Last week we spoke on reviling or insulting someone present to his dishonor; today we will speak on backbiting or insulting someone who is absent to the detriment of his good name.

St. Thomas speaks on backbiting (detraction) in II-II, Q, 73, (4 art.)

Whether backbiting is suitably defined as the blackening of another’s character by secret words?

St. Thomas says that just as one man injures another by words said openly, so, in another way, a man is injured by words said secretly (in the absence of the victim), and this is backbiting... speaking ill of someone behind their back.

St. Thomas remarks that as the backbiter insults in secret he seems to respect rather than slight his victim and, therefore, he injures directly not his honor but his good name, which occurs when his hearers obtain a bad opinion of the person detracted.   Thus, the backbiter differs in two ways from the reviler: first, the reviler insults openly, the backbiter secretly; second, the reviler injures a man’s honor, the backbiter injures a man’s good name.

Again, the backbiter intends and aims at being believed.  A man backbites (detrahere) not because he speaks against the truth, but because he speaks against the good name of a man.  St. Thomas says this is done directly in four ways: first, by saying what is false about him; second, by exaggerating his sin; third, by revealing a hidden sin; fourth, by ascribing his good deeds to a bad intention.  Indirectly a man backbites by gainsaying his good or by maliciously concealing it, or by diminishing it.

Whether backbiting is a mortal sin?

As we mentioned last week, sins of word are judged chiefly from the intention of the speaker.

Properly, backbiting speaks ill of an absent person in order to blacken his good name.  St. Thomas says it is a grave matter to blacken a man’s name because of all temporal goods a good name seems the most precious, since for the lack of it he is hindered from doing many things well.  Therefore, backbiting properly is a mortal sin.

Sometimes it happens a man backbites without intending too.  If insulting words are said on account of some necessary good, and with attention to due circumstances, it is not a sin and cannot be called backbiting.  If insult is given from a lightness of heart or an unnecessary motive, it is not a mortal sin unless the words be grave enough to cause notable injury to a man’s good name.

St. Thomas adds that it is not backbiting to expose a hidden sin so that a man amend for the public good.

Whether backbiting is the gravest of all sins committed against one’s neighbor?
  
 The essential gravity of sins depends on the gravity of the injury inflicted on the victim... from this the nature of the sin is derived.  The greater the good removed, the greater the crime committed.  Now man has three goods: his soul; his body; his external goods.  The good of the soul cannot be taken away except as an occasional cause ~ persuasion to do evil.  But the goods of body and external things can be taken by violence.  Since the goods of the body excel external possessions so wounds to the body are more grievous than to external things.  Murder is most grievous as it removes life; next is adultery as it hinders a person’s proper entry into life; then external things of which man’s good name takes precedence.  “A good name is better than riches.” (Pr. 22:1) Again, backbiting, according to is genus, is more grievous than theft, but less grievous than murder or adultery.  

Of course, the backbiter would sin more grievously if he sins deliberately than if he does through weakness or carelessness.

St. Thomas says reviling is more grievous than backbiting in as much as it implies a greater contempt of one’s neighbor even as robbery is graver than theft or taking in secret.

Also, citing Aristotle, St. Thomas adds that as reviling arises from anger so backbiting arises from envy... because envy compels a man - by any means - to lessen another’s glory.

Whether it is a grave sin for the listener to suffer the backbiter?

“Take care not to have an itching tongue, nor tingling ears, that is, neither detract others nor listen to backbiters.” (St. Jerome)

St. Thomas says that if a man listens to a backbiter without resistance, he seems to consent and thus shares in his sin.  If he induces him to backbite, or if the detraction be pleasing to him on account of hatred for the victim, he sins no less than the detractor, and sometimes more. “It is difficult to say which is more to be condemned, the backbiter or he that listens to the backbiting.” (St. Bernard)

St. Thomas adds, however, if a man is not pleased by the backbiting and only listens out of fear, negligence, or shame, he sins but less than the backbiter, and, as a rule, only venially.  Sometimes it is mortal either because it is his duty to correct the backbiter or reason of consequent danger.

One ought to drive away a backbiter by reproving him with words that he not backbite his brother, or at least show a pained demeanor that he may know we are not pleased with his backbiting, “as the north wind drive away rain, so does a sad countenance a backbiting tongue.” (Pr. 25:23)  

Now that is a summary of St. Thomas on backbiting.

In general, to curb our own weakness to backbite, let us heed the words of St. Ignatius of Loyola,
“Nothing should be said to lessen the good name of another or complain about him.  For if I reveal a hidden mortal sin of another, I myself commit a mortal sin; if I reveal a hidden venial sin, I commit a venial sin; in the defect of another, I manifest my own.”

Said another way,
“Do not let your neighbor’s fault become the reason of your damnation.”

Finally, however, scripture presents the best remedy against temptations to backbite our neighbor; it is a remedy to be committed to memory,
“A peaceable tongue is a tree of life.” (Pr. 15:4)