Detraction question

[YoungIreland]

Hi,

I hope to write a blog post on the late Fr. Denis Fahey, who has been dead for 50 years. What precautions do I need to take to avoid detraction, besides telling the truth of course. All answers would be greatly appreciated.

 

[ahs]

To avoid detraction, avoid disclosing, without objectively valid reasons, another’s faults or failings to persons who did not know them. (See Catechism 2477).

 

[YoungIreland]

To avoid detraction, avoid disclosing, without objectively valid reasons, another’s faults or failings to persons who did not know them. (See Catechism 2477).

Would public advocacy of anti-semitism be considered objectively valid reason?

 

[ahs]

Would public advocacy of anti-semitism be considered objectively valid reason?

It depends, I suppose. I don’t know much about this person…and a quick wiki search reveals : “A controversial figure who had an ambivalent relationship with the Church authorities, he accepted the authenticity of the antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[2]”

So, pointing out that he accepted the authenticity of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” isn’t stating something that no one knows…it’s evidently public knowledge. Your job would be to present that objectively…understanding what is “antisemitic” about these Protocols and understanding Fr. Fahey’s actual position in relation to that particular aspect of such…and presenting what that means in an objective manner.

Without knowing what the Protocols really are and without knowing to what degree Fr. Fahey accepted them, I don’t think it would be fair to say that he publically advocated anti-semitism. Perhaps there is much more to his history than wiki is putting out there? Like I said, I don’t know much about him myself.

Rather than being concerned with detraction in thise case, my focus would be on avoiding calumny (also in CCC 2477).

 

[YoungIreland]

It depends, I suppose. I don’t know much about this person…and a quick wiki search reveals : “A controversial figure who had an ambivalent relationship with the Church authorities, he accepted the authenticity of the antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[2]”

So, pointing out that he accepted the authenticity of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” isn’t stating something that no one knows…it’s evidently public knowledge. Your job would be to present that objectively…understanding what is “antisemitic” about these Protocols and understanding Fr. Fahey’s actual position in relation to that particular aspect of such…and presenting what that means in an objective manner.

Without knowing what the Protocols really are and without knowing to what degree Fr. Fahey accepted them, I don’t think it would be fair to say that he publically advocated anti-semitism. Perhaps there is much more to his history than wiki is putting out there? Like I said, I don’t know much about him myself.

Rather than being concerned with detraction in thise case, my focus would be on avoiding calumny (also in CCC 2477).

Thanks for your help. I will wait for a few more opinions before making a decision whether to go ahead or not.