously. Eventually he filed personal bankruptcy.

Well everyone eventually recovered. Now bankruptcy is legal, it stays on one’s personal record for up to ten years and once filed, I could make no claim to recover the money, and he never offered to pay it back. The moral ramifications to me are less clear. But seeing him proceed to the communion rail every Sunday was a bit much.

Now fifteen years later, if I were still bitter, I might tell you the truth about him and what he did out of spite, simply to hurt him. That he will swindle you is the truth, but to use it solely to injure him is detraction.

On the other hand, if you told me he asked to borrow a lot of money from you, I do believe there is no moral offense (sin) in telling you of my experience. It is the truth, and it is offered not to hurt him, but to protect you.

Hope that helps

Shalom
 
ToeInTheWater said:
I am not quite sure what the concept of “detraction” is, as most on CAF seem to think that if something is true, it is never wrong to discuss it publicly. I suspect many confuse “detraction” with “libel” and think that gossip is only wrong if it is unfounded or unconfirmed. However they would find no problem with stating “Bob is secretly gay and having sex with his roommate” or “Judy is cheating on Bill with Jim” if they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that such rumors are true.

Or perhaps “Jim and Judy have been married 10 years, but did you know that Judy used to be married to Bill? Everyone knows she was cheating on him with Jim, too. Yet every Sunday you see her up there, daring to take Communion. I hope for the sake of her soul that she got an annulment first!”

Would the latter also be a case of detraction, or merely speaking the Truth with the charitable intent of expressing concern for Judy’s soul?
Click to expand...
There is a Socratic formula for when it is appropriate to speak, which also applies to Catholic morality:
  1. If it is true.
  2. If it is kind.
  3. If it is useful.
It’s questionable that the above examples might not really be gossiping, since telling the truth is by itself only 1 of 3 factors. Spreading rumors, truthful or otherwise, can cause grievous hurt, and there is seldom any usefulness or spiritual guidance behind them that would make them constructive. There is also frequently a hidden evil behind gossip:
  1. It is a way to make one feel relatively higher in the moral food chain, by pointing out another person’s vices.
  2. It reduces the very real feelings and disposition of a person’s life to a newsworthy piece for entertainment in conversation. The person is reduced to an object similar to how it occurs in lust, though in a different way. In this instance, we should always defer to the Great Commandment and ask, “Would I want people speaking about me in that way?”
  3. It reinforces primitive & unintelligent modes of talking and thinking. The less time spent on it, the less the habit is reinforced. Simple-minded people spend their conversation talking about other people in petty ways. Wise people talk about hopes, future projects, reflect on the past, or reminiscence & chat in innocent ways that don’t involve tarnishing other people.
The Holy Father addresses gossip
 
joeybaggz said:
Now fifteen years later, if I were still bitter, I might tell you the truth about him and what he did out of spite, simply to hurt him. That he will swindle you is the truth, but to use it solely to injure him is detraction.

On the other hand, if you told me he asked to borrow a lot of money from you, I do believe there is no moral offense (sin) in telling you of my experience. It is the truth, and it is offered not to hurt him, but to protect you.
Click to expand...
I agree that telling a truth solely to injure someone would be sinful “detraction”. But what if Judy wasn’t only taking Communion herself, but distributing it as an EMHC, or teaching CCD classes? Or if Bill applies to be a deacon? Then would the scandal associated with public sinners being in Church leadership positions, justify the “detraction”? Certainly, not to merely gossip, but what if the information is revealed in the context of “let’s go to the priest together to discuss this scandal?”

And while it may turn out Judy and Bill are in a valid marriage, so are Newt and Calista Gingrich, and many Catholics expressed how scandalized they are that such a “public sinner” was nominated to be Vatican ambassador. Now granted, the Gingriches are public figures, but does that mean it is fine to gossip about them, or others in the public eye, does detraction only apply to private people?
 
The Church has identified a number of words that describe the improper use of language … such as calumny, detraction, rash judgement, etc.

Here are 239 synonyms: powerthesaurus.org/calumny

And we are to avoid them.

If someone wants to amend his/her life, and we have put out there these comments about them, then it may be difficult for them to correct their conduct.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
I agree that telling a truth solely to injure someone would be sinful “detraction”. But what if Judy wasn’t only taking Communion herself, but distributing it as an EMHC, or teaching CCD classes? Or if Bill applies to be a deacon? Then would the scandal associated with public sinners being in Church leadership positions, justify the “detraction”? Certainly, not to merely gossip, but what if the information is revealed in the context of “let’s go to the priest together to discuss this scandal?”

And while it may turn out Judy and Bill are in a valid marriage, so are Newt and Calista Gingrich, and many Catholics expressed how scandalized they are that such a “public sinner” was nominated to be Vatican ambassador. Now granted, the Gingriches are public figures, but does that mean it is fine to gossip about them, or others in the public eye, does detraction only apply to private people?
Click to expand...
If they’re “public sinners,” then you shouldn’t need to tell anyone what they’ve done. Detraction comes in when you reveal true but unflattering information to people who do not know it and do not need to know it.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
The Church has identified a number of words that describe the improper use of language … such as calumny, detraction, rash judgement, etc.

Here are 239 synonyms: powerthesaurus.org/calumny

And we are to avoid them.

If someone wants to amend his/her life, and we have put out there these comments about them, then it may be difficult for them to correct their conduct.
Click to expand...
The issue is that although “calumny” and “detraction” may be considered synonyms in a secular thesaurus, from what I understand of Church teaching, Truth is NOT a defense for engaging in detraction. Calumny, on the other hand, is a sin involving actual lying to besmirch someone’s reputation.

Yet many on CAF seem to think that it is not, for example, detraction to refer to the POTUS as an “adulterer” or even a “sex offender”, even on topics that have nothing to do with his personal life, and when called out on it state “What’s the problem with speaking the Truth, he IS an adulterer!”

I’m not trying to be partisan here, I don’t know if CAF existed at the time of Bill Clinton’s presidency, but I’m sure many people were fixated on his sexual sins, too.

ETA: Usagi, so it seems it is impossible to commit detraction against a public figure, at least not about sins that are public.

On the other hand, I once saw, on a sports forum, a poster claiming to be the “best friend” of a pro athlete, and also claiming he only married his wife because she got pregnant. She also gave out some choice morsels of “inside information” about other athletes, such as claiming one athlete had an “understanding” with his wife giving him permission to cheat on her while on the road. Now for all I know this poster was just making stuff up, but if she wasn’t, and all of these claims were true, would she be guilty of detraction against these athletes? Or is she excused because they are public figures?

I also recall a poster on this sports forum, who didn’t even claim to know any athletes personally, but reported that she witnessed an athlete, who was married, “making out” with a woman other than his wife. Would that also be detraction? Granted that particular athlete already had a “wild playboy” reputation, does that change the equation, as opposed to an athlete who had a cleaner reputation?
 
You can’t commit detraction if the person you are talking to already knows about the issue. Whether the person involved is a celebrity or not is immaterial, if the information about their actions is something your listener does not know and does not need to know.

Your example of the athlete’s friend is detraction if she believed her statements to be true and calumny if she was making up bad things about the person.
 
Speech involves a lot of discernment since it can get so complicated.

You can’t really commit detraction on something that is public knowledge, but going out of the way to point out somebody’s sexual sins on topics that have nothing to do with what happened would be an example of a Straw man argument as well as an ad hominen / character assassination. You avoid the topic and instead focus on something that is an easy punch. A person doing that would either be acting out of simple-mindedness and imprudence (they haven’t developed their mental faculties to debate/discuss appropriately) or out of wrath, or both.

And then we defer back to the Socratic formula:
  1. Is it true
  2. Is it kind
  3. Is it useful
 
Usagi said:
You can’t commit detraction if the person you are talking to already knows about the issue. Whether the person involved is a celebrity or not is immaterial, if the information about their actions is something your listener does not know and does not need to know.

Your example of the athlete’s friend is detraction if she believed her statements to be true and calumny if she was making up bad things about the person.
Click to expand...
I think that when it comes to celebrities, and certainly when it comes to politicians, an individual’s understanding of how they live their lives would affect how they support them. While it seems individual virtue matters less and less these days, I’m sure there are many Republicans who reluctantly voted for Trump, but wished there was a better candidate available.

Also, many who are fans of pro athletes express this by buying posters, T-shirts, autographs, or perhaps a product they endorse, etc. While the proceeds of such sales don’t always go directly into the athlete’s pocket, they certainly increase his (or her) marketability and value to his team, agent, etc, and indirectly affect his ability to make money. And some fans don’t care at all about whether an athlete cheats on his wife or has a shotgun marriage, indeed such reveals would likely make the athlete MORE alluring to some fans as proof of his Alpha Maleness.

However, let’s say someone knows, definitely, that an athlete known to be a “good guy” actually not only is cheating on his wife, but beating her as well, and hence doesn’t “deserve” the accolades and endorsements he gets based on his public reputation. Let’s say the person obtains a videotape proving the abuse, and releases it to the press. Is that person guilty of detraction?

Or, what if the athlete was actually serving as a spokesperson AGAINST domestic violence? Sadly, a case of this happened recently, the Mets’ closer, Jeuris Familia, was indeed participating in such an anti-DV campaign, only to be arrested on a DV charge himself.

I can also think of whoever leaked Josh Duggar’s JV records. Was that person also guilty of detraction? Or “this spokesman for family values is a giant hypocrite” a just cause to reveal such information?
 
TK421 said:
A wife has a right to know if her husband is cheating on her.
Click to expand...
Actually, many Catholics would vehemently disagree with this, especially if the marriage has produced children, and especially if the wayward spouse has already confessed his sin. I get the feeling most think that even if a husband is actively cheating, with no plans to stop, it is “no one’s business” to tell the wife, especially if there is a high chance such a revelation would result in divorce. Especially when children are involved, they think it would do more harm to tell, than to keep silent. Some justify their silence by the claim “chances are the wife already knows.”
 
This is not correct. The relationship must be permitted to heal - if that is possible - and once passion has turned into a dependency/addiction, it can’t be contained without a support network. Adultery is a grave sin. It will deeply wound her when she knows, but when it is confessed freely rather than inadvertently found out, it can be an enormous consolation in the long-term.

It should still be handled discretely, the way Joseph wanted to separate from Mary privately until the angel spoke to him, because, the gospel says, “he was a righteous man”. He had no intention of making a stink about it .
 
Augustine’s* De mendacio*, and from Sensus Fidelium library, articles by Fr, Ripperger on Scandal are good references to this.
 
Calumny is telling lies about someone to hurt his reputation. Detraction is telling a truth about someone in order to hurt his reputation. Sometimes it seems that in our ‘let everything hang out—no privacy needed’ sort of world, we may think that telling the truth about someone is always okay. It is not. We have no right to spread to others information about someone else’s secret or unknown faults. It’s gossip. It’s none of our business.

One of the kindest things said about my brother at his funeral was this. He was a priest; his pastor said that sometimes when the conversation turned to criticisms of other people, he would just smile and never say a word.
 
  • If you sincerely have a concern for Judy’s soul rather than a desire to spread lurid tales, talk to Judy in private. *
Indeed, that would be an exercise in Charity, because we are also concerned with the complete journey along her path, not some waypoint wher we seek to add an obstruction to her future.

Same applies to those who have paid their debts to society. The Church uses the criminal record file to uncover past mistakes supposedly to screen persons from their legitimate right to contribute to the community/parish. I have seen reputations damaged caused by deliberate interfering of the Church into the life of a sincere parents trying to put his life behind them.

These people move into the community after having purchased homes and established their children in schools. They register in the parish next, and as soon as they volunteer for their duty to serve the community, their reputation is damaged by the meddling in these dark matters. The scandal, soon to reach the school, causes the children to detach from their parents, and the parent no longer has the community in the help of raising his children. He must now sell his home perhaps at a loss, gaining no profit on the sale because no value as accumulated in the short time.

The saddest truth of all is that the Church knows the problem can be handled by simply informing the civil authority to change it’s incarceration rules to suit society’s black hearted intolerance of these people. However, the Church fell for the ‘politically correct’ bandwagon and decided to target these whom are now the new vulnerable faithful of our generation.

It negates the teaching of the Church whereby we are to welcome back, from the heart, members who have offended previously.

This sequence of predictable results are now typical, so much so there is enough examples the Church could announce a bull to the global Faithful, that calls for a stop of this evil attitude. It could announce that it will once again become a teacher, Mater et Magistra, and not an obedient student the world desires of it. God assigned it the task as Teacher, not a pupil.

The answer as I said is what everyone knows, that we need to stop acting like God sanctions these deeds, and the problem is really a matter of intolerance of any candidate who would dare to become a New Man.

We now see the true limitations of Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top