Dear Rats, Gertabella, or whoever wrote this comment. I couldn’t tell.
In regards to your statements -
“
Indeed. It is the Church’s job – Bishops, Cardinals – not yours. “You sound like you don’t actually give a rat’s rear end for the salvation of others. Sounds like you’re only concerned for your own soul. It is not your job to go around judging and condemning other people’s souls. This is not about political correctness. You see people’s actions and determine their condemnation”
First of all, I forgive you for putting words in my mouth (for all the inaccurate statements about my post, and my intentions)
“Indeed. It is the Church’s job – Bishops, Cardinals” – TRUE. - “**not yours” **FALSE.
Yes it is our job to tell the sinner he is wrong, especially when the Sheppard’s are not doing their job.
“You sound like you don’t actually give a rat’s rear end for the salvation of others.
If this were true, I wouldn’t be on this forum writing letters like the one we are discussing.
“I**t is not your job to go around judging and condemning other people’s souls” **Taken alone, by itself, this is a true statement. Only God can judge what is in a person’s heart, as you correctly pointed out. However you have applied this statement incorrectly. We are to make an objective judgment of a person’s misdeeds – We are to judge his external actions, NOT his internal motives. I am condemning no one. I am merely point out the consequences of their actions. Much of our society does not make, or understand the distinction between judging a person’s external actions, and judging their internal motives. Likewise they do not understand the difference between admonishing (judging external actions) and judging their interior motives. Also see
Matthew 18:15-17
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”.
So yes we are to correct a person when they are doing something wrong. Do you remember the first three spiritual works of mercy - Counsel the doubtful - instruct the ignorant - admonish the sinner? Perhaps a brief review of your basic catechism would be in order?
These three spiritual works of mercy are the main intent of my original post, and I am not judging, I am admonishing. My post was to explain the scriptural mechanics of Cardinal Arinze’s statement.
Below is some resource material you may find helpful. It gives a good example of the incorrect use of the term
“Judging”.
thedivinemercy.org/library/article.php?NID=3482
Admonishing the Sinner.
"This work of mercy — “tough love,” you could call it — is one of the hardest to practice in the western world today. Why? Because we live in the “I’m-OK-you’re-OK” culture. As such, I have my own personal set of values, and you have your own personal set of values, and we are each free to practice those values to our heart’s content just as long as we do not do grievous bodily harm to others in the process (although that limitation is waived when the “others” in question are unborn children, the chronically ill, and elderly).
If you really want to be unpopular — indeed, if you really want to risk getting a punch in the nose — try admonishing someone today for, say, swearing in public or wearing provocative clothing or talking loudly in church. Try objecting to the widespread availability of pornography, or try engaging in non-violent protests outside an abortion clinic, or try explaining to a gay friend that his or her lifestyle is unnatural and that he or she will never find true fulfillment, peace, or healing but through Jesus Christ.
Nine times out of 10, the end result of these attempts to “admonish sinners,” no matter how gently and compassionately they are performed, is that one is branded an intolerant bigot. After all, what could be a worse, what could be a more politically incorrect attitude in an I’m-OK-you’re-OK culture than to tell others, "You’re not OK: you’re harming yourself and others, at least spiritually and psychologically, if not also physically and sociologically?
The problem is that we live in a society dominated by people who have not made any real psychological or moral progress since they reached adolescence. Thus, they stumble through life with an adolescent understanding of love. To be “loved,” to them, means to be affirmed in everything they want to do that does not cause anyone else (except unborn children, the chronically ill, and elderly) grievous bodily harm. Imagine telling someone like that, “Hey, I think you are doing something wrong; I think what you are doing can lead to your spiritual self-destruction and, perhaps, to the spiritual destruction of others, too.” They’ll likely complain that you are practicing intolerance and bigotry. Yet, it is to spiritually adolescent people like this — to a whole society dominated by such people — that we are called to “speak the truth in love,” as St. Paul put it (see Eph 4:15), with both courage and compassion".
zeland
and now im wondering if you or Rosebud find it misleading or wrong if other ex-Catholics identify as something other than Catholic. 
:tsktsk: