I posed the question in the aftermath of the election and because of the pleasure many of us are feeling at the Left's comeuppance:
Is there a righteous form of Schadenfreude or is it in every one of its forms as morally objectionable as I make it out to be here?
Edward Feser supplies an affirmative Thomistic answer. Ed concludes:
Putting the question of hell to one side, though, we can note that if schadenfreude can be legitimate even in that case, then a fortiori it can be legitimate in the case of lesser instances of someone getting his just deserts, in this life rather than the afterlife. For example – and to take the case Bill has in mind -- suppose someone’s suffering is a consequence of anti-Catholic bigotry, brazen corruption, unbearable smugness, a sense of entitlement, groupthink, and in general from hubris virtually begging nemesis to pay a visit. When you’re really asking for it, you can’t blame others for enjoying seeing you get it.