[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.

[Claud]

And thus it is proven I'm not a moral theologian. :)

Of course, you all are correct in so far as protecting people and redressing wrong. Whatever is done for the sake of justice and not principally to harm or lower someone's reputation seems morally justified.

It is not clear to me, however, that most of us here on FR calling particular bishops homosexuals, even under the banner of discussing the news, falls under that heading of justice. I know myself I take a rather sick, perverse pleasure in ascribing that sin to some bishops and others I don't particularly care for, which is surely contrary to charity and perhaps mortally so.

So what should the proper reaction be to a story like this? Any thoughts?