Whether Backbiting Is Suitably Defined As the Blackening of Another's
Character by Secret Words?
Objection 1: It would seem that backbiting is not as defined by some
[*Albert the Great, Sum. Theol. II, cxvii.], "the blackening of
another's good name by words uttered in secret." For "secretly" and
"openly" are circumstances that do not constitute the species of a
sin, because it is accidental to a sin that it be known by many or by
few. Now that which does not constitute the species of a sin, does
not belong to its essence, and should not be included in its
definition. Therefore it does not belong to the essence of backbiting
that it should be done by secret words.
Obj. 2: Further, the notion of a good name implies something known to
the public. If, therefore, a person's good name is blackened by
backbiting, this cannot be done by secret words, but by words uttered
openly.
Obj. 3: Further, to detract is to subtract, or to diminish something
already existing. But sometimes a man's good name is blackened, even
without subtracting from the truth: for instance, when one reveals
the crimes which a man has in truth committed. Therefore not every
blackening of a good name is backbiting.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eccles. 10:11): "If a serpent bite
in silence, he is nothing better that backbiteth."
_I answer that,_ Just as one man injures another by deed in two
ways--openly, as by robbery or by doing him any kind of violence--and
secretly, as by theft, or by a crafty blow, so again one man injures
another by words in two ways--in one way, openly, and this is done by
reviling him, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 1)--and in another way
secretly, and this is done by backbiting. Now from the fact that one
man openly utters words against another man, he would appear to think
little of him, so that for this reason he dishonors him, so that
reviling is detrimental to the honor of the person reviled. On the
other hand, he that speaks against another secretly, seems to respect
rather than slight him, so that he injures directly, not his honor
but his good name, in so far as by uttering such words secretly, he,
for his own part, causes his hearers to have a bad opinion of the
person against whom he speaks. For the backbiter apparently intends
and aims at being believed. It is therefore evident that backbiting
differs from reviling in two points: first, in the way in which the
words are uttered, the reviler speaking openly against someone, and
the backbiter secretly; secondly, as to the end in view, i.e. as
regards the injury inflicted, the reviler injuring a man's honor, the
backbiter injuring his good name.
Reply Obj. 1: In involuntary commutations, to which are reduced all
injuries inflicted on our neighbor, whether by word or by deed, the
kind of sin is differentiated by the circumstances "secretly" and
"openly," because involuntariness itself is diversified by violence
and by ignorance, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 4; I-II, Q. 6, AA. 5, 8).
Reply Obj. 2: The words of a backbiter are said to be secret, not
altogether, but in relation to the person of whom they are said,
because they are uttered in his absence and without his knowledge. On
the other hand, the reviler speaks against a man to his face.
Wherefore if a man speaks ill of another in the presence of several,
it is a case of backbiting if he be absent, but of reviling if he
alone be present: although if a man speak ill of an absent person to
one man alone, he destroys his good name not altogether but partly.
Reply Obj. 3: A man is said to backbite (_detrahere_) another, not
because he detracts from the truth, but because he lessens his good
name. This is done sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.
Directly, in four ways: first, by saying that which is false about
him; secondly, by stating his sin to be greater than it is; thirdly,
by revealing something unknown about him; fourthly, by ascribing his
good deeds to a bad intention. Indirectly, this is done either by
gainsaying his good, or by maliciously concealing it, or by
diminishing it.
_______________________