[marshmallow]

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.

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.

[Antoninus]

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.

That's got it. While we must be careful not to make such accusations with any sense of frivolity, lacking significant evidence, or with any malevolent purpose, to remain silent in the face of such evidence would, in my opinion, be morally culpable. It's like purposely neglecting to put a "bridge out" sign in front of a busted bridge.