Can we find St. Augustine's good intent?

[OneSheep]

A thread has been posted in the Philosophy forum which accurately points out that St. Augustine used the science of his day and his own observations to ultimately see that Manichaeism was an untruth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=705617

This thread I am posting here, however, brings up a spiritual issue.
Augustine comes to reject altogether the Dualism of the Manichean doctrines; he eventually makes statements such as:

" I understood, therefore, and it was made clear to me that thou madest all things good, nor is there any substance at all not made by thee. And because all that thou madest is not equal, each by itself is good, and the sum of all of them is very good, for our God made all things very good." (Book 7, Ch 12 John K. Ryan trans.)

and:

“Through the spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good…” (Book 13,ch31 John K. Ryan trans.)

Indeed, Augustine was able to use his own gift of reason to see that even a murderer is not evil, that such people are compelled to do evil “…for love of something else…” such as money, power, etc. (Book 2, ch 5) Augustine sees the murderer’s good intent.
ourladyswarriors.org/saints/augcon2.htm#chap5

But Augustine had trouble forgiving himself of some of his own sins. One event in particular was when he was 16 years old and he and some other boys stole some pears out of a neighbor’s tree and threw them to the pigs. Even though he ate some, he never got over the fact that “…we did this to do what pleased us for the reason that it was forbidden.” Augustine, at least in what he presents in Confessions, never appears to reconcile with his act of wasting the pears. In addition, he never appears to reconcile with his act of following Manichean doctrine for the time he did.

A lot of time - and a lot of scientific discovery - has passed since Augustine’s self-examination. Can we find the good in Augustine, some good intent, even at the times he was wasting the pears or preaching Manichean doctrine? Can we forgive him? These are not one and the same question, but they are intricately tied together, for the finding of good intentions is part of a complete forgiveness.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A thread has been posted in the Philosophy forum which accurately points out that St. Augustine used the science of his day and his own observations to ultimately see that Manichaeism was an untruth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=705617

This thread I am posting here, however, brings up a spiritual issue.
Augustine comes to reject altogether the Dualism of the Manichean doctrines; he eventually makes statements such as:

" I understood, therefore, and it was made clear to me that thou madest all things good, nor is there any substance at all not made by thee. And because all that thou madest is not equal, each by itself is good, and the sum of all of them is very good, for our God made all things very good." (Book 7, Ch 12 John K. Ryan trans.)

and:

“Through the spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good…” (Book 13,ch31 John K. Ryan trans.)

Indeed, Augustine was able to use his own gift of reason to see that even a murderer is not evil, that such people are compelled to do evil “…for love of something else…” such as money, power, etc. (Book 2, ch 5) Augustine sees the murderer’s good intent.
ourladyswarriors.org/saints/augcon2.htm#chap5

But Augustine had trouble forgiving himself of some of his own sins. One event in particular was when he was 16 years old and he and some other boys stole some pears out of a neighbor’s tree and threw them to the pigs. Even though he ate some, he never got over the fact that “…we did this to do what pleased us for the reason that it was forbidden.” Augustine, at least in what he presents in Confessions, never appears to reconcile with his act of wasting the pears. In addition, he never appears to reconcile with his act of following Manichean doctrine for the time he did.

A lot of time - and a lot of scientific discovery - has passed since Augustine’s self-examination. Can we find the good in Augustine, some good intent, even at the times he was wasting the pears or preaching Manichean doctrine? Can we forgive him? These are not one and the same question, but they are intricately tied together, for the finding of good intentions is part of a complete forgiveness.

We are all sinners. God forgives us, we should forgive everyone else always searching for the good in their lives. One cannot accuse Augustine of insincerity but perhaps he was a little scrupulous - some of that in all of us too.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

We are all sinners. God forgives us, we should forgive everyone else always searching for the good in their lives. One cannot accuse Augustine of insincerity but perhaps he was a little scrupulous - some of that in all of us too.

I agree. Augustine kept his sin before his consciousness to help him and others avoid falling into similar straights, is how I interpret this. I, too try and recall my past sins, not that God has not forgiven me, nor that I cannot forgive myself, but that I recall with fresh pain just how easily one can slide into sin, especially me.

 

[OneSheep]

We are all sinners. God forgives us, we should forgive everyone else always searching for the good in their lives. One cannot accuse Augustine of insincerity but perhaps he was a little scrupulous - some of that in all of us too.

You make some very valid points!

I do not find Augustine the least bit insincere either. And I am not really aiming the discussion at scrupulosity. What I am asking here is “how would we console Augustine in his feelings of guilt?” Where is it that we can find good intent in Augustine’s actions? The question is not meant to be accusational, although I must admit that it could be read into the question.

The question is meant in an investigative way. We can find Augustine’s good intent. I am asking posters to offer what they think Augustine’s good intentions were.

Thanks for your post, this point really needed clarifying.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think you’re misunderstanding Augustine, when he wrote about murder as not being seen as evil.

He’s talking about a person who murders and the motive for why he kills. It is because he blindly sees something good for himself in the killing of another man. Augustine provides examples of reasoning a murderer might use to justify to himself what the murder of another is good. Augustine isn’t justifying murder here.

He’s questioning why is it we see good in the evils we commit, when all that is good is in the higher things God has given us to choose.

It fits into the philosophy, " True freedom isn’t the privilege of having a choice between good and evil, but the ability to choose only good. For no one chooses evil without believing there is some selfish good in it."

Jim

 

[fhansen]

A thread has been posted in the Philosophy forum which accurately points out that St. Augustine used the science of his day and his own observations to ultimately see that Manichaeism was an untruth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=705617

This thread I am posting here, however, brings up a spiritual issue.
Augustine comes to reject altogether the Dualism of the Manichean doctrines; he eventually makes statements such as:

" I understood, therefore, and it was made clear to me that thou madest all things good, nor is there any substance at all not made by thee. And because all that thou madest is not equal, each by itself is good, and the sum of all of them is very good, for our God made all things very good." (Book 7, Ch 12 John K. Ryan trans.)

and:

“Through the spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good…” (Book 13,ch31 John K. Ryan trans.)

Indeed, Augustine was able to use his own gift of reason to see that even a murderer is not evil, that such people are compelled to do evil “…for love of something else…” such as money, power, etc. (Book 2, ch 5) Augustine sees the murderer’s good intent.
ourladyswarriors.org/saints/augcon2.htm#chap5

But Augustine had trouble forgiving himself of some of his own sins. One event in particular was when he was 16 years old and he and some other boys stole some pears out of a neighbor’s tree and threw them to the pigs. Even though he ate some, he never got over the fact that “…we did this to do what pleased us for the reason that it was forbidden.” Augustine, at least in what he presents in Confessions, never appears to reconcile with his act of wasting the pears. In addition, he never appears to reconcile with his act of following Manichean doctrine for the time he did.

A lot of time - and a lot of scientific discovery - has passed since Augustine’s self-examination. Can we find the good in Augustine, some good intent, even at the times he was wasting the pears or preaching Manichean doctrine? Can we forgive him? These are not one and the same question, but they are intricately tied together, for the finding of good intentions is part of a complete forgiveness.

I kind of find it hard to believe Augustine didn’t recognize in the gospel 1) the universality of human sin and 2) the universality of Gods offer of forgiveness for it. Perhaps conviction for sin was intentionally kept fresher in mind, in his case, for the purpose of apologetics.

In any case my experience with sin has served to help teach me the reality, futility, and degree of evil in sin, and my helplessness in overcoming it without God’s help. My past excursions into various religions have all been stepping stones to where I am now, sincere quests for truth, expressions of hope in something “more” than this world has to offer, which God honors.

 

[OneSheep]

I think you’re misunderstanding Augustine, when he wrote about murder as not being seen as evil.

He’s talking about a person who murders and the motive for why he kills. It is because he blindly sees something good for himself in the killing of another man. Augustine provides examples of reasoning a murderer might use to justify to himself what the murder of another is good. Augustine isn’t justifying murder here.

Thank you for clarifying. I was hoping that I was clear on my OP, but you got what Augustine is saying. Yes, the murderer blindly does evil, and Augustine does not justify the act, but he points out that the intent is of some perceived “good”. The murderer kills for love of something, but blindly.

Augustine finds his own (wasting the pears) especially detestable because he knew the pears were “beautiful” but he wasted them for the purpose of breaking rules, delighted in doing so. Augustine could not find his own good intent in doing this. My question is, what was Augustine’s perceived good intent (what he missed, what was out of his awareness)?

He’s questioning why is it we see good in the evils we commit, when all that is good is in the higher things God has given us to choose.

It fits into the philosophy, " True freedom isn’t the privilege of having a choice between good and evil, but the ability to choose only good. For no one chooses evil without believing there is some selfish good in it."
Jim

I like that philosophy, Jim. Freedom is limited by our own knowledge of what we are doing. The more the blindness, the more limited the awareness and the impact of the choices. But, you see, Augustine could not even find that “selfish good” in his act of wasting the pears or his act of preaching the Manichee doctrine. What do you think was Augustine’s “selfish good” in wasting the pears? What was Augustine’s motive?

 

[OneSheep]

I kind of find it hard to believe Augustine didn’t recognize in the gospel 1) the universality of human sin and 2) the universality of Gods offer of forgiveness for it. Perhaps conviction for sin was intentionally kept fresher in mind, in his case, for the purpose of apologetics.

In any case my experience with sin has served to help teach me the reality, futility, and degree of evil in sin, and my helplessness in overcoming it without God’s help. My past excursions into various religions have all been stepping stones to where I am now, sincere quests for truth, expressions of hope in something “more” than this world has to offer, which God honors.

Sorry, fhansen, I’m having trouble understanding how Augustine’s investigation (his chapter on the murderer was titled “Why Men Sin”) indicated that he did not recognize the universality of human sin or the universality of God’s forgiveness.

Congratulations on your overcoming sin, God’s help acknowledged.

The question of this thread has to do with reflecting on our own ability to forgive by investigating Augustine’s approach toward understanding human behavior. Augustine had trouble forgiving himself, so I think a great start on the project is to start where he left off. Of course, the application pertains to all of us, for even if we know that God forgives us it is sometimes very difficult to forgive ourselves. And if we can’t forgive ourselves, then we are living in a kind of hell. Jesus wants us to reconcile within.

So, Augustine anguished over his wasting of the pears, what would you say to him to help him understand why he did what he did? Augustine was 16 years old when he stole and wasted the pears.

 

[fhansen]

Sorry, fhansen, I’m having trouble understanding how Augustine’s investigation (his chapter on the murderer was titled “Why Men Sin”) indicated that he did not recognize the universality of human sin or the universality of God’s forgiveness.

Congratulations on your overcoming sin, God’s help acknowledged.

The question of this thread has to do with reflecting on our own ability to forgive by investigating Augustine’s approach toward understanding human behavior. Augustine had trouble forgiving himself, so I think a great start on the project is to start where he left off. Of course, the application pertains to all of us, for even if we know that God forgives us it is sometimes very difficult to forgive ourselves. And if we can’t forgive ourselves, then we are living in a kind of hell. Jesus wants us to reconcile within.

So, Augustine anguished over his wasting of the pears, what would you say to him to help him understand why he did what he did? Augustine was 16 years old when he stole and wasted the pears.

I’d say, hey, Auggy, how can you recognize the universality of human sin without accepting your own, personal sinfulness? Or the universality of Gods forgiveness without accepting your own need for it? Why would you anguish any more once the truth of these principles are accepted. Unless you really haven’t accepted either one, in which case you’re still struggling with pride rather than humility before God.

 

[OneSheep]

I’d say, hey, Auggy, how can you recognize the universality of human sin without accepting your own, personal sinfulness? Or the universality of Gods forgiveness without accepting your own need for it? Why would you anguish any more once the truth of these principles are accepted. Unless you really haven’t accepted either one, in which case you’re still struggling with pride rather than humility before God.

Auggy? I can tell that you love the guy at least as much as I do. I think a person can certainly recognize the universality of human sin and still not accept, forgive himself. And I think I can say with some certainty that Augustine was fully aware of his need to accept God’s forgiveness.

One can accept God’s forgiveness, but still feel guilty, still condemn herself. We can fully know that God forgives us, but if we still condemn ourselves, we can’t just “wash” over it, it has to be worked out. When God reveals to me my own “good intent”, and my blindness, that is when I am much closer to reconciling within. But maybe this is exactly what you are talking about when you say “God’s forgiveness”. So much has to be defined.

Thanks again for posting.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

OneSheep

Augustine finds his own (wasting the pears) especially detestable because he knew the pears were “beautiful” but he wasted them for the purpose of breaking rules, delighted in doing so. Augustine could not find his own good intent in doing this. My question is, what was Augustine’s perceived good intent (what he missed, what was out of his awareness)?

At the moment in his youth, Augustine’s perceived good was the mere entertainment value of stealing the pears and getting away with it and being able to brag about the adventure to his friends. In all acts of evil, the perceived good is for the sole purpose of serving the false self. the ego.

Jim

 

[fhansen]

OneSheep

At the moment in his youth, Augustine’s perceived good was the mere entertainment value of stealing the pears and getting away with it and being able to brag about the adventure to his friends. In all acts of evil, the perceived good is for the sole purpose of serving the false self. the ego.

Jim

That sounds good-I’m sure there was a feeling of power and freedom in the elation of asserting oneself by the simple act of freely wasting someone else’s property. And power and freedom are both “goods” even though they’re abused and cause harm when employed without limitations.

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep

At the moment in his youth, Augustine’s perceived good was the mere entertainment value of stealing the pears and getting away with it and being able to brag about the adventure to his friends. In all acts of evil, the perceived good is for the sole purpose of serving the false self. the ego.

Jim

Now, here in your post was where I was hoping the conjecture might head. Augustine does bring up the “friends” issue, and says that he did not value the relationship with his friends enough to do what he did. He clearly condemns specifically the part of the act where he found joy in breaking the rules.

To me, I would add (or maybe it just rephrases what you are saying) that he found joy in doing something that asserted his independence. Isn’t that what all teenagers want? Independence from authority, the rules, etc. Don’t we adults, even, have a need for autonomy? It is very difficult to follow rules that we can’t take ownership of, rules that we find of little use.
Would you agree?

From fhansen:

That sounds good-I’m sure there was a feeling of power and freedom in the elation of asserting oneself by the simple act of freely wasting someone else’s property. And power and freedom are both “goods” even though they’re abused and cause harm when employed without limitations.

We are thinking on the same wavelength here, and I like “employed without limitations”. It seems to me that there is a switch in the human mind, like when we find an opportunity for power or status our “empathy” gets turned off, which would certainly explain such a “limitation”. Is this a limitation you share? Is this shutoff switch a part of the “false self” mentioned by Jim? What do you think?

Wish I could hang around this morning and keep discussing this now, but I look forward to your responses when I get back later.

Thanks for posting fellas. God bless.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It wasn’t the value of his friends, but the value of stroking his ego, that motivated him in stealing the pears.

He is essentially saying that it’s the false-self identity(ego) that was the prime source for committing evil acts.

In fact, it’s the same for all of us.

If I remember correctly, Archbishop Fulton Sheen did a talk covering some of Augustine’s account on this.

Jim

 

[Sirach2]

OneSheep:

What I am asking here is “how would we console Augustine in his feelings of guilt?”

Well, Augustine is no longer carrying feelings of guilt. When this book was written, it may have been at the early stage of his conversion, we don’t know. But I do know that, despite my utter unworthiness and sinfulness, God called me back to Himself in a loving relationship.

Whenever it comes to mind the serious sins I committed, I no longer feel guilt, but joy that He forgave me and did not allow me to die unrepentent during those years. I exclaim, as we hear in the Easter Exultlet, “O happy fault, that obtained for me such a Redeemer!!”

May any who suffer from the devil’s accusations remember how much they are loved, and how the Lord seeks after that one lost sheep. And call to mind also, that when we sometimes fall again into sin, it is true humility to find joy, that in our weakness, God’s strength is abundant. St. Therese had a beautiful understanding of spiritual childhood, that promptly forgets its failings and returns to the loving arms of Our Father.

 

[fhansen]

We are thinking on the same wavelength here, and I like “employed without limitations”. It seems to me that there is a switch in the human mind, like when we find an opportunity for power or status our “empathy” gets turned off, which would certainly explain such a “limitation”. Is this a limitation you share? Is this shutoff switch a part of the “false self” mentioned by Jim? What do you think?

Wish I could hang around this morning and keep discussing this now, but I look forward to your responses when I get back later.

Thanks for posting fellas. God bless.

I would suppose the false self to mean the same as what some refer to as the “sin nature” or “fallen nature” of man. Anyway, this all relates to an “extreme autonomy”, if you will, man distancing himself from his true identity by distancing himself from God whom which his true identity is necessarily bound up with. The result is that man alienates himself from his surroundings, from his fellow man, from God, and even from himself.

The teachings of the Catechism on Original Sin and the Fall of man are helpful here, i think, as they address both mans need and obligation to recognize his limitations and his desire for complete autonomy which causes him to abuse the freedom he’s been given.

**Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

**

 

[TrueLight]

Indeed, Augustine was able to use his own gift of reason to see that even a murderer is not evil, that such people are compelled to do evil “…for love of something else…” such as money, power, etc. (Book 2, ch 5) Augustine sees the murderer’s good intent.
ourladyswarriors.org/saints/augcon2.htm#chap5

I see two things:

1. It is important to be aware of the sinful life that God saves us from and continues to save us from through the graces he accords us.
2. When it comes to judging others, we should always be aware of our own sins, less we think we are better than another. We all are sinful and no sin is beneath us.

So St Augustine, knowing his own sinful nature, looks at the motivation that causes others to sin.

I’m not sure why we need to find any good intent. He did wrong and he acknowledges that. Sure there is a reason why he did it, but there is always a reason why someone does something wrong.

One of St Augustine’s prayers before communion says:

Before Thine eyes, O Lord, we bring our sins and we compare them with the stripes we have received.
If we examine the evil we have wrought, what we suffer is little, what we deserve is great.
What we have committed is very grievous, what we have suffered is very slight.
We feel the punishment of sin, yet withdraw not from the obstinacy of sinning.
Under Thy lash our inconstancy is visited, but our sinfulness is not changed.
Our suffering soul is tormented, but our neck is not bent.
Our life groans under sorrow, yet amends not in deed.
If Thou spare us, we correct not our ways: if Thou punish, we cannot endure it.
In time of correction we confess our wrongdoing: after Thy visitation we forget that we have wept.
If Thou stretchest forth Thy hand, we promise amendment; if Thou withholdest the sword, we keep not our promise.
If Thou strikest, we cry out for mercy: if Thou sparest, we again provoke Thee to strike.
Here we are before Thee, O Lord, confessedly guilty: we know that unless Thou pardon we shall deservedly perish.
Grant then, O almighty Father, without our deserving it, the pardon we ask; Thou who madest out of nothing those who ask Thee. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
v. Deal not with us, O Lord, according to our sins.
R. Neither reward us according to our iniquities.

He didn’t need to find a “good intention” for himself. He acknowledged his sinful nature as what it was… sinful.

I believe St Augustine was following the practice of removing the mote from his eyes before removing it from others.

 

[OneSheep]

I see two things:

1. It is important to be aware of the sinful life that God saves us from and continues to save us from through the graces he accords us.
2. When it comes to judging others, we should always be aware of our own sins, less we think we are better than another. We all are sinful and no sin is beneath us.

Agree and agree. One of the aims of this thread is to address specifically “what does that grace look like?” Well, God’s grace is miraculous, no doubt. But everything miraculous has organic and/or psychological aspects. I know that for some that is hard to grasp, but, for example, the growth of a child is a miracle, even though we scientifically understand more and more how it happens.

I think grace comes in the form of enlightenment, it comes in the form of awareness.

I’m not sure why we need to find any good intent. He did wrong and he acknowledges that. Sure there is a reason why he did it, but there is always a reason why someone does something wrong.

You bring up a very good point, and I thank you for bringing this into the discussion. As a matter of self-reflection, I condemn myself until I understand the good intent, the goodness, behind the actions I take. In other words, to fully forgive myself and others, I have to “take a walk in their shoes” so to speak.

It is practically impossible to take a different walk in your own shoes. If I feel bad about something I have done, regardless of the knowledge that God forgives me, I continue to self-condemn. I don’t see that Augustine was any different in that respect. What I do know is that this unresolved self-condemnation colors every aspect of our spiritual lives. God’s grace comes in the form of self-forgiveness, and such forgiveness is facilitated by finding good intent, just as Augustine did for others. Problem was, he hit a roadblock.

He didn’t need to find a “good intention” for himself. He acknowledged his sinful nature as what it was… sinful.

I believe St Augustine was following the practice of removing the mote from his eyes before removing it from others.

There is a lot to work through here. Augustine tried to find his good intentions and failed. We can take up his work, though; Augustine was very intelligent, and a very spiritual person, and had an issue he could never work through. I really believe we can honor Augustine by taking up his task and moving forward.

And, yes, absolutely, Augustine was very much into removing his own mote first. What an inspiration he is! The next question: can we find the “good intent” of our “sinful nature”?

 

[OneSheep]

The teachings of the Catechism on Original Sin and the Fall of man are helpful here, i think, as they address both mans need and obligation to recognize his limitations and his desire for complete autonomy which causes him to abuse the freedom he’s been given.

So, to follow Augustine’s path, the next question is: “Why does man desire complete autonomy?” Or, specifically, “What is the good intent of man desiring complete autonomy?” You and I would have to admit that there is a lot of ignorance involved in wanting complete autonomy in the first place, because life apart from God is impossible. And actually, the whole aspect of individuality and oneness with God is such a mystery it is beyond the scope of discussion, and is best described by imagery, I think. But for some reason, we all have this desire for autonomy. What is the “good intent” behind it? I think it is addressed in the Gospel.

man… wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

So, two questions:

1.Why does man want to “be like God”? This is a different question than the autonomy question. And by “Why” I mean, inspired by Augustine, “what is the good intent of wanting to be like God?”.

1. What is the limitation (probably in the form of ignorance, lack of awareness) behind such an endeavor?

 

[OneSheep]

It wasn’t the value of his friends, but the value of stroking his ego, that motivated him in stealing the pears.

He is essentially saying that it’s the false-self identity(ego) that was the prime source for committing evil acts.

In fact, it’s the same for all of us.

If I remember correctly, Archbishop Fulton Sheen did a talk covering some of Augustine’s account on this.
Jim

Agree on all the above, and I commend your ability to see that ALL of us are in the same boat. On my own journey, it was so natural to think that “that other guy is particularly evil”. But really, we are all in the same boat, we all have our issues.

So, following Augustine’s path, the next question is “Why does the ego drive us to do things that turn out hurting ourselves or others?” specifically, “What is the good intent on the part of our false selves?”

I will try to find the Archbishop’s talk. If you know a place on the web can you send me a link?

Well, Augustine is no longer carrying feelings of guilt. When this book was written, it may have been at the early stage of his conversion, we don’t know. But I do know that, despite my utter unworthiness and sinfulness, God called me back to Himself in a loving relationship.

Whenever it comes to mind the serious sins I committed, I no longer feel guilt, but joy that He forgave me and did not allow me to die unrepentent during those years. I exclaim, as we hear in the Easter Exultlet, “O happy fault, that obtained for me such a Redeemer!!”

May any who suffer from the devil’s accusations remember how much they are loved, and how the Lord seeks after that one lost sheep. And call to mind also, that when we sometimes fall again into sin, it is true humility to find joy, that in our weakness, God’s strength is abundant. St. Therese had a beautiful understanding of spiritual childhood, that promptly forgets its failings and returns to the loving arms of Our Father.

I find it very difficult to “promptly forget my failings”, and I think this is the same for most people. When I don’t deal with them head on, I push them down into that pile that says “I am worthless, or I am evil, or I am unworthy”. In this respect, I can really relate to Augustine. Finding good intent, understanding the reasons behind the worst of my behaviors, is an important part of my own self-forgiveness. Finding the good intent behind the worst behavior of others is an important part of my forgiving others. Finding good intent is part of the “removing the post from my own eye”.