|
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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (James 4:11): "He
that backbiteth his brother . . . detracteth the law," and
consequently God the giver of the law. Wherefore the sin of
backbiting seems to be a sin against God, which is most grievous, as
stated above (Question 20, Article 3; FS, Question 73,
Article 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
hatred, and enmity, and reproach."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 73, Article 3;
FS, Question 73, Article 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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 God, because "God is charity" (1 Jn.
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."
|
|