This quote above is from Confessions, Book 7, Chapter 3. Page #'s differ by translation. You are mis-reading St. Augustine. Key word above is “ought”. Yes: he ought to not have engaged them in dialogue but he did so out of love and charity. He returned the same love and charity as others did so to him in his conversion back to Catholicism. Those Catholic’s that patiently did so, ought not to have engaged St Augustine. Read the proceeding chapter, #2 for more context.
Aha! The battle for Middle Earth continues!
I see what you mean by the word “ought”. Certainly, every word means something, and St. Augustine used words in order to articulate exactly what he meant.
You think I am misreading, while I am thinking that, whilst your perspective seems to be out of ‘charity’, and good intent, when trying to see St. Augustine’s outlook on the matter of converting, I think you are presently reading various areas out of context…
The first, is to do with St. Augustine, himself, in relation to his dialogue with others.
The conversion by St. Ambrose did not come through conversations with other “Catholics”. I did not find this documented but if you know something that I am not aware of, then please point it out. He found God, thanks to preaching from St. Ambrose. St. Ambrose is not documented as arguing with cults (maybe he did but it is not written here); he was preaching the faith. There is a difference in this application of the faith: preaching is not debating. This is not to say that St. Ambrose did not argue about his own faith or answer questions. St. Augustine would have followed suite because saints do as saints are, as gifted with the grace necessary to apply their faith. One thing to consider: when a member of the Church, if in a position of authority, has to preach according to acceptable means, declared by the Bishop of that diocese.
Thanks to preaching - which is a specific gift and application of that gift - and the prayers of St. Monika, St. Augustine was converted. He probably had conversations with his mother, but then, there is a difference between a mother caring about the wellbeing of her son, and a JW or member of a sect coming to one’s own door to manipulate. There is the burden of responsibility on the mother, to look after her offspring. Mothers do not ever really stop being mothers.
However, the word ‘ought’ means what it means, not something opposite. ‘Ought’ means, the right way: correct application. So, either you apply the right way, or you don’t. To not apply the right way, is not to do what one ‘ought’, but to not do what one ought.
Think too, that he says here, that from the position of hindsight - he is writing, looking back on his life, as a wiser person - he is clearly saying that with the use of wiser insight, he ought to have just left these “men”. Not just an ‘idea’ behind, but the men i.e:-
the situation, because to entertain them, would be to encourage them in “sacrilege”.
- this is the part you skipped past that is most relevant.
The second, is to do with what constitutes charity, and the best ways to apply charity: what is prudent; what is wise; what is truly loving. And this also ties in with St. Augustine.
He’s refuting the Manicheans, also saying, quoting Nebridus:
“What would that unknown nation of darkness, which the Manichees are won’t to postulate as a hostile mass, have done to you if you had refused to contend with it?”
This example is not saying that it is wise to argue with a sect out-of-the-blue, out of some sense of charity for them, but is rather, talking about a different context; the context being, the danger of allowing oneself to go astray without argument or confrontation when in a particular situation and instead allowing oneself to wander down a stray path, which can happen - charity to oneself - as I quoted here:
"P.156: “It is one thing to descry the land of peace from a wooded hilltop and, unable to find the way to it, struggle on through trackless wastes where traitors and runaways, captained by their prince, who is lion and serpent in one, lie in wait to attack.”
St. Augustine does not say: “…to postulate to a hostile mass, have to done to them if you refused to contend with it.”
He is not thinking of “them”. He does not say “them”. He says “…have done to you…”. He is not thinking about converting them for their sake; he is rather, talking about getting out of a bad situation, for the sake of one’s own spiritual health.
Different context for your quote.
St. Augustine for 16 years never refused to engage (evangelize) the Manicheans despite all their wild errors. In his book “Saint Augustine – Man, Pastor, Mystic,” Agostino Trape writes of the Saint’s words that seem very applicable to the Witnesses (pg 161):
“His criticism was directed at the major metaphysical, moral, scriptural, and methodological errors that the Manicheans promulgated, and at the harsh accusation they nonetheless made against the Catholic Church. His pastoral duty of responding to these accusations and errors…. Impelled him now that he was a bishop, to elucidate a wide-ranging metaphysical doctrine, explain the morality of the gospel, defend the unity of Christian revelation, and provide solid apologetic arguments for it.”
Thank you for the quote. His pastoral duty (in bold). Hence, my remark earlier, concerning authority required from the Bishop. This was not careless, reckless, application. He felt a responsibility in the position that he was in, to approach them (probably in writing). And it might not have been directed to them; rather, in the form of counter-argument, within the Church, so that the Church had an answer ready for such challenges if/when made public. Likely, because he speaks of doing this on behalf of the Church.
Please read his tractates, on the heresies above. He states that he must be patient to others as others were to him. Perhaps restated, he was in such error following Manicheaism (for 9 years) that using your critiera, St. Ambrose should have avoided him. Manicheaism was the JW’s of his day, arguably even more distant from belief in the Trinity. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
