Salesian Literature

Chapter 29:  Slander

​

Rash judgements cause anxiety, contempt of our neighbour, pride, self-satisfaction and a hundred other very destructive effects.  Slander holds the first rank among these and is the real plague of conversations.  How I wish that I had one of the live coals from the holy altar to touch the lips of men so that their iniquity is taken away and their sin cleansed in imitation of the Seraph who purified the mouth of Isaiah (6:6-7).  He who would rid the world of slander would remove from it a great part of its sins and iniquity.

 

Whoever unjustly ruins the good name of his neighbour commits sin.  Moreover he has the obligation to make amends though differently according to the various kinds of slanders.  For no one can enter Heaven with the goods of another and among all external goods, reputation is the best.

 

Slander is a kind of murder since we have three kinds of life: the spiritual life consists in the grace of God, the bodily life depends of the soul and the social life consists in reputation.  Sin takes away the first from us, death deprives us of the second, and slander strips us of the third.

 

As St. Bernard says, he who slanders and he who listens to the slanderer both have the devil in them, one in his tongue and the other in his ear.  David speaking of slanderers says: They have sharpened their tongue like a serpent (Ps. 140:3).  The serpent’s tongue is forked and has two points, says Aristotle.  Such is the tongue of the backbiter that with a single sting he poisons the ear of the listener as well as the reputation of the person of whom he is speaking.

 

I implore you, then, dearest Philothea, never to calumniate anyone either directly or indirectly.  Beware of attributing false crimes and sins to your neighbour, of exposing those which are secret, of exaggerating those that are known.  Neither interpret badly his good work nor deny the good which you know to be in him.  Do not hide maliciously, or decrease it by words.  For in all these ways, you will greatly offend God, especially by accusing falsely and denying the truth to the prejudice of your fellowmen.  In fact it is a double sin to lie and do harm to our neighbour at the same time.

 

Those who for the sake of defaming begin with a respectful introduction or say compliments and jokes in between, are the most subtle and poisonous detractors of all.  I affirm, they say, that I love him and that otherwise, he is an excellent man; nevertheless, the truth must be told; he was wrong in committing such a treachery.  She is a very virtuous girl but she was surprised, and such small insinuations.  Do you not see the craftiness?  He who wishes to shoot with a bow draws the arrow as close to himself as possible but it is only to shoot it forth with greater force.  These detractors seem to draw their slander to themselves, but it is only to hurl it with greater force so that it penetrates deep into the hearts of the listeners.

 

The defamation told in the form of jokes are the most cruel of all.  The hemlock is not in itself a strong poison but mild enough so that it can be easily remedied.  But when it is taken with wine it is impossible to cure it.  Similarly slander which in itself will pass lightly into the ear and come out by the other, as they say, settles down in the brain of the listeners when it is presented in some cunning and pleasant jest.  They have, says David, the poison of the viper in their lips (Ps. 12:3-4; 140:3).  The viper stings in a way that is almost unfelt.  Its poison, at first, gives a pleasant itching sensation by which the heart and bowels expand and take in the poison for which afterwards there is no remedy.

 

Do not say that so and so is a drunkard even if you saw him drunk, or that he is an adulterer because you saw him commit this sin, or that he is incestuous for finding him in this evil.  For a single act does not justify such labelling of a person.  The sun stood still once in favour of the victory of Joshua (Joshua 10:13).  Another time it became dark as a sign of the victory of the Saviour (Lk. 23:45).  But no one will therefore say that the sun does not move or is dark.  Noah was intoxicated once (Gen. 9:21) and Lot another time and the latter moreover committed the serious sin of incest (Gen. 19:30ff).  all the same, neither the one nor the other were drunkards, and the latter was not incestuous.  St. Peter was not blood-thirsty for shedding blood once (Jn. 18:10-11) or a blasphemer for blaspheming once (Mt. 26:69-75).  To attribute the name of a vice or of a virtue to a person, there should be some progress in it and it must become a habit.  Hence it is a lie to say that a man is ill-tempered or is a thief for seeing him angry or stealing once.

 

Even if a man has been vicious for a long time, we run the risk of lying when we call him vicious.  Simon the leper called Magdalen a sinner because she had been one earlier (Lk. 7:39).  Nevertheless, he was lying because she was no longer a sinner but a very holy penitent.  Our Lord also defends her.  The foolish Pharisee thought that the Publican was a great sinner or perhaps an unjust man, an adulterer, a robber.  But he was greatly mistaken for just then he was justified (Lk. 18:11-14).  Since the goodness of God is so great that a single moment is sufficient to pray for and receive God’s grace, what certainty have we that a man who was a sinner yesterday is the same today? 

 

Yesterday must not judge today nor today judge yesterday.  It is only the last day which judges all.  Hence we can never say that a man is wicked without danger of lying.  What we can say, in case we are obliged to speak, is that he did a wicked act, he lived badly at such a particular time, and he does evil now.  But we cannot draw any conclusion from yesterday for today or from today for yesterday and still less from today for tomorrow.

 

Although we ought to be extremely careful not to slander our neighbour, yet we must guard against another extreme into which some fall.  Some praise and speak well of vice in order to avoid detraction.  If a truly backbiting person is found, do not say that he is free and sincere in order to excuse him.  Do not say that a person is generous and honest when he is openly boastful.  Do not call dangerous intimacies, simplicity or innocence.  Do not give the name of zeal to disobedience, of sincerity to arrogance and the name of friendship to lust.  No, dear Philothea, we must not cherish, flatter or encourage other vices of slander. Instead, we must speak plainly and sincerely of evil as evil and find fault with things deserving blame.  By doing this, we will glorify God provided we keep the following conditions.

 

To criticize rightly the vices of another, it has to be for the usefulness of the person of whom we speak or of those to whom we speak.  Someone recounts in the presence of girls the indiscreet intimacies of such and such persons which are clearly dangerous.  The licentiousness of such and such a person in words and bearing which are openly lustful is told.  If I do not courageously condemn this evil and I try to excuse such conduct, these tender persons who listen will take the chance of yielding themselves to something similar.  Hence their benefit demands that I openly disapprove of these things then and there.  If not, I may postpone doing this good service to a more opportune time, when with less harm I can speak about the persons in question.

 

Moreover, I am obliged to speak on this matter when I am one of the principal persons of the company, and if I do not speak it will seem that I approve of the vice.  If I am the least in the group then I must not venture to censure it.  Above all, I ought to be very precise in my words so that I do not say even a single word too much.  For example, I criticize the familiarity of this young man and of this girl because it is too imprudent and dangerous.  Philothea, then I must hold the balance so evenly that I do not exaggerate the affair even a little bit. If there is only a mere likelihood of it, I will say only that.  If there is only a simple imprudence, I will not say anything more than that.  If there is neither imprudence nor a real semblance of evil but only some malicious persons may find a pretext for slander, either I will not say anything at all or I will say precisely that.  While I speak of my neighbour, my tongue in my mouth is like a lancet in the hand of a surgeon who intends to make an incision between the nerves and the sinews.  The incision which I make should be so precise that I say nothing more or nothing less than what it really is.  Finally, in blaming the vice, you ought to be especially careful to spare as you can the person in whom it is found.

 

It is true that we may speak freely of notorious, public and well-known sinners provided it is with a spirit of charity and compassion.  It must not be with arrogance and presumption, and not in order to take pleasure in the evil of others.  To rejoice in such evil is the sign of a vile and mean person.  I exclude among all the declared enemies of God and of his church.  For we must denounce these as much as we can, as well as heretical and schismatical sects and their leaders.  It is charity to cry out against the wolf when it is among the sheep, and indeed wherever it may be.

 

Each one takes the freedom to judge and criticize princes and to speak ill of whole nations depending on the variety of feelings one has towards them.  Philothea, do not commit this fault.  Besides offending God, it may involve you in a thousand kinds of disputes.

 

When you hear anyone spoken ill of, make the accusation doubtful if you can justly do it.  If not, excuse the intention of the person accused.  If even this cannot be done show compassion for him and change the subject of conversation, reminding yourself and the group that those who do not fall into vice owe it all entirely to the grace of God.  Recall the slanderer to himself in a gentle way.  Say something good of the offended person, if you know it.

​

 

Back to Top

​