Replies

(Meant to include you in this ping)

Posting ugly facts isn't the sin of slander. If there is not sufficient reason for it being posted, it is the sin of detraction.

And additionally, the sin of scandal-mongering.

By "a sufficient reason" I mean a well-founded expectation that a proportionate good will be actually achieved, or a proportionate evil will be actually averted, by disclosing the fault or sin. A few examples:

alerting a pastor to someone's abusiveness of children, to prevent his being hired as a teacher;
revealing somebody's drug addiction in order to organize a prudent intervention so he can get help;
disclosing that a poor family is suffering from a mother’ compulsive gambling, so that family's need’s can be met without putting money into her hands;
preventing an alcoholic from being in charge of serving the drinks.

It is sinful to expose anther persons' failings unless there is proportionate necessity; and the graver the failings, the graver the necessity would have to be.

Since we are not in a position of authority over Patti Smith, are not in charge of hiring or firing her as a singer, and in no position to either minister to her or prevent the re-release of her vulgar juvenalia from 40 years ago, we are back to what the Catechism says:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 (Link)The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.
2489 (Link) Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

V. THE USE OF THE SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA

2497 (Link) By the very nature of their profession, journalists have an obligation to serve the truth and not offend against charity in disseminating information. They should strive to respect, with equal care, the nature of the facts and the limits of critical judgment concerning individuals. They should not stoop to defamation.

What I am seeing on FR is the dissemination of damaging information about people without any reasonable expectation that good will come of it.

ON the contrary, there is a complete lack of concern for the sin of scandal-mongering, which is amplifying the damaging effects of someone's conduct by publicizing it, mulitplying the harm they have done by constant re-exposure, gratifying people's corrupt appetite for "getting the dirt" on somebody else.

Such "reporting" just fans old sparks into new conflagrations, exposes innocent audiences anew to bad behavior, and makes it exponentially more difficult for the original guilty parties to approach the Church in any expectation of a merciful reception.

I rejoice in the possibility that Patti Smith is approaching Rome, not to trash the Pope like Sinead O'Connor, and not to desecrate the sanctuary like Pussy Riot, but to sing a grateful hymn in honor of Christ's birth as indeed she already did in 2013.

The Prodigal is approaching from afar. Don't be like the Prodigal's resentful Older Brother (the Other Son) who can't stop huffing and hissing, "Don't you realize what (s)he DID?"

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Colossians 3:8
But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.