Being judgmental as opposed to admonishing sinners?

  • Thread starter Thread starter soccerdad57
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

soccerdad57

Guest
Ok, in a conversation with a loved one over lunch, we talked about her idea that we can’t judge someone’s actions as wrong/sinful since we can’t know for certain if someone carries the stain of sin upon them for committing such an action. So if a person is an active homosexual in a homosexual relationship for example and due to their personal circumstances (raised by 2 gay men, sexually abused - or what ever) that may mitigate some of their culpability and due to the fact that God may decide to show mercy - and we hope that He does - we can’t know that that person carries the stain of sin upon their soul for their offense and that we can’t judge that if they died in that moment they would go to hell - I agreed with my friend on this point - that we can’t know if they had the stain of sin upon them (not talking about original sin please don’t sidetrack the thread). But then she seemed to say that since we don’t know if they carried that stain of sin upon them that therefore we can’t say that what they were doing was wrong - and she used this to defend her voting for pro-abortion candidates - falling back on the tired argument that although she was personally against abortion she couldn’t say it was wrong for someone else - again pointing out that we couldn’t know if they carried the stain of sin upon them for doing it and so we couldn’t tell them it was sinful - afterall everyone’s circumstances are different and maybe that person was forgiven even as she committed the abortion or even though they lived as homosexuals?? - and therefore we can’t say that they are sinning by doing that? Both my friend and I are lifelong Catholics though she is admittedly liberal in her political views. Can I get a Catholic perspective on this?
 
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.
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.” (CCC 2477-2478)
Click to expand...
Judging an action sin is much different than judging someone to hell. We cannot say that a disordered action that is clearly a mortal sin, is acceptable even if culpability is an issue.
That is like saying you can’t tell someone not to murder your mother, because for them it might not be a sin. It’s still against God’s moral code. This is why we are supposed to speak to them and ask how they understand it, and then not just let it go, but try to help them see the correct interpretation.

She is correct that we do not know if they feel they have no choice in their homosexuality. The church doesn’t say that having urges is a sin. The fact that they have had an abusive situation, raised by a homosexual couple, etc does not effect the disordered nature of the homosexual act. You cannot say that you being gay is a sin, nor can you say that the person is going to hell for being gay… but you can say that the homosexual act itself is a sin by the moral law.
 
I agree with BMullins. Also remember that you cannot expect non-Christians to live up to Christian standards. Be a light to them and don’t condemn them to Hell. You can say certain actions are sins, but none of us know for sure how God will judge any individual person. Try to be understanding and realize that life situations do affect other people’s actions. Also remember harping on someone for their actions all the time will only push them away. Bring the truth with love and don’t talk about it all the time. Care about the person, not just about the area of sin in their life.
 
I would point your loved one to this in the Catechism:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Homosexual acts, abortion, and contraception would all be included in this. As you can see there are acts that are committed where it doesn’t even matter whether someone has good intentions or achieves what they believe to be a good end from doing it. The culpability of the action may be reduced by certain factors, but the act is wrong. I think your loved one is mixing up the difference between culpability and an act being wrong.

It would definitely be wrong to presume how culpable someone was for an action because as was said we can never know someone’s heart. However you can know whether an action was wrong in many cases without a doubt especially for the sins listed above which are always wrong no matter the circumstances or intentions.
 
I have spiritual authority over my child thus I would admonish her. I don’t make it a business of doing this to others. I simply try to be a good Catholic and let that show as an example.
 
It’s one thing to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong and a violation of the ten commandments and the laws of the Church; and harping, arguing, and nagging.

How you tell someone and the words you use are important. They must know you love and care about them.
 
Buck_Crosswhite said:
It’s one thing to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong and a violation of the ten commandments and the laws of the Church; and harping, arguing, and nagging.

How you tell someone and the words you use are important. They must know you love and care about them.
Click to expand...
Off topic - the thread is about whether or not you should - not how to do it
 
Being judgmental as opposed to admonishing sinners?
Click to expand...
the thread is about whether or not you should - not how to do it
Click to expand...
The answer above addresses the difference between being judgmental as ‘opposed’ to admonishing sins. You can be judgmental *while *admonishing sins, so isn’t it on topic to indicate that we should be admonishing in a non-judgmental way?
 
fraternal correction should be used as Thomas Aquinas did, to correct a Brother in Christ, to attempt to fraternally correct a stranger is actually counterproductive as it alienates one.
 
Pope Benedict XVI

"The Apostle Paul says that the whole Law of God finds fullness in love, so that in our relationships with others the Ten Commandments and every other precept are summed up in these words: “Love your neighbour as yourself” (cf. Rom 13:8-10).

The Gospel text from chapter 18 of Matthew on the life of the Christian community tells us that brotherly love also involves a sense of mutual responsibility. For this reason if my brother commits a sin against me I must treat him charitably and first of all, speak to him privately, pointing out that what he has said or done is wrong. This approach is known as “fraternal correction”: it is not a reaction to the offence suffered but is motivated by love for one’s brethren.

St Augustine comments: “Whoever has offended you, in offending you, has inflicted a serious injury upon himself; and would you not care for a brother’s injury?.. You must forget the offence you have received but not the injury of one of your brethren (Discourse 82, 7).

And what if my brother does not listen to me? In today’s Gospel Jesus points to a gradual approach: first, speak to him again with two or three others, the better to help him realize what he has done; if, in spite of this, he still refuses to listen, it is necessary to tell the community; and if he refuses to listen even to the community, he must be made to perceive that he has cut himself off by separating himself from the communion of the Church.

All this demonstrates that we are responsible for each other in the journey of Christian life; each person, aware of his own limitations and shortcomings, is called to accept fraternal correction and to help others with this specific service.

Another fruit of love in the community is unanimous prayer. Jesus said: “If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in Heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt 18:19-20). Personal prayer is of course important, indeed indispensable, but the Lord guarantees his presence to the community — even if it is very small — which is united and in agreement, because this reflects the very reality of the Triune God, perfect communion of love. Origen says “we should practise this symphony” (Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, 14,1), in other words this harmony within the Christian community. We should practise both fraternal correction — which demands deep humility and simplicity of heart — and prayer so that it may rise to God from a community truly united in Christ."

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20110904_en.html
 
Actually, I think BMullins’ position is correct – how we “say what should be said” is IMHO on topic.

I’d add that, as to OP’s speaking with a loved one: The reason IMHO the OP’s loved one is incorrect is that her position is essentially “moral relativism,” i.e., we can never say categorically that some things are always wrong. By way of response, I can think of the reply I’ve personally given when debating the same subject. My response is that essentially everyone - or at least everyone who is normal and sane - can come up with some action which everyone acknowledges is ALWAYS morally wrong, 100% of the time. Child molestation springs to mind: All sane people agree this is always 100% wrong. Now, go into a prison or anywhere where the really bad elements of society are found, and guess what – the prisoners (other than child molesters, and maybe even them) know that child molestation is wrong. Point is, there is always something all of us - even those of us who may otherwise be morally challenged - can always agree is wrong, 100% of the time. Once you get another person to see this point, moral relativism begins to fall apart IMHO.
 
By way of response, I can think of the reply I’ve personally given when debating the same subject. My response is that essentially everyone - or at least everyone who is normal and sane - can come up with some action which everyone acknowledges is ALWAYS morally wrong, 100% of the time. Child molestation springs to mind: All sane people agree this is always 100% wrong. Now, go into a prison or anywhere where the really bad elements of society are found, and guess what – the prisoners (other than child molesters, and maybe even them) know that child molestation is wrong. Point is, there is always something all of us - even those of us who may otherwise be morally challenged - can always agree is wrong, 100% of the time. Once you get another person to see this point, moral relativism begins to fall apart IMHO.

Well said - I wish I would have thought of that.
 
soccerdad57 said:
By way of response, I can think of the reply I’ve personally given when debating the same subject. My response is that essentially everyone - or at least everyone who is normal and sane - can come up with some action which everyone acknowledges is ALWAYS morally wrong, 100% of the time. Child molestation springs to mind: All sane people agree this is always 100% wrong. Now, go into a prison or anywhere where the really bad elements of society are found, and guess what – the prisoners (other than child molesters, and maybe even them) know that child molestation is wrong. Point is, there is always something all of us - even those of us who may otherwise be morally challenged - can always agree is wrong, 100% of the time. Once you get another person to see this point, moral relativism begins to fall apart IMHO.

Well said - I wish I would have thought of that.
Click to expand...
Soccerdad said:
Off topic - the thread is about whether or not you should - not how to do it
Click to expand...
 
admonishing the sinner is saying to your friend, it is my duty to warn you that your behavior is gravely sinful, it is dangerous to you spiritual, psychological and physical well-being and I say this out of love because I don’t want to see you hurt. It is naming the behavior and describing it honestly.

being judgmental is saying, you are a sinner and you are going to hell if you continue in this manner. It is making a judgment of the condition of the soul of this person, something you cannot possibly know. Only Christ can judge, anyone can warn that judgment is coming.
 
It annoys me when a smoker tells someone not to smoke whilst smoking a fag.
It is better that an ex-smoker tells people not to smoke and why.

On the receiving end of the two, one makes you think ‘good point’ and the other makes you think ‘hypocrite’.

I guess part of it is explaining why it is a sin.
 
It’s all in the attitude!

There’s an old story (it may be a kind of parable) that a man suddenly decided to return to attending his Church, when a* new *pastor took over.

All his friends asked “Why all these years of not coming and suddenly you’re here every single Sunday?”

The man said, “Well, I’ll tell you. The old preacher talked so much about Hell.”

His best friend said, “Wait just a minute! Our new pastor talks about Hell too, quite a bit actually. So what’s the difference?”

The man smiled and said. “Oh, that’ s easy: Our former pastor railed on and on about it…”

“Yes,” his friend said. “So…? We just had a sermon today on Hell.”

The man faced his friends, still smiling, but with joyful tears in his eyes

“Well, I’ll tell you:* The new one acts like he doesn’t want me to GO THERE,* like I might have a chance in Heaven. But the first one sounded like he was reserving me a special seat in Hell. So, to me, that’s all the difference in the world!”

Blessings!
:angel1::signofcross::getholy:
 
Apart from commanding the woman found in adultery to “go and sin no more” the Christ commanded us to:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

And St Paul, following the Master:
“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).
“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

That is precisely why we judge actions, speech, writing against true teaching as to what is good and what is evil, and we know what is good and what is evil only by following the teaching of His Church – not by our opinions, desires, prejudices, feelings, wants – selfism.

We are commanded not to judge the guilt of anyone before God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top