(LifeSiteNews) — I recently had occasion to preach on the sins of calumny and detraction. These are malicious practices which receive very little attention among the wide array of human failings. But they are serious concerns and detrimental to our spiritual wellbeing.

Calumny is the sin of spreading falsehoods about another person, impugning their character. Detraction is conveying detrimental information that, while not necessarily untrue, is nevertheless hurtful or damaging.

The context of my homily was the current election season. I focused on how calumny and detraction have come to dominate our campaigns and political discourse.

One might be inclined to dismiss this matter. After all, saying nasty things about opposing candidates is pretty much the essence of modern politics. We’ve become quite used to it.

Would it even be possible to conduct a campaign without claiming your opponent is a rotten person who’s done horrible things?

The issue isn’t that simple, however.

There are valid reasons for raising negative points about political figures. Voters have a right and legitimate need to know about character flaws or negative past deeds that might bear on a candidate’s ability to perform well in office or the likelihood of formulating constructive policies.

Getting elected is a competitive process that depends on public judgment. So one might even argue that there’s a moral obligation to bring unfavorable information to light.

Things get tricky, though, when we try to differentiate between relevant facts and simple mud-slinging.

READ: Trump was almost assassinated one month ago. He should consider this one important question

There’s no question that something like the infamous Steele Dossier, which claimed that Donald Trump had engaged in exotic (and revolting) practices with prostitutes, qualified as calumny. It was eventually discredited as a total fabrication, bought and paid for by dubious political actors.

But what about the not-too-subtle whispering campaign currently being carried on against Kamala Harris?

The claims that she used sexual favors to jumpstart her political career are based on hearsay and inuendo. They have been neither confirmed nor refuted, but they clearly fall under the heading of detraction.

Everyday my mailbox is stuffed with oversize postcards telling me all kinds of things about the current crop of aspirants for office — local, state and federal.

The information about the candidates on whose behalf the cards are sent is uniformly positive (sometimes excessively so). The details provided about their lives and professional histories are often quite helpful in forming my impression of them.

The descriptions of opposition candidates, on the other hand, are negative in the extreme. Those cards invariably paint pictures of venal and corrupt “career politicians” steeped in their lurid vices, and bent on enriching themselves at the public’s expense.

They often zero in on long-passed misdeeds or misdemeanors that have little bearing on the office being sought, but are hurtful to the candidates being charged, to their families, and even to their communities. All the alleged “facts” are selected and arranged to create the most unflattering image possible.

It’s often said that politics is a contact sport, so we shouldn’t expect candidates to treat each other lovingly. And indeed, corruption is a reality of public life. When a candidate can document genuine wrongdoing in the opposition, it should be exposed.

But we have reached the point where the constant barrage of insult and invective is undermining our political system. And it isa systemwide problem.

We don’t just hear individual politicians slandering each other. Whole campaigns are based on negativity. Parties, political action committees, opposition research teams, creative service providers — everyone follows a comprehensive, coordinated plan intended to show the opposition in the most unflattering light.

The candidates often avoid casting aspersions themselves, allowing their operatives to do the dirty work.

I believe this is all deeply harmful, not just to our politics, but to society in general. It stokes the cynicism that’s always been an undercurrent of American democracy and is increasing by leaps and bounds.

This problem illustrates the corrosive effect of sin. Individual lies and distortions eventually poison the whole civic atmosphere. No one can know how a falsehood originated, or whether it should be taken seriously. It becomes difficult to evaluate the truth of any political accusation, or to credit any public statement.

Eventually, we can’t be sure that something said by a political figure should be believed. Thus, faith in our elective system, already shaky, becomes even weaker.

Asking politicians to be less negative about their opponents — to avoid the sins of calumny and detraction — probably seems naïve. And I suppose it is.

But we can ask voters to be more thoughtful in evaluating the things politicians say, more careful and discerning when they weigh the plausibility of various claims and charges.

The alternative is continued deterioration of public trust and eventual destruction.

We’re teetering on the brink of that right now.

All I can say is that honesty really is the best policy.

This essay is based on a talk delivered by Fr. Orsi. Published with permission. Fr.  Michael P. Orsi is senior advisor to Action for Life Florida and host of “Action for Life TV,” a weekly television series devoted to pro-life issues, and his writings appear in numerous publications and online journals. His TV show episodes can be viewed online here.