Calumny in the Blogosphere

 Calumny in the Blogosphere | Rev. Michael P. Orsi | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Calumnious blogging is a serious offense against God's law. Those who engage in it are jeopardizing their immortal souls and the souls of others.

Calumny is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (1992) as a “false statement maliciously made to injure another’s reputation.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) places calumny as a serious sin under the Eighth Commandment, “Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” The Catechism states, “He becomes guilty of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them” (2447). The Catechism notes that calumny offends “against the virtues of justice and charity” (2479).

Calumny and its close relative detraction (derogatory comments that reveal the hidden faults or sins of another without reason) have been part of life since the dawn of time. But opportunities for breaking the Eighth Commandment have proliferated with the advent of the Internet, especially since the rise of the phenomenon known as “blogging.” “Blog” is one of those punchy little contractions we live with today, an example of the technological shorthand so beloved in our culture of email and text messaging. A blog (short for “weblog”) is a personal website or online journal. Blogs perform a variety of communication functions, combining elements of both private conversation and broadcasting, usually incorporating a forum for interactive discussion.

Blogs are vehicles of global self-expression, something unprecedented in the history of human discourse. They are a means by which the average person—with creativity, initiative and the investment of time—can reach limitless numbers of readers anywhere in the world. They elevate the marketing presence of entrepreneurs and small companies to levels that used to be attainable only by major corporations. And they have transformed journalism, breaking the monopolies of resource and licensure that once restricted entry into the world of mass communications.

Read the entire article...

Comments

[Paul H]

This is an important subject that needed to be addressed. Thanks for posting this article. I think that most of the Catholic bloggers that I regularly read avoid crossing the line most of the time (at least they avoid crossing it too far), but I have occasionally seen a few things that I thought were clearly inappropriate for discussion, under Catholic teaching on calumny and detraction. And the sad thing is that I often enjoy reading such posts -- but I shouldn't.

[LJ]

Amen.

[Carl Olson]

but I have occasionally seen a few things that I thought were clearly inappropriate for discussion, under Catholic teaching on calumny and detraction. And the sad thing is that I often enjoy reading such posts -- but I shouldn't.

But not here on the Scoop, of course. We pride ourselves on being humble, perfect, and otherwise user friendly. ;-)

[BillyHW]

I would point out one well known popular Catholic blogger who engages in such behaviour regularly. But then that would be detraction, wouldn't it?

[Mark Brumley]

I think detraction and calumny are big problems on the internet, especially in the blogosphere. Ineptitude is. too.

As I have stated before, it amazes me what many people feel free to say online and it amazes me what supposedly reputable websites allow to appear on their site.

[Augustine II]

"I would point out one well known popular Catholic blogger who engages in such behaviour regularly. But then that would be detraction, wouldn't it?"

Not if done with reason.

[Augustine II]

Also see Fr. Hardon on detraction and calumny:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Commandments/Commandments_004.htm

[mj anderson]

Augustine II, oddly enough, when I first began to write articles for Catholic publications, I had the great blessing of spiritual direction with Fr. Hardon specifically about the line between fair and necessary reports and detraction.

Fr. Hardon advised that a Catholic journalist whose material addressed the activity of Catholic dissidents (as my work often does) should take care to err on the side of charity and discretion. He taught me that truth has it's own ultimate charity, but that to hang out an entire line of dirty linen when one item would do to substantiate the point would border on detraction.

Thus, where a bishop permitted irregular liturgies, even participated in them, I could only report the details of what I witnessed *personally*. I could NOT impute motivation to others unless they themselves divulged their motivations (As some did).

Needless to say, this line is not always easy to distinguish.

[MenTaLguY]

I'd also like to add that beyond being simply bad form, ad hominem argument is at best an easy occasion of sin in this area, even while it is very prevalent in online disagreements. I think I was clearly out of line in that respect in the comments here a month or two ago—there was a situation where it would have been sufficient to correct a claim made about the actions of a particular person, rather than also attacking the character of the people making that claim (those who read the thread probably know to what I am referring; otherwise I'd rather not draw attention to it).

[Augustine II]

mj, what a blessing to receive direction from Fr. Hardon! Or should I say St. Hardon? See:

http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2006/09/national-catholic-register-st-john.html

[Augustine II]

By the way, people, Fr. Hardon's The Treasury of Catholic Wisdom, published by IP, is pure gold.

[Elaine]

I would think that Fr. Orsi's article is really about the intense scrutiny given to Tom Monagahan and the Ave Maria institutions - both of which he is a strong supporter - by blogs sites like this one,.

I'd guess that's what's ticking him off.

[MenTaLguY]

Perhaps it's what motivated him to write the article, but it isn't what the article is about.

[joanne]

Thank you. The warning against detraction is of great value to me, and timely, too.
That doesn't apply when you're trying to prove that an organization (not its people) is rotten to the core and to be avoided, does it? If it does, I'm in big trouble. (I'm thinking of a certain abortionist "business", here...)But if the reason for their being is license for immorality, we would have to lay out the reasons for our objections, wouldn't we? (without saying things like, "Besides, the director, Ms. X, scarfs downs 6 bags of Fritos for breakfast daily", I'm sure. I totally invented that example, btw.)

[Paul H]

But not here on the Scoop, of course. We pride ourselves on being humble, perfect, and otherwise user friendly. ;-)

Actually, I would agree that you folks here usually don't cross that line, and in fact most Catholic blogs that I read don't, at least in my opinion. I was thinking specifically of two particular recent news items within the church, which were reported on several blogs I read regularly, and where I thought that a line was crossed in much of the reporting that I read on those stories. But it's sometimes hard to know exactly where that line is, and I'm not trying to single out any particular blog.