Correct, and in fact, to accuse someone of mortal sin is slanderous if false, and can well be detraction even if it's true. Unless someone is a public, out, and admitted homosexual, we do not have any moral right to refer to him as such, and if we do so out of malice we could well be guilty of mortal sin ourselves.
Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.I'm no moral theologian, but considering the definition above regarding the station of the accused and the criminality of the accusation (which ranks up there among the most heinous sins that can be committed), it seems very likely to me that it would be a mortal sin to publicly accuse a bishop of sodomy in order to damage his reputation, even if he is in fact guilty.An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true. Detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice. It is obvious, however, that the subject-matter of the accusation may be so inconspicuous or, everything considered, so little capable of doing serious hurt that the guilt is not assumed to be more than venial. The same judgment is to be given when, as not unfrequently happens, there has been little or no advertence to the harm that is being done.
The determination of the degree of sinfulness of detraction is in general to be gathered from the consideration of the amount of harm the defamatory utterance is calculated to work. In order to adequately measure the seriousness of the damage wrought, due regard must be had not only to the imputation itself but also to the character of the person by whom and against whom the charge is made. That is, we must take into account not only the greater or lesser criminality of the thing alleged but also the more or less distinguished reputation of the detractor for trustworthiness, as well as the more or less notable dignity or estimation of the person whose good name has been assailed. Thus it is conceivable that a relatively small defect alleged against a person of eminent station, such as a bishop, might seriously tarnish his good name and be a mortal sin, whilst an offence of considerable magnitude attributed to an individual of a class in which such things frequently happen might constitute only a venial sin, such as, for instance, to say that a common sailor had been drunk. It is worthy of note that the manifestation of even inculpable defects may be a real defamation, such as to charge a person with gross ignorance, etc. When this is done in such circumstances as to bring upon the person so disparaged a more than ordinary measure of disgrace, or perhaps seriously prejudice him, the sin may even be a grievous one.
And that goes for all of us here, myself first and foremost.
I'm no moral theologian either but any public accusation of sodomy will inevitably result in damage to reputation, even if that was not the initial intent of the accuser.
In a situation where for instance, I reveal that X is a drunkard-and he indeed is- then I'm guilty of detraction. I understand that. For no purpose or greater good is served by this revelation other than to damage the name of X, who may be striving to overcome his problem and the act is malicious.
In the case of homosexual bishops, on the other hand, the situation seems a little more complex. The damage done to reputation needs to be balanced against the possible damage which the bishop himself has done or may be doing to souls as a result of his homosexuality. This is not the same as a private drunkard, sitting on his sofa getting sozzled. My public revelation has a purpose as I have a duty to those souls who may be damaged by the bishop's sexual proclivities and which I may be able to curtail or prevent.
I could be wrong here, but I think that an actively homosexual bishop; i.e. a shepherd of souls, needs to be pointed out to the sheep, with whose pastoral care he is entrusted, so that those sheep do not innocently wander into the clutches of a wolf.
Naturally, damage to reputation will ensue but if sheep are to be saved, then I think that is unavoidable.
Dear Claud,
The allegations go beyond the orientation of the accused bishops, but rather to their behavior. The behavior in question is at least extremely immoral and inconsistent with their office, and perhaps also constitutes a serious abuse of their office and power. Thus, I think that revealing that one or more of these bishops has engaged in sodomy, for the purpose of trying to see them removed from office, is not sinful.
If Fr. Hoatson really has the goods, if his accusations are true, and he has real evidence or first-hand, under oath testimony to present, it seems to me appropriate for him to come forward. Cleaning out abusive, homosexually-active and therefore compromised bishops has little long-term downside for the Catholic Church, and a whole lot of upside.
sitetest