Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BlackElk
The unnecessary spreading of harmful gossip is a moral defect called the sin of calumny even when the charges are known to be true.

Gentle correction: Calumny is when it is a known lie. Detraction is when it is true. It is not Detraction if there is a suitable reason for revealing the matter. For instance, John Smith was convicted for embezzlement 20 years ago is a perfectly suitable thing to say to a a firm hiring someone to handle payroll. It is not needed to reveal it about your next door neighbor to your friends who only know him casually.

The pictures existence MIGHT be justifiable to reveal discreetly if they weren't already widespread, IF there was danger of such being used as blackmail, which is not the case in the Melania Trump pics.
102 posted on 03/28/2016 8:29:25 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit."-R.Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Sivana
Fair enough! Section 2477 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides that distinction and Section 2478 also admonishes that we are to view factual allegations in a light that is favorable to the object of such allegations. Whatever are Catholic participants in this slimefest against Mrs. Trump and Mrs. Cruz?

Without calumny or detraction, will the candidates' supporters have any remaining tools to advance their respective candidates such as issues analysis, advancement of the candidate by emphasis on his policy virtues or track record for personal unforced charity or have all of those been discarded by the wayside in favor of an unseemly emotional self-indulgence?

In other news, while the slimefest rolls on, a Roman Catholic priest (an ordained Christian clergyman, Father Frank) has been crucified by practitioners of the extreme version of "the religion of peace" for refusing to abandon his faith in Jesus Christ to help the nutcases to "celebrate" Good Friday. There was no comment from the White Mosque lest Obozo be the cause of people forgetting the Crusades and/or the Inquisition. Comrade Granny also had no comment. Nor did Comrade Grandpa (Sanders or Clinton).

If either The Donald or Ted Cruz or even John Kasich had anything to say as to the crucifixion of Father Frank, perhaps that would be a good starting point for the continuing of their respective campaigns. What, if anything, has each said in response to that crucifixion? What should be the American response to such attacks on the essence of Western Civilization? Specifically, what does each candidate intend to DO about such abominations as POTUS.

While we are at it, what does Bergoglio have to say? He seems too preoccupied with the goings on in Pakistan or "global warming" or what he hallucinates are the evils of capitalism (anything but actual traditional Catholic religion) to notice publicly the death of a martyred priest and speak out on behalf of the Church and bear witness to the heroic courage of Fr. Frank?

103 posted on 03/28/2016 3:15:19 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson