"Are some people more dead than others? Is it not OK to impugn the reputation of a Cardinal, but it's OK to impugn the reputation of a priest?"
Differences abound. It surprises me that they need to be pointed out.
Here's the first:
The difference between discussing what is openly known and discussing rumor and gossip. Fr. Martin's work is openly known. To discuss its merits and demerits is not gossip. To criticize his work as possibly being less-than-totally credible is not rumormongering.
To discuss and spread unproven allegations about deceased bishops is rumormongering and gossip.
If we were speaking about generally-accepted facts which reflected poorly on the deceased, that wouldn't be the same thing, now would it? If we find uncontrovertible evidence, and it is made public for all to see and test, that a deceased bishop committed a grave sin or crime, then the discussion thereof will no longer be rumormongering and gossip.
I'm sure that you can appreciate the difference.
There is, of course, another dimension to the difference:
The accusation that someone's professional work may be somewhat inaccurate is of a different nature than the accusation of grave, deeply hurtful personal sin.
If one speaks charitably, the former is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion. The latter often is not. Open discussion of the latter is often the sin of detraction.
I've alluded to a question of the credibility of Fr. Martin's work. I've made no allegations that Fr. Martin was engaged in some sort of grave personal sin. And if you are aware of any such accusations, please don't let me know. I'm just not interested.
The discussions around here concerning various dead Catholic bishops have centered around grevious personal sin that they may or may not have committed. It's a discussion with a different character.
sitetest
My interpretation of sinkspur's initial comment, "...and the fact that Malachi Martin highlighted it in a book does it no favors." is that it was an unsubstantiated swipe at Fr. Martin's character. My interpretation was confirmed in sinkspur's response to me. Sinkspur wasn't discussing the credibility of the novel. Rather, he was expressing his opinion of Fr. Martin. sinkspur, do you have a mental health expert's report on Fr. Martin's mental state? Did you personally interview Fr. Martin? or are you drawing a conclusion based on what you've read and heard in the public media?
If we were speaking about generally-accepted facts which reflected poorly on the deceased, that wouldn't be the same thing, now would it?
My concern is the "generally-accepted facts" regarding Fr. Martin. It appears there have been many unsubstantiated rumors about Fr. Martin (including accusations of his having committed mortal sins) that have taken on the appearance of "truth" because they have been repeated so many times. If a lie is repeated often enough, they will believe it, eh? If there is incontrovertible evidence of said accusations, then I'm with you, but as far as I've seen there has been much mud slinging at Fr. Martin after his death with no hard evidence to back it up. That, to me, is no different than what you are warning others of doing to Cardinal Bernardin.
The accusation that someone's professional work may be somewhat inaccurate...
I've alluded to a question of the credibility of Fr. Martin's work.
How credible does a work of fiction have to be, anyway?