Dear Jean:

Do not worry, you have not offended me in any way in asking this question. Sinful and worldly minded people sometimes throw out these things to avoid having to examine their own problematic behavior or ideas. It is to be expected.

What this blogger has done, whoever he is, is to commit what is called a Tactic of Obfuscation. Such tactics are common among anyone who is intellectually dishonest, does not wish to accept the truth about things, or who otherwise hasn't a cogent rebuttal to the argument or debate. This is what has happened here. Instead of this blogger attempting an intelligent rebuttal to my assertion that burying St. Joseph statues is superstition, he has tried to avoid defending his view by the technique of "killing the messenger." In the case, I am the messenger telling him that his view is superstition and that the Church condemns superstition.

He either cannot, or is not willing, to offer an intelligent rebuttal, so he hopes that by making accusations toward me, that have absolutely nothing to do with the debate, the audience will dismiss me and my words, thus diverting attention away from the fact that he does not have a rebuttal, and thus he wins the debate in the eyes of others, self-justifying himself and his views.

But, the truth of the matter is the truth of the matter no matter who says it. If Hitler proposed that 1+1=2 he would be correct despite being a homicidal maniac. Just because Hitler is a despised person does not make the equation any less true.

Thus, my assertion that the Bury-St-Joseph-to-sell-house practice is superstition is either true or not regardless of who I am, or the dirty laundry of my past. Truth is independent of the person. Truth simply is.

Such tactics of obfuscation are, by definition, intellectual cowardice. I would say to this blogger, "call me what you will, accuse me of whatever you want, but prove your view. If you cannot prove your view by mature and intelligent rebuttal, then be silent, rather than avoiding the debate by deflecting attention away from the real question to some non-germane tangent, thereby making yourself the fool."

This is what this blogger is doing.

An example of this particular technique can be found in the story of John and Sally. John and Sally are debating an issue. Sally is winning the debate. John does not like the fact that Sally is winning the argument, or he does not want to accept the truth of Sally's argument, or whatever. So, John throws out an accusation that has nothing to do with the debate or the question posed in the debate. He says, "Sally, aren't you a slum lord?"

Since no one likes a slum lord, John is hoping the accusation of Sally, whether true or not, will damage Sally's credibility so that the audience will dismiss her arguments. In this way John can win the debate in the eyes of the audience even though his view is erroneous.

Unfortunately, this tactic is often successful as many people tend to dismiss anything that is said by someone they do not like, even if that person is telling the truth. The stupidity of this is liken to saying, "I do not believe 1+1=2 because Hitler said it." Yet, this is how many people respond to hearing negative information about a person. Such a response is sin, I would propose, because it involves a form of the grave sin of rash judgment.

As for the accuser, he may use any one of three accusatory methods, all three of which are grave sin. Since they are grave sin, the accuser risks his soul to hell unless he repents.

Those three methods are Calumny, Rash Judgment, and Detraction. Calumny is telling a lie about someone, rash judgment is jumping to conclusions, and detraction is telling the truth about someone but telling it for malicious reasons.

In the example above, John's accusation that Sally is a slum lord can be an outright lie, or John jumping to conclusions about Sally, or it may actually be true of Sally. None of that matters, because what Sally is arguing is either true or not regardless of whether or not she is a slum lord.

Here is the Catechism on these three sins against charity and truth:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

Your blogger friend is an intellectual coward and has gravely sinned against me regardless of whether or not the accusations are true.

Now as to the accusations he made. The accusation is true. Thus, he has committed the grave sin of detraction to avoid having to defend his views.

It is true, I was arrested and spend one year in prison, two years on parole, and 2 1/2 years in therapy for possession of two pictures on my computer of underaged teenage girls. According to the police forensic team those pictures were on my computer for approximately three minutes.

No one on the Internet would know anything about this except that I posted the information on the Internet myself. I was honest about my dirty laundry. This crime was a result is a 38 year (since 12 years of age) addiction to pornography. That addiction was broken at around 49-50 years of age, thank God.  I repented of the sin, was redeemed, reconciled, and rehabilitated.

I also served a four year suspension, restrictions, and probation with my religious community. My confessor and my superiors examined me and determined that I was rehabilitated and suited to return to ministry. I am obedient to my superiors. The only reason that I am here now is because I have permission of my superiors to be here. Otherwise, I would not be doing this apostolate and you would never hear from me again.

None of this has been a secret, though evil people have tried to assert that it was. It has never been a secret. As I said, the only reason anyone knows about this is that I told them. I was the one that broke the story on the Internet.

As to be expected, the evil minded people took that story and then asserted all sorts of outright lies. It amazes me that people can hate so much that they just baldface lie. All sorts of fallacious stories developed about me. There was even an entire website devoted just to bashing me and propagating lies. Unfortunately, when lies are told with some grains of truth people will tend to believe the lies. This is one of the techniques of Satan. It is called the "grain of truth method."

Anyway, you can read all about this on page 2 of my official online bio. Not everything is negative in this story. God can make sweet lemonade out of lemons. As a result of my sin, God actually effected a real-life miracle. Read about it in the bio linked above.

I praise God that he has forgiven me, redeemed me, and brought me to a healing of the addiction. As Jesus said to the sex offender (the woman caught in adultery), after the accusers went away when Jesus showed them the "board" in their own eyes, "Go and sin no more."

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary