Volume II, Treatise II, Chapter X

We Are Never to Give Ear to Detraction

“We are not only,” says St. Bernard, “to forbear speaking any thing against charity or good manners, but obliged to refrain from even the hearing of such discourse; because our willingness to hear, encourages the other to speak, and we ought to be ashamed to hear what we would be ashamed to speak.’’—(De Ord. Vit. et Mor.) St. Basil, speaking of the punishment merited by the religious who detracts, and by him who willingly listens to the detraction, says, that both ought to be separated from the community. He adjudges them equal punishment; for if the one had not taken pleasure in hearing, the other would not have had confidence to speak what he did; since no man living is fond of speaking, when he thinks he shall not willingly be heard, or that what he says is disliked.

Here divines discuss the following question, ¢.e., whether or not the person that willingly hears a detractor, and does not contradict what he says, sins mortally? They answer, that such person sins mortally in many cases: if it is he, for example, who gives occasion to the detraction, either by encouraging it, or asking some questions which will necessarily introduce it; if, being at variance with the _ party ill spoken of, he lends a more willing ear to the detraction; or seeing that the discourse may prove prejudicial to his neighbour, he does not prevent it, though it is in his power to do so., For as he that looks on and warms himself, when he might and ought to put out the fire, sins mortally as well as he that sets fire to a house; even so the offence is mortal both in a detractor, and in him that willingly listens, when he ought and should prevent the detraction. For charity obliges him then to help and succour his neighbour; and instead of doing this, it is he, perhaps, who by his looks, approves of the detraction and urges its continuance. There are other circumstances wherein by your silence, you commit only venial sin; as when the detractor is a man of great authority, and the respect due to his rank and quality will not permit you to contradict him. Divines make one observation here, highly deserving the attention of religious—it is, that when a superior hears his subjects detracting, he is particularly bound to prevent them, and to defend the neighbour’s honour; and the greater his authority is, the greater is his obligation.

From this doctrine, we can infer how we are to behave on similar occasions, and how dangerous it is to dissemble, or to remain silent, through weakness or complaisance. And whereas the corruption of the age is now so great, that worldlings can scarce entertain each other without detraction, we ought to feel many scruples on this head—we, who by our institute, are obliged to be so much in the world. For may there not be reason to fear that we countenance this vice, either by our asking questions, or by our approving looks and gestures? But abstracting from these scruples (as every man may say, that he knows well how far he has offended in this point, and whether his sin be mortal or venial), I fix on this principle—viz., that the persons I am addressing are religions, who labour to be perfect, who pretend to avoid not only mortal and venial sin, but even the least imperfections, and who generously aspire to what is best for themselves, and most profitable to their neighbour. This premised, let me suppose that we are in a company where our neighbour is spoken ill of, and that either out of curiosity we take some little satisfaction in the discourse, or through shame or weakness we seem to consent to it; pray tell me, is this edifying to the very detractors themselves? When they see a religious, a servant of God, whose profession gives him authority over them, say nothing to the contrary, do they not look upon his silence as an approbation of what they are saying? On the other hand, if they think their discourse sinful and still continue it, they show a disrespect both to you and your order, by presuming that you have neither the courage nor the virtue to contradict them.

To suppress the vice of detraction, St. Austin wrote, and ordered to be hung up in his dining-room, these words:—“BE IT KNOWN TO DETRACTORS THAT THEY ARE FORBIDDEN THIS TABLE.” And it is related, that when some bishops of his acquaintance who dined with him, took the liberty of speaking too freely of their neighbour; he interrupted them, saying,—if they did not cease, he should either blot out those words or rise from table. Here indeed was a display of Christian courage, and an example we should follow on similar oocasions, St. Jerom advises us to it in these words; “when you hear any one backbiting another, fly from him as from a serpent.”——(In Reg. Monach. c. 2.) What a confusion would this be to the detractor. For which season the same saint adds, “we ought to do this immediately, that the detractor being put to confusion, may learn hereafter to treat his neighbour better.” According to this, then, whenever we are in company with a detractor, we are to request of him to desist; and if he does not, we are to retire.

But in case we cannot withdraw on account of the respect due to the detractor, who is a great personage, we are then to adopt a gentler method—we are to put on a grave countenance, indicative of our displeasure. This we are taught by the Holy Ghost in these words; ‘as the north wind drives away rain, so does a severe look ’ drive away detraction: (Proverbs 25:23), and in these other words also: “Hedge your ears with thorns, that you may not hear an evil tongue.” (Ecclesiasticus 28:28) These looks of displeasure and this holy change visible in the countenance of a good Christian, who is present at detraction, are the thorns which defend his own ears, but which pierce the detractor’s, and make him reflect on the harm he has done by censuring his neighbour’s actions. It is for this reason, that the holy scripture does not command us to stop our ears with cotton, or any thing else that is soft, which would hinder only ourselves from hearing, but to make use of thorns, which may pierce the heart ofthe detractor, and correct him. For as the wise man says, “a grave look chastises a deliqnuent; (Ibid. 7:4) and gives him a sense of his failings. When a religious said or did any thing disedifying in company, St. Ignatius, if he were there, made use of this remedy, and by the grave looks he put on, gave a secret reprehension to the party, and m&de him sensible he had done amiss. Nay, when they were but imperfections, visible to no one but himself, he did the same; for he was not content with being on his guard himself, but he earnestly wished that every one else should be equally. on their guard.

To interrupt the detractor by changing the subject of discourse is another very good remedy against this evil. In order to do this, we need not wait for an opportunity of speaking; the best time, is to do it out oftime. By this the guilty person and all the company will readily see, that the conversation is disapproved of, and that unwilling to bring public shame on the detractor, you, through a motive of charity, abstain from open reprehension. But if you wait till the conversation takes a different turn, or till it ends of itself, perhaps you will not be listened to, and consequently, you will not apply a remedy to the evil. When a bull pursues a man, ordinarily, the best way to stop his career, is to throw a cloak before him, to engage his attention, and thus to favour the man’s escape—in like manner, when one is bent on defaming his neighbour throw a cloak before him; #. ¢. introduce some other subject to divert and hinder him from proceeding farther. And as the person pursued by the bull is obliged to him that threw the cloak, for the preservation of his life; so the party defamed owes the preservation of his honour and reputation, to him who kindly interrupted the discourse.

About ReligiousBookshelf.com · A Supernerd Media project