Would this be detraction

[themananth]

So the other day I was talking to a friend about a classmate who drinks alcohol(underage), and I wasn’t really thinking about what I was saying, but then it hit me, I remembered that detraction is a grave matter, but I continued to talk about the classmate and then began to talk about another person and how they did illegal drugs while having the thought of detraction on my mind. Would that be detraction and if so, a mortal sin?

 

[themananth]

If this helps access the question, we were on the subject of the use of drugs and alcohol that is present in the school we attend.

 

[Vico]

So the other day I was talking to a friend about a classmate who drinks alcohol(underage), and I wasn’t really thinking about what I was saying, but then it hit me, I remembered that detraction is a grave matter, but I continued to talk about the classmate and then began to talk about another person and how they did illegal drugs while having the thought of detraction on my mind. Would that be detraction and if so, a mortal sin?

Sufficient reflection is required for mortal sin. If it starts as an impulse then it should stop upon realization of it being sinful. Detraction is revelation without objectively valid reason, of another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them. Fr. Hardon, S.J. wrote about detraction that: “The seriousness of the sin committed will mainly derive from the gravity of the fault or limitation disclosed. But it will also depend on the dignity of the person detracted and the harm done to him and others by revealing something that is hidden and whose disclosure lowers (if it does not ruin) his standing in the public eye.”

therealpresence.org/archives/Commandments/Commandments_004.htm

 

[themananth]

So did I commit detraction? I didn’t mean to harm that person’s reputation if that helps

 

[Jennifoo]

It sounds like detraction to me. You stated that you began the conversation without intent to harm but upon realizing it you didn’t stop but kept on going. The definition provided by vico is pretty clear. I would encourage you to mention this in your next confession. The priest will be better able to help you.

May God bless you abundantly this Easter Season.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

I don’t think I understand detraction.

Are you saying it’s a sin to make a statement about someone that hurts their reputation, even if it is true?

 

[Mary_Ellen]

I don’t think I understand detraction.

Are you saying it’s a sin to make a statement about someone that hurts their reputation, even if it is true?

That’s exactly the definition of detraction - saying the truth about someone which hurts their reputation when there is no good reason to do so. If you were talking to a counselor in confidence about how to help your friends about the drinking or drug use that would not be detraction. If you were asked by police about what you had observed regarding a particular person, that would not be detraction. Talking about what you have observed in this case, while identifying specific persons, in casual conversation is detraction.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

So when journalists report that someone got arrested for drunken driving or petit larceny or some other crime that is not a major public issue, would that be detraction?

I tend to be of the mind that everyone has a valid reason to know anything that is true, because gathering assorted knowledge about the world is a good unto itself, and who’s to say they may not eventually be in a situation where they WILL need that knowledge but by then it’d be too late for you to share it.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

So when journalists report that someone got arrested for drunken driving or petit larceny or some other crime that is not a major public issue, would that be detraction?

I tend to be of the mind that everyone has a valid reason to know anything that is true, because gathering assorted knowledge about the world is a good unto itself, and who’s to say they may not eventually be in a situation where they WILL need that knowledge but by then it’d be too late for you to share it.

You may “tend to be of the mind” but that is your opinion and the Church has declared that detraction is a sin. The journalist example doesn’t hold water because without the media reporting, would any crime ever become a major public issue? Probably not. Drunken driving or petty larceny arrests are considered “public knowledge” as is murder yet in all three cases the assumption is innocent until proven guilty. Journalists are especially within their rights in reporting the official shortcomings of public persons. Likewise, they may lawfully present whatever information about the life or character of a candidate for public office as necessary to show his unfitness for the station he seeks.

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.

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.

Those who abet another’s defamation in a matter of moment by directly or indirectly inciting or encouraging the principal in the case are guilty of grievous injustice. When, however, one’s attitude is simply a passive one, i.e. that of a mere listener, prescinding from any interior satisfaction at the blackening of another’s good name, ordinarily the sin is not mortal.

 

[littlestsouls2]

“The scrupulous would cure themselves if, instead of this detective inquiry, which only deepens their worry without increasing their sorrow, they would ask simply: “What made me do this?” – Fr. Hubert McEvoy, SJ

If your conscience is informed, you cannot commit mortal sin without being fairly certain of it - especially if you have made a habit of frequent prayer.

 

[Vico]

So did I commit detraction? I didn’t mean to harm that person’s reputation if that helps

I think you are the only one that knows enough to answer the question of venial vs mortal.

*Baltimore Catechism No. 4 has:*379 Q. What are we commanded by the Eighth Commandment?
A. We are commanded by the Eighth Commandment to speak the truth in all things, and to be careful of the honor and reputation of everyone.

“Reputation.” If it be a sin to steal a man’s money, which we can restore to him, it is certainly a much greater sin to steal his good name, which we can never restore, and especially as we have nothing to gain from injuring his character. It is a sin to tell evil things about another–his sins, vices, etc.–even when they are true. The only thing that will excuse us from telling another’s fault is the necessity to do so in which we are placed, or the good we can do to the person himself or others by exposing faults. How shall you know when you have injured the character of another? You have injured another’s character if you made others think less of him than they did before. If you have exposed some crime that he really committed, your sin is called detraction; if you accuse him of one he did not commit, your sin is calumny; and if you maliciously circulate these reports to injure his character, your sin is slander. But how shall you make reparation for injuring the character of another? If you have told lies about him, you must acknowledge to those with whom you have talked that you have told what was untrue about him, and you must even compensate him for whatever loss he has suffered by your lies: for example, the loss of his situation by your accusing him of dishonesty. But if what you said of him was true, how are you to act? At every opportunity say whatever good you can of him in the presence of those before whom you have spoken the evil.

There are three considerations for sin: objective sin, gravity, and degree of culpability.
So for objective sin question, ask yourself:

• Did the persons who you told not know?
• Was it without objectively valid reasons?

For gravity ask how much harm it did to the persons reputation. There is a lack of charity in thoughtlessness, and also detraction sets a bad example to others who may copy our actions, which is scandal.

Knowledge and intention is what should be considered for culpability.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Is it still considered detraction if someone vents to someone else about another, but stays just between the two people? There are times in life where someone may need to talk out an issue about another person.

 

[Vico]

Is it still considered detraction if someone vents to someone else about another, but stays just between the two people? There are times in life where someone may need to talk out an issue about another person.

Baltimore Catechism teaching is: “The only thing that will excuse us from telling another’s fault is the necessity to do so in which we are placed, or the good we can do to the person himself or others by exposing faults.”

 

[Tigg]

“The scrupulous would cure themselves if, instead of this detective inquiry, which only deepens their worry without increasing their sorrow, they would ask simply: “What made me do this?” – Fr. Hubert McEvoy, SJ

If your conscience is informed, you cannot commit mortal sin without being fairly certain of it - especially if you have made a habit of frequent prayer.

I love this quote. Thanks.

 

[Tigg]

Is it still considered detraction if someone vents to someone else about another, but stays just between the two people? There are times in life where someone may need to talk out an issue about another person.

I know a priest who addressed this exact question. His response was that if done intimately between two people, such as husband and wife, and knowing it will go no further, there is no sin. (The intent of such a discussion is what is to be considered.)

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I know a priest who addressed this exact question. His response was that if done intimately between two people, such as husband and wife, and knowing it will go no further, there is no sin. (The intent of such a discussion is what is to be considered.)

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[themananth]

I am confused about detraction. Is it always a mortal sin, or does it matter on how grave the thing was done you tell to a third party. For example, if Bob tells Susie that Joe broke his pencil bag, would that be mortal sin? Or would it have to be a serious matter such as if Bob tells Susie Joe was an alcoholic?

 

[themananth]

To rephrase the question, is every revealed fault detraction, or just grave ones that severely damage a person’s reputation?

 

[cena]

To rephrase the question, is every revealed fault detraction, or just grave ones that severely damage a person’s reputation?

Telling about Joe breaking a pencil bag would be a venial sin
Severely damage a reputation. Although if something like “Joe cheated on his wife Jane” and that shatters his reputation in someone’s eyes that could probably be grave matter. Ask your confessor if you are not sure.
Edit: clarification

 

[thistle]

I am confused about detraction. Is it always a mortal sin, or does it matter on how grave the thing was done you tell to a third party. For example, if Bob tells Susie that Joe broke his pencil bag, would that be mortal sin? Or would it have to be a serious matter such as if Bob tells Susie Joe was an alcoholic?

CCC 2477** Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. 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;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.