FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 73, Art. 4]
Whether It Is a Grave Sin for the Listener to Suffer the Backbiter?
Objection 1: It would seem that the listener who suffers a backbiter does not sin grievously. For a man is not under greater obligations to others than to himself. But it is praiseworthy for a man to suffer his own backbiters: for Gregory says (Hom. ix, super Ezech): "Just as we ought not to incite the tongue of backbiters, lest they perish, so ought we to suffer them with equanimity when they have been incited by their own wickedness, in order that our merit may be the greater."
Therefore a man does not sin if he does not withstand those who backbite others.
Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 4:30): "In no wise speak against the truth." Now sometimes a person tells the truth while backbiting, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). Therefore it seems that one is not always bound to withstand a backbiter.
Obj. 3: Further, no man should hinder what is profitable to others.
Now backbiting is often profitable to those who are backbitten: for Pope Pius [*St. Pius I] says [*Append. Grat. ad can. Oves, caus. vi, qu. 1]: "Not unfrequently backbiting is directed against good persons, with the result that those who have been unduly exalted through the flattery of their kindred, or the favor of others, are humbled by backbiting." Therefore one ought not to withstand backbiters.
_On the contrary,_ Jerome says (Ep. ad Nepot. lii): "Take care not to have an itching tongue, nor tingling ears, that is, neither detract others nor listen to backbiters."
_I answer that,_ According to the Apostle (Rom. 1:32), they "are worthy of death ... not only they that" commit sins, "but they also that consent to them that do them." Now this happens in two ways.
First, directly, when, to wit, one man induces another to sin, or when the sin is pleasing to him: secondly, indirectly, that is, if he does not withstand him when he might do so, and this happens sometimes, not because the sin is pleasing to him, but on account of some human fear.
Accordingly we must say that if a man listens to backbiting without resisting it, he seems to consent to the backbiter, so that he becomes a partic.i.p.ator in his sin. And if he induces him to backbite, or at least if the detraction be pleasing to him on account of his hatred of the person detracted, he sins no less than the detractor, and sometimes more. Wherefore Bernard says (De Consid. ii, 13): "It is difficult to say which is the more to be condemned[:] the backbiter or he that listens to backbiting." If however the sin is not pleasing to him, and he fails to withstand the backbiter, through fear, negligence, or even shame, he sins indeed, but much less than the backbiter, and, as a rule venially. Sometimes too this may be a mortal sin, either because it is his official duty to correct the backbiter, or by reason of some consequent danger; or on account of the radical reason for which human fear may sometimes be a mortal sin, as stated above (Q. 19, A. 3).
Reply Obj. 1: No man hears himself backbitten, because when a man is spoken evil of in his hearing, it is not backbiting, properly speaking, but reviling, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2). Yet it is possible for the detractions uttered against a person to come to his knowledge through others telling him, and then it is left to his discretion whether he will suffer their detriment to his good name, unless this endanger the good of others, as stated above (Q. 72, A.
3). Wherefore his patience may deserve commendation for as much as he suffers patiently being detracted himself. But it is not left to his discretion to permit an injury to be done to another"s good name, hence he is accounted guilty if he fails to resist when he can, for the same reason whereby a man is bound to raise another man"s a.s.s lying "underneath his burden," as commanded in Deut. 21:4 [*Ex. 23:5].
Reply Obj. 2: One ought not always to withstand a backbiter by endeavoring to convince him of falsehood, especially if one knows that he is speaking the truth: rather ought one to reprove him with words, for that he sins in backbiting his brother, or at least by our pained demeanor show him that we are displeased with his backbiting, because according to Prov. 25:23, "the north wind driveth away rain, as doth a sad countenance a backbiting tongue."
Reply Obj. 3: The profit one derives from being backbitten is due, not to the intention of the backbiter, but to the ordinance of G.o.d Who produces good out of every evil. Hence we should none the less withstand backbiters, just as those who rob or oppress others, even though the oppressed and the robbed may gain merit by patience.
_______________________
QUESTION 74
OF TALE-BEARING [*_Susurratio,_ i.e. whispering]
(In Two Articles)
We must now consider tale-bearing: under which head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether tale-bearing is a sin distinct from backbiting?
(2) Which of the two is the more grievous?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 74, Art. 1]
Whether Tale-bearing Is a Sin Distinct from Backbiting?
Objection 1: It would seem that tale-bearing is not a distinct sin from backbiting. Isidore says (Etym. x): "The _susurro_ (tale-bearer) takes his name from the sound of his speech, for he speaks disparagingly not to the face but into the ear." But to speak of another disparagingly belongs to backbiting. Therefore tale-bearing is not a distinct sin from backbiting.
Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Lev. 19:16): "Thou shalt not be an informer [Douay: "a detractor"] nor a tale-bearer [Douay: "whisperer"] among the people." But an informer is apparently the same as a backbiter. Therefore neither does tale-bearing differ from backbiting.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 28:15): "The tale-bearer [Douay: "whisperer"] and the double-tongued is accursed." But a double-tongued man is apparently the same as a backbiter, because a backbiter speaks with a double tongue, with one in your absence, with another in your presence. Therefore a tale-bearer is the same as a backbiter.
_On the contrary,_ A gloss on Rom. 1:29, 30, "Tale-bearers, backbiters [Douay: "whisperers, detractors"]" says: "Tale-bearers sow discord among friends; backbiters deny or disparage others" good points."
_I answer that,_ The tale-bearer and the backbiter agree in matter, and also in form or mode of speaking, since they both speak evil secretly of their neighbor: and for this reason these terms are sometimes used one for the other. Hence a gloss on Ecclus. 5:16, "Be not called a tale-bearer [Douay: "whisperer"]" says: "i.e. a backbiter." They differ however in end, because the backbiter intends to blacken his neighbor"s good name, wherefore he brings forward those evils especially about his neighbor which are likely to defame him, or at least to depreciate his good name: whereas a tale-bearer intends to sever friendship, as appears from the gloss quoted above and from the saying of Prov. 26:20, "Where the tale-bearer is taken away, contentions shall cease." Hence it is that a tale-bearer speaks such ill about his neighbors as may stir his hearer"s mind against them, according to Ecclus. 28:11, "A sinful man will trouble his friends, and bring in debate in the midst of them that are at peace."
Reply Obj. 1: A tale-bearer is called a backbiter in so far as he speaks ill of another; yet he differs from a backbiter since he intends not to speak ill as such, but to say anything that may stir one man against another, though it be good simply, and yet has a semblance of evil through being unpleasant to the hearer.
Reply Obj. 2: An informer differs from a tale-bearer and a backbiter, for an informer is one who charges others publicly with crimes, either by accusing or by railing them, which does not apply to a backbiter or tale-bearer.
Reply Obj. 3: A double-tongued person is properly speaking a tale-bearer. For since friendship is between two, the tale-bearer strives to sever friendship on both sides. Hence he employs a double tongue towards two persons, by speaking ill of one to the other: wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 28:15): "The tale-bearer [Douay: "whisperer"] and the double-tongued is accursed," and then it is added, "for he hath troubled many that were peace."
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 74, Art. 2]
Whether Backbiting Is a Graver Sin Than Tale-bearing?
Objection 1: It would seem that backbiting is a graver sin than tale-bearing. For sins of word consist in speaking evil. Now a backbiter speaks of his neighbor things that are evil simply, for such things lead to the loss or depreciation of his good name: whereas a tale-bearer is only intent on saying what is apparently evil, because to wit they are unpleasant to the hearer. Therefore backbiting is a graver sin than tale-bearing.
Obj. 2: Further, he that deprives a man of his good name, deprives him not merely of one friend, but of many, because everyone is minded to scorn the friendship of a person with a bad name. Hence it is reproached against a certain individual [*King Josaphat] (2 Paralip.
19:2): "Thou art joined in friendship with them that hate the Lord."
But tale-bearing deprives one of only one friend. Therefore backbiting is a graver sin than tale-bearing.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (James 4:11): "He that backbiteth [Douay: "detracteth"] his brother ... detracteth the law," and consequently G.o.d the giver of the law. Wherefore the sin of backbiting seems to be a sin against G.o.d, which is most grievous, as stated above (Q. 20, A. 3; I-II, Q. 73, A. 3). On the other hand the sin of tale-bearing is against one"s neighbor. Therefore the sin of backbiting is graver than the sin of tale-bearing.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 5:17): "An evil mark of disgrace is upon the double-tongued; but to the tale-bearer [Douay: "whisperer"] hatred, and enmity, and reproach."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 73, A. 3; I-II, Q. 73, A. 8), sins against one"s neighbor are the more grievous, according as they inflict a greater injury on him: and an injury is so much the greater, according to the greatness of the good which it takes away.
Now of all one"s external goods a friend takes the first place, since "no man can live without friends," as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. viii, 1). Hence it is written (Ecclus. 6:15): "Nothing can be compared to a faithful friend." Again, a man"s good name whereof backbiting deprives him, is most necessary to him that he may be fitted for friendship. Therefore tale-bearing is a greater sin than backbiting or even reviling, because a friend is better than honor, and to be loved is better than to be honored, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii).
Reply Obj. 1: The species and gravity of a sin depend on the end rather than on the material object, wherefore, by reason of its end, tale-bearing is worse than backbiting, although sometimes the backbiter says worse things.
Reply Obj. 2: A good name is a disposition for friendship, and a bad name is a disposition for enmity. But a disposition falls short of the thing for which it disposes. Hence to do anything that leads to a disposition for enmity is a less grievous sin than to do what conduces directly to enmity.
Reply Obj. 3: He that backbites his brother, seems to detract the law, in so far as he despises the precept of love for one"s neighbor: while he that strives to sever friendship seems to act more directly against this precept. Hence the latter sin is more specially against G.o.d, because "G.o.d is charity" (1 John 4:16), and for this reason it is written (Prov. 6:16): "Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth," and the seventh is "he (Prov. 6:19) that soweth discord among brethren."
_______________________
QUESTION 75
OF DERISION [*Or mockery]
(In Two Articles)
We must now speak of derision, under which head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether derision is a special sin distinct from the other sins whereby one"s neighbor is injured by words?
(2) Whether derision is a mortal sin?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 75, Art. 1]
Whether Derision Is a Special Sin Distinct from Those Already Mentioned?