I’m not sure anyone is arguing with your point here. We must recognize that although Jesus associated with those that society deemed worthless, his intentions were to change their lives, not approve of them. He didn’t “accept them” as they were, he changed them.
This isn’t just about who society deems worthless, this is about who WE, in our hearts, deem worthless.
But you have no idea how others deem anyone in their hearts. Only God can know that. It would be easy to misjudge someone’s tough love approach as them being judgmental. Don’t you agree?
If you were rude, you merited being told of your lack of charity for the same reason you felt it necessary to point out the error of the persons concept. However, what I think you should have done is to tell the person to speak with a priest.But you have no idea how others deem anyone in their hearts. Only God can know that. It would be easy to misjudge someone’s tough love approach as them being judgmental. Don’t you agree?
Also, if you’re referring to advice that is handed out on forums like this one, well, those people wrote in seeking the evaluation of others. If someone asks me if contraception is intrinsically evil, I feel compelled to answer them “yes”. To say otherwise would be dishonest and getting into the whole “invincible ignorance” discussion might convolute the matter and confuse them. This is not wagging my finger at them, it is answering their question in the most honest way that further challenges them to change their behavior for the purpose of bringing them closer to God.
However, I’m glad you brought up this whole point. There seems to be a pre-occupation with slamming others for being judgmental. (I’m not picking on you here.) In a recent post, someone asked an interesting question that revolved around masturbation (which that person struggled with.) They began their post confessing to a struggle with masturbation and they claimed that they knew that it was objectively sinful and that it was a mortal sin. They went on to say something to the effect that rather than going to confession, because they had heard that the Eucharist remits venial sins, they simply partook of the Eucharist anyway (in a state of mortal sin) and “felt” that their sins had been forgiven afterward.** I might have been a bit snarky** in my reply which stated that despite their feelings on the matter masturbation was a mortal rather than a venial sin and that the Eucharist remits venial sins ONLY. The point of this statement was of course to point out that their actions were wrong, and doubly so, since the poster obviously knew the difference between mortal and venial sin, but took the Eucharist ANYWAY in the hopes that their mortal sins would be forgiven along with their venial sins.
Well…I was slammed by every poster afterward in that thread. I didn’t even bother to defend myself, just unsubscribed. They told me that there was no way I could judge this person, etc. (I actually didn’t judge, just pointed out the error in their thinking.)
Anyway, that is the long way of saying that we have gotten a little bit soft in the area of discipline and admonition and knowing the difference between situations where it is necessary and where it is not. We have become paranoid of others being judgmental, yet we are judging those that we deem to be judges.I hope that makes sense.
Why is it that the self-professed über-Catholics on CAF refuse to even consider taking Jesus at His word, when He says “do not judge, lest you be judged.”Anyway, that is the long way of saying that we have gotten a little bit soft in the area of discipline and admonition and knowing the difference between situations where it is necessary and where it is not. We have become paranoid of others being judgmental, yet we are judging those that we deem to be judges. I hope that makes sense.
then say, “no I’m not I’m simply making objective observations on behavior and noting that they objectively go against Jesus’s teaching. No judgment; just a clear observation of a situation on how well we pay attention to what the Lord says.” 
Since we’re going here, lets talk about what the term judging means. When someone says that they have sinned, and you agree with them, is that judging? I’m not trying to be argumentative, just trying to see your point of view. This may bring me closer to the Lord. (I’m not trying to sound sarcastic.) In the scenario I shared earlier, I did not say that the person sinned. They themselves said it, and seemed to understand the implication thereof. I attempted to direct them to proper Church protocol (admittedly in an irritated way) by the imperative that the Eucharist remits venial, but not mortal sin regardless of how the Eucharist made them “feel”. By stating that objective fact, does that make me judgmental? (And I might add that any irritation that I may have exhibited in my tone came from complete jealousy at the idea of a sacrilege against the Lord.)Why is it that the self-professed über-Catholics on CAF refuse to even consider taking Jesus at His word, when He says “do not judge, lest you be judged.”
I can hear it already, “but Jesus said to make a RIGHT judgment, …” so basically we should judge but we should take great pains to do it right?
Who is the just judge? You? Me? Would you have thrown stones at the woman caught in adultery because she had objectively sinned and throwing stones is what you’re “supposed to do?” After all, somebody has to take a stand for Good Living, right?
But we have a duty to judge, others will scream, “but St. Paul said to throw sinners out of the church!!” Well, when you’re a priest of bishop in charge of running a church, then go ahead and judge. Meanwhile, if we want be “good” sheep, we will hear the voice of the Shepherd when He says, “do not judge.”
“Do … not … judge.” It blows me away how many people insist that we must judge in order to follow Christ.
And they DARE call anyone else “cafeteria Catholics,” when they blatantly object to following Jesus’s clear teaching on a primary issue that relates to salvation?
Now I expect the attempted defense, “well you are judging me for judging,” to which I first roll my eyes,
Alan
I never said that I told him that he had committed a mortal sin. I thought I was clear in my explanation that my whole premise was that the Eucharist does not remit mortal sin. He himself admitted to having committed a mortal sin. Confession obviously is the solution, not the Eucharist. I would never claim to have special knowledge of whether someone has sinned mortal or venial. That I think we agree would be judging.
Yes, agreed.
Let me take a step backwards here. If someone says, “is that a sin,” and you believe it is (notice I said “believe,” not “objectively know”) and say, “yes, it would appear that way,” then I don’t see the problem at all. The person asked. It’s only “judging” in that you are reflecting what you notice.
) to explain rather than gets angry and/or stops off in a huff. If you say you aren’t in the group I’m talking about, and provide evidence that you are not, then I’m plenty OK with that. When I say these things it isn’t to put anybody down but to plant seeds that will act where they need to act.I don’t think your motivation for being irritated changes the fact that, by your own admission, your tone was uncharitable. Telling someone who ask if they are sinning that they are is not judging, but doubting their intentions and responding rudely is indeed judging in exactly the way Christ warned us against.
Please go back and read the gospels–I don’t think “hung out” is the correct term to use–I’ve already explained why. No one has denied that Christ shared table with them. No one has denied that Christ called sinners–heck I used an example of Christ calling a stripper. No has denied that he loved them. The examples we see in the gospels are not Christ “hanging out” with sinners–that is a mischaracterization. Perhaps we have a different understanding of what “hanging out” means. What we see is Christ traveling from town to town proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching and healing and calling. We see him call his disciples. We see the sinners seeking him out. We see them responding to his call and we see him accepting those who respond to the call. We see that he has harsh words for those who do not respond to the call.
If it was just a matter of telling them how sinful they were and how they needed to repent, he wouldn’t have eaten with them. Unless he was preaching between bites of food, they were “hanging out” - that is, Christ was displaying friendship toward them. Christ washed Judas’s feet.
Thank you. I admit to all this.
I have no idea why you would say that regarding my sister–if anyone is doing any judging and condemning it is you–I certainly don’t know what is in my sisters heart, her culpability, etc. yet you seem to have no compunction about suggesting what is in my heart–this seems to be the very behavior you rail against. How discussing abortion and stating that it is wrong–is condemning someone who thinks differently–is baffling to me.
It is possible that I was judging you, though I was trying not to. I was trying to point out that I have a sister who has done something that could be seen as much worse then passively approving of an evil, and yet by pointing out how she was in error time after time when she already knew my opinion, I was acting not out of love but pride, and that I ultimately drove her further from the Church. I will say, I do not condemn you, I do not know that what you have done is wrong. Only that to warn you from my own experience to beware of pride.
I don’t understand how you can vocally disapprove of something without disapproving of it in your heart, unless you are putting on an act. If you disapprove of something, then by definition you have judged it and found it to be sinful. Of course, if an act another person does is sinful, then you have judged the other to have sinned – and thus, judged them so be a sinner.
Why don’t you just explain, without emotional content involved, that the action in question is consider wrong and/or grave matter by the Church, and leave it at that? That would be answering the question. If you add a personal disapproval to the mix, then it becomes a personal judgment and becomes emotionally loaded. And a little yeast mixes throughout the whole dough, so that can and likely will color the whole response – in most people. In very saintly people, they willingly accept and even seek your feedback – but if you thought they were saintly you wouldn’t be talking to them with disapproval.
This is progress. Yes, you need to watch your tone, but if all that matters to you is your tone, then you are not getting the point. What matters is that you are holding condemnation in your heart – which is absolutely not necessary in order to convey Church teachings on a particular sin. There is all the world of difference between saying, “what you did constitutes grave matter to the Church,” and “you are doing wrong and I don’t like it.” If you even feel that way, then don’t bother to hide your tone because one way or another it will come through and the person will feel the judgment that you have in your heart – and you would feel it too if you could understand spiritual unity how what you are saying to your brother, you are also saying to Jesus. No, Jesus wouldn’t have sinned, but neither would you think poorly of Him just to answer a question about Church teachings. Whatsoever you do to any of Jesus’s brothers, you do to Him. You can’t control whether they sin, but you can control whether you judge them and talk down to them, even as if casting imaginary stones.
It’s easy to confuse in part because we’ve reduced love and hate to a dualistic cliché, and it doesn’t break down that way. If you judge there was a sin, then you have judged the person doing it as having sinned. If you hate what you perceive to be sin in another person – especially since as you just pointed out you cannot even tell if it was mortal – then you still hate. And that takes us psychologically through the thought processes of anger. It’s like if you measure brain waves of a person driving a nail with a hammer, and then measure a person watching, they exhibit the same brain waves.
So, may I say, “you asked for it?” If you want to be mediocre, then go by slogans like “love the sinner hate the sin,” which give no real spiritual guidance. If you want to “go all the way” then ditch the idioms and go radically by the actual words of Jesus, “love your enemy,” and “do not judge lest you be judged,” and “whatsoever you do to the least of My brothers,” etc. Just say you are content with how you are right now in your thoughts and actions as regards your spiritual journey, and I will get off your case and say, “well then by all means keep doing what you are doing, and keep thinking the things you are currently thinking.” If you came to help us become better saints, then let us help you instead of defending yourself against what I believe is life-giving information by me and a couple other posters. Don’t defend and maybe you will not feel offended.
Thank you for the references. I would very much like to read these works. I will check them out. The bold comments above are my annotation.I don’t understand how you can vocally disapprove of something without disapproving of it in your heart, unless you are putting on an act. If you disapprove of something, then by definition you have judged it and found it to be sinful. Of course, if an act another person does is sinful, then you have judged the other to have sinned – and thus, judged them so be a sinner.
**But as Catholics, we MUST vocally disapprove of contraception, homosexuality, abortion, etc. The Church has waged a war on these things. Many priests and bishops are incredibly vocal about it. I also think there is a difference between disapproving of the actions (which we should do) and disapproving of the person (which we should not do). **
Why don’t you just explain, without emotional content involved, that the action in question is consider wrong and/or grave matter by the Church, and leave it at that? That would be answering the question. If you add a personal disapproval to the mix, then it becomes a personal judgment and becomes emotionally loaded. And a little yeast mixes throughout the whole dough, so that can and likely will color the whole response – in most people. In very saintly people, they willingly accept and even seek your feedback – but if you thought they were saintly you wouldn’t be talking to them with disapproval.
**This is excellent advice and I will take it.
**
This is progress. Yes, you need to watch your tone, but if all that matters to you is your tone, then you are not getting the point. What matters is that you are holding condemnation in your heart – which is absolutely not necessary in order to convey Church teachings on a particular sin. There is all the world of difference between saying, “what you did constitutes grave matter to the Church,” and “you are doing wrong and I don’t like it.” If you even feel that way, then don’t bother to hide your tone because one way or another it will come through and the person will feel the judgment that you have in your heart – and you would feel it too if you could understand spiritual unity how what you are saying to your brother, you are also saying to Jesus. No, Jesus wouldn’t have sinned, but neither would you think poorly of Him just to answer a question about Church teachings. Whatsoever you do to any of Jesus’s brothers, you do to Him. You can’t control whether they sin, but you can control whether you judge them and talk down to them, even as if casting imaginary stones.
Noted
It’s easy to confuse in part because we’ve reduced love and hate to a dualistic cliché, and it doesn’t break down that way. If you judge there was a sin, then you have judged the person doing it as having sinned. If A follows B, then its just rationale, not personal judgment. If you hate what you perceive to be sin As I said before we SHOULD hate sin, but not the person. in another person – especially since as you just pointed out you cannot even tell if it was mortal – then you still hate. And that takes us psychologically through the thought processes of anger. It’s like if you measure brain waves of a person driving a nail with a hammer, and then measure a person watching, they exhibit the same brain waves. I’m still working this out. Not sure I completely understand.
Again, I’m not saying you can’t say anything. But I am saying that if you hold anger in your heart, and speak to the person affected while that anger is still brewing, then it is not purely out of love for either that person or God that you are speaking to them the way you are. It has at least a component of anger and bitterness in it, which are functions of the ego. (collective “you” not “you” personally, unless you can see how it relates)
I’m only picking on you because you are saying you want to be saintly. I do! I’m suggesting that if you really want to be saintly, then truly deny yourself – including gratuitous judgment of all kinds. If you are content with “going half way” in following the hardest of the teachings of Jesus, then that’s fine with me. Just say that being saintly is not an issue and I will immediately lower my standards of what I’m trying to drive toward on this your thread.
Say, have you ever heard of the “apophatic” tradition of the Church? The Cloud of the Unknowing, for example? Have you read anything such as by St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila about spiritual perfection and how to achieve this?
Alan