And J. Laurencio Casio too, if I am not mistaken. :detective:
My opinion is that this Web operative with all the pseudonyms owes a whole bunch of folks a sincere apology for leading them to commit the sin of rash judgment.
Ok -- you're not the first person to bring this up.
Let me get this straight -- calling a person with the pseudonym Robert Rawhide, "Fr. Cekada" is rash judgment now?
Do you even know what rash judgment is? Either A) you don't know the definition, or B) you're intentionally misleading the forum with your post.
To not commit rash judgment, I will assume the best of your actions -- that you are ignorant about the definition of rash judgment.
Rash judgment is to assume the worst about another human being -- to impute evil motives without cause. To presume that another is sinning
If I guess wrong, I'm not committing rash judgment. For Rash Judgment -- as in the sin of
rash judgment -- you have to rashly judge another to be sinning. If my wife comes in the door with a package, and I rashly judge that she bought me something, but she only bought groceries, I don't have to go to confession!
According to the warped definition of Rash Judgment from some of these SGG defenders, I would!
Anyhow, back to the definition of Rash Judgment.
To assume that a man carrying a 5 gallon gas can out of Wal-mart is shoplifting -- that would be rash judgment. For all you know, he paid for it. It might be too big to fit in a bag.
But if someone joins a forum -- without giving any clue as to who they are -- people are free to guess.
That's like saying it's a sin to conjecture about what a secret might be
, when someone says to his co-workers, "I have a secret; I have a secret!". If you start thinking, "Is he engaged? Did he win some money? Is he getting a new house? a new car?" you wouldn't be sinning -- because he basically forced you to wonder. Humans ARE naturally curious.
Now if you let yourself wonder, "Is he a murderer? Yes, he's probably a murderer." or "Did he get his girlfriend pregnant?" That wouldn't be called for, and it would be uncharitable. If such a wild thought entered your head, you should banish it as ridiculous and certainly not take any sick pleasure in thinking such low thoughts about your neighbor.
Back to our case here --
If Robert Rawhide shows MANY SIGNS of being Fr. Cekada -- in fact, Fr. Cekada wouldn't act much different at all -- how is it wrong to presume they are the same? None of us have any reason to believe otherwise. Being Fr. Cekada isn't a sin, is it?
Obviously, I would be violating the truth if I knew he was Joe and then advertised to the world that he was Frank. But I had NO CLUE WHO HE WAS. Maybe that's his fault for being so secretive? Why can't he give out his identity, anyhow? Is there something he's trying to hide? Makes you wonder.