Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: David Wolcott on "Gossip" as a Species of Sin · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Since I have been accused by some of "gossip"
Here is a moral theologian explaining what the sin is:
Gossip: Why it's SINFUL w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, OP
2nd April 2022 | Pints With Aquinas
Here is my question about this accusation:
8:20 Now .... if I republish a debate I had with someone and he lost on argumentation, and he complains of "gossip" ...
- have I lied about him by citing his actual words in conjunction with mine or the debate as context of both?
- have I exaggerated his bad logic, when I actually left the word to him?
- or have I attributed to him a hidden intention, by the fact of publishing, which I hadn't possibly already attributed to him during the debate?
Because if I actually didn't do any of these, it would seem I have committed neither detraction nor calumny.
Again, he may consider it sneaky to first enter a written "conversation" (correspondence or forum exchange or exchange in youtube comments) which he tacitly imagines will stay between us, and then republish it - but if I then send him a link to the post, I have given him possibilities to act - ideally by accepting he was "on stage" without knowing it, and rise to the occasion with good arguments, that I continue to republish - would that act constitute detraction due to the partial sneakiness of my approach? Is Wallraff guilty of detraction because he describes what people did to him when they thought him such and such rather than a journalist?
On the other hand, if a help organisation or a doctor or a policeman (I do not know exactly which of these it might be) is saying things about me which I cannot hear or read in writing, cannot comment on, but which would explain why some other people act in certain ways to me, am I - if my guesss is correct - not the victim of detraction?