An Offense Against Truth

After much consideration and review of the articles concerning Deal Hudson, it seems worthwhile to review some obligatory principles which have apparently been ignored, most notably, by those who chose to reveal to the world an alleged past sin of Deal Hudson's without any apparent objectively valid reason.

For review, the Catechism refers to this as the grave sin of detraction.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
...- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them...

The Code of Canon Law states:

Can. 220 No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says, in part:

Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.

To violate or damage one's good name or reputation is an act of injustice.

We may not injure or damage another person's reputation by revealing what we believe is true, without proportionately grave reason. Based on the information currently at hand in the offending article, I can see no proportionately grave reason for revealing what has been made public despite the assertion that the reporter "went where the story led him". Merely having come across alleged facts, does not require that those 'facts' be disclosed.

When a disclosure of an unknown failing or sin is necessary to protect oneself or others, there is no injustice in the revelation - however, there must be adequate proportion between the damaging or lessening of a person's reputation (which is not intended) and the good to be achieved by the disclosure (which is intended). Nor does the sin of detraction exist when the person's failing/sin is publicly known.

In the case at hand, a third party, not involved in the sordid affair, "was led" by the "story" to knowledge of which he appears to have no right to know or to publish. One may or may not accept the premise for pursuing the "story" as legitimate or true. Nonetheless, it is difficult, if not impossible, for me to determine what good what accomplished by the publication of the story - other than to expose a person who seemingly had reconciled and resolved the issue with the parties involved. We must then ask, who is being protected or served by this disclosure? What grave reasons exist for making such a sinful failure public? It appears that this is a blatant and serious case of the grave sin of detraction which may have permanently damaged Mr. Hudson's reputation.

I am more than willing to entertain any arguments demonstrating that there was a proportionately grave reason for publishing the story. However, at this time, I am unable to think of any legitimate reasons why this would not be a serious case of detraction of which justice would demand repairing the reputation of the injured party.