Replies

The one attempt at justification for the detraction was the belated and parenthetical notion that we will maybe pray for the people we've just been defaming.

I suggest we summon a bit of logic to this discussion.

Let's start with a couple of definitions.

Defamation: the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.

Detraction: a lessening of reputation or esteem especially by envious, malicious, or petty criticism.

Accusing others of "defamation" (IOW, slander/libel) when there is ample evidence to the contrary via a quick internet search appears disingenuous.

Accusing discussion participants who hold a different pov regarding the matter at hand of engaging in "detraction" implies that they are engaged in "envious, malicious, or petty criticism", and that they must therefore be motivated by "envy, malice or pettiness". Unless one is a mind reader, making such an accusation regarding the motivations of commentators on an internet news site is ludicrous on its face.

Reality Check: The subjects under discussion on this thread are public figures in positions of influence, and as such, their words, actions and associations are legitimate topics for discussion. Attempting to squelch a discussion by repeatedly making false charges of "calumny", "detraction" and "defamation" against the participants is wrong (and IMO smacks of manipulation).

I can only wonder why the detraction continues. Is it somehow gratifying?

Wow, what an uncharitable insinuation. :(

1) I tried to stick to the definitions in the Catechism. I used defamation as an inclusive category word comprising detraction, rash judgment and/or calumny, not implying that all defamtion is calumny. If this is in error, I am sorry for my mistake. Could you suggest a category word that does comprise detraction, rash judgment and calumny? 2) I never lodged any accusation of envy,malice or pettiness. You derived those terms from the definition you yourself introduced. It would clarify things for us all to refine the definitions a bit more. I am hardly to be blamed to things you said and I didn't.

2) Asking a question is not an insinuation. The whole point of my post was that detraction is a sin unless it is justified by being necessary to avert an evil. I gave examples: e.g. revealing that a woman is a compulsuive gambler,so that charitable people do not put money in her hands. This argument from justification or necessity can be fairly broad when we are talking about public figures in politics and government, because we are responsible for them: we elect them, we pay them, and they serve at our behest. Therefore digging up their past words and deeds, and trying to figure out their motives -- even if it requires speculation --- is relevant to our duties as citizens in a in a republic which requires civic involvement.

The same is not true of our Spiritual Father. Our relationship to him need not be uncritical, but our attitude and tone toward him is always filial. We are not in any sense his overseers or supervisors.

If there is really no purpose to spreading the publiciy of scandal ever further, where it can sow even more discouragement and do even more damage --- plus provide a degrading spectacle for those who respect neither Christ nor His Catholic Church --- I am asking why the volleys of detraction continue.

I asked a question. Repeatedly now.

I am actually interested in an answer.

And "we can say a aprayer for them" doesn't cut it. Detraction is a sin unless it is justified by necessity, and no one has yet shows the necessity.

It would be good to discuss this in the context of what the Catechism says, I think. Another thing that would interest me is the example of Raymond Burke.