Two weeks ago we spoke on backbiting, before that we talked about reviling.

Recall that reviling (contumely) is insulting speech which aims to dishonor a person in his presence; backbiting (detraction) is insulting speech which intends to deprecate the good name of one who is absent. 

Today, we continue with our tract on sins of the tongue with talebearing (whispering)... not to help us commit these, but combat them.

After reviling and backbiting, St. Thomas Aquinas explains talebearing in Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 74, (2 articles).

Whether Talebearing is a sin distinct from backbiting?
St. Thomas says that the talebearer and the backbiter are similar in so much as they agree in the matter and the way of speaking i.e, they both speak evil secretly of their neighbor; for this reason, talebearing and backbiting are sometimes used one for the other.

The talebearer and the backbiter differ, however, in their respective reason for voicing insult.  The backbiter aims to blacken the good name of a man; the talebearer wants to destroy friendships between people.  St. Thomas presents a passage from Proverbs to further this distinction, “When the wood fails, the fire goes out; and when the talebearer is taken away, contentions shall cease.” (Pro. 26:20)

It is contentions which destroy unity among men.

“Hence,” St. Thomas writes, “it is that a talebearer speaks such ill about his neighbors as may stir the hearer’s mind against them, according to Ecclus. 28:11, ‘A passionate man enkindles strife and a sinful man will trouble his friends, and bring in debate in the midst of them that are at peace.’”

Again, the talebearer ‘stirs one man against another.’

St. Thomas ends this first article by saying that the double-tongued person is properly speaking a talebearer.  St. Thomas writes, “Since friendship is between two, so the talebearer strives to sever friendship on both sides.  Hence, he employs a double tongue towards two persons, by speaking ill of one to the other wherefore it is written, ‘The talebearer (whisperer) and the double-tongued are accursed,... for he hath troubled many that were at peace.” (Ecclu. 28:15)

Whether backbiting is a graver sin than talebearing?  
St. Thomas begins his answer by reminding us that sins against one’s neighbor are the more grievous as they inflict a greater injury; the greater the good taken, the greater the crime committed. 

 Now the greatest of all external goods is friendship.  Aristotle summed this truth, ‘no one can live without friends;’ holy scripture says, ‘Nothing can be compared to a faithful friend.’ (Ecclu. 6:15). 
Now when the backbiter speaks evil of someone absent, he damages a man’s good name which fits him most for friendship; but when the talebearer speaks evil of his victim he directly attacks  friendship.

For this reason St. Thomas identifies the talebearer as committing the graver sin than he who backbites.  Moreover, the talebearer commits a graver crime than the reviler because, as Aristotle says, “a friend is better than honor, and to be loved is better than to be honored.”

In ending, St. Thomas makes a last distinction between the sinfulness of the backbiter and the talebearer.

St. Thomas makes the observation that the backbiter seems to detract the law of charity, in so far as he despises the precept of love for one’s neighbor, while the talebearer seems to directly violate this precept.  Therefore, the talebearer sins more grievously against God because God is charity.  And so we read in Proverbs 6:16-19,  “Six things there are which the Lord hates and the seventh His soul detests, haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plots, feet that are swift to run into mischief, a deceitful witness that utters lies, and him that sows discord among brethren.”  

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

Obviously, talebearing is a most hateful sin. 

We may consider the evil of the talebearer in another way.  In heaven they are all friends.  On earth we too should want friendships among all men.  Of course, many things will keep people from being friends. But of all things, it should not be because we share the same faith!

The faith is meant to draw us together; too often it tears us apart!  

It is another mystery of our faith, part of the mystery of iniquity, which pleads for an answer: why is it that we, of all people, cannot be friends one to another?  We were at one time, then had a falling out and no-longer toast brotherly love but roast each other over a grill of contention!

I once heard a traditionalist make the comment which contains more than a shadow of truth,  “If a group of trads got together to form a firing line they would form a circle.”

This ought NOT be so.  We Catholics have the superabundant means (Sacraments plus sacramentals) to make us - each and every one - a living saint.  We should be superstars in the spiritual life, far outpacing all contenders to the true faith.  Too often we limp to our goal. 

This is a great mystery.

But let us not despair, or give up, that would be the worse failure.  We must go on and conquer our old man.  Perhaps this week, to advance against talebearing or any sin of the tongue, throughout the day consider the following thought,  
“If I were to die in mid-sentence, could this conversation be carried over into heaven?”

May all our conversation be worthy of that most happy Place.