Detraction?

[Heinrich]

OK. I need to come out of "Auf Wiedersehen" mode to ask the fine folks here a question on detraction.

The scuttle: I was talking to a colleague who brought up another colleague who has serious professional issues. I shared a narrative of an interaction with about said "has issues" colleague. It wasn't pleasant as I told about a negative situation that has no impact on either of us(any more, at the time it affected me). I also mentioned prior to this a scathing opinion of another co worker's mode of dress and commented that it was ridiculous and that I think the person should just wear an "I love myself" T-shirt.

So is there detraction here and to what extent? Mortal? Venial?

Thanks!

[Vanna Grace]

I am not sure I am correct on this (hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will come along to answer you) but I believe that this would fall under gossip. Gossip is considered a grave action if what you said worsened the opinion the other person held of the third party. It turns into mortal sin if you were purposely trying to make the third person look bad in the other's eyes.

I could very well be wrong here but that is my understanding.

[Maximilian]

I think Vanna is right that this is not detraction but gossip.

Sins of the tongue, like other sins, vary based on the gravity of the matter. The situation you are describing doesn't sound very grave, but what if eventually the person talked about loses their job because of the talk going on behind their back? 

Gossip can also be one of those sins that old spiritual books called "the little foxes that eat the grapes." Even gossip about trivial matters when it becomes habitual can be gravely damaging to one's soul. Also, the gravity of the damage caused can add up to serious problems like destroying a parish, even though each individual instance was small. It would be as if someone stole a a small amount of money from the collection basket every week, and then eventually the parish went broke.

[Miriam_M]

So is there detraction here and to what extent? Mortal? Venial?

Again, I'm going to comment on the question raised above, because there is a misunderstanding elsewhere, also, about detraction.  If it is genuine detraction, it is mortal, period.  The question would obviously be here, did the discussion involve actual detraction?  Detraction occurs when serious secret truths about another are revealed, such as the hearer has not heard before and which would tend to lessen the opinion of the hearer regarding the character of the person being discussed. 

True detraction violates both justice and charity, in that -- in the first part, the hearer has no objective need to hear it nor any right to hear it.  (It's not as if the person who is asking for the information is a potential employer inquiring about someone's character, and the revealer is the character reference.  In that case, the person being addressed has a right to the information.  And by the way, that has happened to me before, and I've had to give a somewhat negative reference about someone.)

Second, there is the matter of whether the "new" information is merely of the same category as the prior mutual information known by both individuals.  In that case, it sounds as if there is no qualitative new level reached.  (Only the OP would know that.)  For example, let's say a known philanderer (who was known because he didn't bother to be terribly discreet about his activity, and may even have flaunted that activity) engaged in new relationships, and other employees were sharing this "new" information.  I would classify that as gossip, which would be venial in the sense that no new harm to the third person's reputation had occurred, but OTOH the 2 people involved were engaged in a negative exercise violating charity and stirring up the imagination.

[Jayne]

I hope Heinrich will not mind if I ask a question of my own that I have been wondering about.  What about the situation in which one reveals the unknown faults of another to clear one's own name or to show that there were mitigating circumstances for one's actions?

[Sbyvl36]

I have a question too.

Purely hypothetical:
If Person A is slandering Person B by saying that Person B was slandering Person A, would Person B be justified in being miffed?

[Miriam_M]

What about the situation in which one reveals the unknown faults of another to clear one's own name or to show that there were mitigating circumstances for one's actions?

Again, it depends on the matter of justice.  The individual has a right to an honest public reputation.  If, in order to reclaim one's upright reputation it is in fact necessary to disclose the faults of another which resulted in unjust harm to one's own reputation, then revelation could be justified.  I say could be, because it would only be necessary if one's current reputation is truly at stake and would have serious consequences.  It shouldn't be merely a matter of personal pride.  There are some things we should just offer up for the sake of humility and charity, both, and pray for the conversion of the other as long as we are not seriously or materially harmed by a misstatement or a false impression.  And there are some perceptions we cannot recover, retract, or reverse without doing greater harm in the present or future.

Or, people might not realize that you or I was once ________ but now am no longer.  (Person X may have known us in a former phase of our lives, a phase we are not proud of, but to go to the pains of correcting the past perception to accord with the present reality may be more of an exercise in pride., even if the former associate remembers us persistently in a negative light.  Better to prove to others by our forward behavior that we are no longer what that person remembers us to be.  God's justice will win out in the end, and correct all of that.)

[Jayne]

What about the situation in which one reveals the unknown faults of another to clear one's own name or to show that there were mitigating circumstances for one's actions?

Again, it depends on the matter of justice.  The individual has a right to an honest public reputation.  If, in order to reclaim one's upright reputation it is in fact necessary to disclose the faults of another which resulted in unjust harm to one's own reputation, then revelation could be justified.  I say could be, because it would only be necessary if one's current reputation is truly at stake and would have serious consequences.  It shouldn't be merely a matter of personal pride.  There are some things we should just offer up for the sake of humility and charity, both, and pray for the conversion of the other as long as we are not seriously or materially harmed by a misstatement or a false impression.  And there are some perceptions we cannot recover, retract, or reverse without doing greater harm in the present or future.

No wonder I was finding it so hard to figure out. It is complicated. I have seen Catholic authors recommending not protecting one's reputation and I think that is the ideal, but, when I was recently in a situation of this sort, I could not go through with it.  Maybe someday I will have grown enough to do it.

[Heinrich]

I will come out of hiding again to say thanks to those who responded and clarify a bit more.

As I mentioned, I was talking to a trusted peer who brought up a co worker in conversation who is a very, very, very difficult person to work with. Unlike anything I have experienced in 25 years of working part time, full time, half time jobs. I gave an example of this person's conduct that was grossly uncharitable.
The other instance involved a part time employee who we could easily label a dandy. Everything matches: shoes, socks, shirts, shorts along with the tanning bed membership. I made the jab that the person should where the "I love me" T shirt. That was an insult and my colleague to whom I was speaking did not know who I was talking about.

To summarize: I shared a narrative about a person's ugly behavior that was not known and I insulted a person behind their back to another. 

[Miriam_M]

No wonder I was finding it so hard to figure out. It is complicated. I have seen Catholic authors recommending not protecting one's reputation and I think that is the ideal, but, when I was recently in a situation of this sort, I could not go through with it.  Maybe someday I will have grown enough to do it.

Catholic authors, like Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, or secular authors, have a right to protect & clarify their statements made in their writing.  There's nothing uncharitable or sinful, or even non-virtuous about that.  Hopefully, however, a Catholic author would not stoop to attacking his critics or opponents on a personal level, including if he himself were attacked in such a manner.  (OTOH, if vicious, untrue personal allegations are made against him, he's within his rights to refute such allegations.) 

It's perfectly legitimate to defend the accuracy of one's writings and arguments, and to criticize incorrect perceptions or interpretations of those, including in strong words.  However, destroying someone else's personal (not professional) reputation in order to maintain one's own is gratuitous and sinful. We don't need a hammer on a gnat.

The biggest temptation to detraction is generally when it concerns revenge or power (either).

[Jayne]

To summarize: I shared a narrative about a person's ugly behavior that was not known and I insulted a person behind their back to another.

I dealt with this latter situation fairly recently and I treated it as a mortal sin.  I refrained from receiving Communion until I had confessed it.

[Miriam_M]

Thanks for the extra info, Heinrich.  Only you can examine your own conscience as to your motives.  I just know that I must often ask the Holy Spirit for guidance in uncovering my own motives because I tend to be tempted to revenge, and it can be easy (for me) to rationalize my behavior based on subjective justice instead of objective justice.

[Heinrich]

Thanks for the extra info, Heinrich.  Only you can examine your own conscience as to your motives.  I just know that I must often ask the Holy Spirit for guidance in uncovering my own motives because I tend to be tempted to revenge, and it can be easy (for me) to rationalize my behavior based on subjective justice instead of objective justice.

Thanks for the support and objective responses. 

Blessed be God and His Angels and Saints!

Thank you, Holy Mother.

[Miriam_M]

Thanks for the support and objective responses. 

You're most welcome.

Blessed be God and His Angels and Saints!

Thank you, Holy Mother.

Amen.