Veridical16:
This is calumny against a Saint in heaven. That is not proof that Augustine committed that sin.
My silence would be worse than your rash judgment, so in justice, I need to rebuke your extremely uncharitable accusations.
First, let’s consider your charge of calumny against me before your examining your sin of rash judgment. The very Rev. John Hardon has this to say about calumny:
“there must be adequate proportion between the lessening of a person’s reputation (which is not intended) and** the good to be achieved by the disclosure (which is intended).” **Excusing factors that might release either the detractor or the calumniator from the duty of repairing the injury inflicted would be, e.g., that the injury no longer exists,
**Clearly, the injury no longer exists, **neither for St. Augustine, nor for Michael Voris. It is as though I were to calumniate Mary Magdalene by saying she once had seven devils, etc. Throughout the lineage of our saints, many admitted their great sinfulness. That holds true for MV who admitted he was steeped in mortal sin, and not that he threw a bunch pears at pigs.
When they admit it publicly, there is no calumny whatsoever in repeating their words for the “good to be achieved by the disclosure.”
“Why do you observe the splinter in your brother’s eye and never notice the plank in your own?”
Let’s consider Rev. Hardon’s rash judgment.
"Closely connected with detraction and calumny are rash judgments, where we entertain an
unquestioning conviction about another person’s bad conduct without adequate grounds for our judgment.
Where the rash judgment begins is at the point where we go beyond the evidence available to judge the culpability of the action, attribute evil motives, and decide against the character or moral integrity of the person whose conduct we observed."
Veridical16):
…such an unwise and irresponsible use of the tongue
…such flimsy specious deductions
…the insinuation is so reckless
…Anyway, very bad cheap shot
Rev. Hardon continues: “Hasty imprudence in passing judgment on others is an innate tendency of fallen human nature. We are prone to generalize, without adequate premises, where others are concerned and draw sweeping conclusions about their weaknesses and limitations.
There must be no passing of premature judgment. Leave that until the Lord comes. He will light up all that is hidden in the dark and reveal the secret intentions of men’s hearts. Then will be the time for each one to have whatever praise he deserves, from God (1 Co. 4:4)5).”
Now for the rebuttal giving basis for my original premise
here and
there:
scholars and psychologists who have considered the question seem to agree that Augustine is describing what must have been a strong emotional, physical, and sexual attachment. There are no explicit sexual details given, but considering the general tone of the book and the literary conventions of the time, this is not surprising. Before his apparently total conversion to celibacy in late life, it is reasonable to assume that any strong attachment would have had its sexual side.
Some scholars believe that St. Augustine was gay.
It is simply an opinion, and I expressed it as such. I also declared that whatever he WAS has no bearing on his present status – “clearly, the injury no longer exists.” Therefore, the charge of calumny is without merit and totally inappropriate.
Furthermore, St. Teresa of Avila is a saint whose works I have studied extensively as a present member in her order. Before you make further foolish assertions, you need to have at least a working knowledge of her.
The only reason I knew about this piece was because Shoshana posted it here on CAF.