Francis: ‘Whoever judges and scorns others is corrupt and a hypocrite’

[2PT3]

What we are missing here is context… Stop judging means to stop hypocritically judging; stop misjudging; stop pre-judging. It does NOT, however, mean to stop any and all judging. Obviously, Jesus passed judgment on people and their actions all the time. So did John the Baptist. So did Paul. So did Jude. Making an upright judgment is actually our duty as Christians.

Thank you for this. It is absolutely correct. I would add a couple of points:

1. The Holy Father comes off, to me, as the most “judgmental” Pope in my lifetime. He is extremely condemnatory of those who do not share his political views on migrants, socialist economics, and global warming. He is also extremely judgmental of those who have concern for the integrity of Church doctrine - he incessantly heaps scorn upon them by labeling them Pharisees and scribes and saying they have cold dead hearts, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt or acknowledging that there is any merit to their concerns.
2. Did the tax collector walk out of the temple a changed man, prepared to do all in his power to amend his life, avoid sin in the future, and make reparation for his past sin? Or did he simply acknowledge his unworthiness and his need for mercy, yet go right back to his life of corruption, graft, and extortion? The parable leaves this question unanswered, but the answer makes all the difference.

The point of the parable seems to be more about humility before God than about judging others. The Pharisee’s problem is one of spiritual pride. He should have the attitude of humility that is displayed by the tax collector because they are equally dependent upon God’s mercy. No one is justified by his own efforts. The parable does not suggest that it would be wrong to appropriately admonish the tax collector for his sinful conduct.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Pope Francis also used the word arrogant. How often do you REALLY see or hear Christians making upright judgements though? Free of arrogance or hypocrisy. Where are the Pauls and Judes of today? I haven’t found them anywhere, and I’m looking all the time. The judgements that are made today are not corporal work of mercy type admonitions, they’re simply arbitrary lines drawn between ideologies with people proclaiming that anyone on the other side of the line is wrong. That is not upright Christian judgement. We should first be most judgemental and critical of ourselves, if we hope to have any credibility when admonishing other sinners.

Yes, why do politics have to be the core of who we are influencing every thought, opinion, word and deed. What if we put as much energy into love as we do political ideology?:angel1:

 

[multitude]

Thank you for this. It is absolutely correct. I would add a couple of points:

1. The Holy Father comes off, to me, as the most “judgmental” Pope in my lifetime. He is extremely condemnatory of those who do not share his political views on migrants, socialist economics, and global warming. He is also extremely judgmental of those who have concern for the integrity of Church doctrine - he incessantly heaps scorn upon them by labeling them Pharisees and scribes and saying they have cold dead hearts, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt or acknowledging that there is any merit to their concerns…

Same here, but at the same time, I’m hoping the Holy Father knows what he is doing.

 

[1neophyte]

Thank you for this. It is absolutely correct. I would add a couple of points:

1. The Holy Father comes off, to me, as the most “judgmental” Pope in my lifetime. He is extremely condemnatory of those who do not share his political views on migrants, socialist economics, and global warming. He is also extremely judgmental of those who have concern for the integrity of Church doctrine - he incessantly heaps scorn upon them by labeling them Pharisees and scribes and saying they have cold dead hearts, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt or acknowledging that there is any merit to their concerns.
2. Did the tax collector walk out of the temple a changed man, prepared to do all in his power to amend his life, avoid sin in the future, and make reparation for his past sin? Or did he simply acknowledge his unworthiness and his need for mercy, yet go right back to his life of corruption, graft, and extortion? The parable leaves this question unanswered, but the answer makes all the difference.

1. That is absolutely ridiculous, subjective, and self-serving. You can’t dismiss his views as “political” unless you consider all of your own views as merely “political” as well. Do you support transgender rights? If not, why are you incessantly heaping scorn without acknowledging that there is merit to their position? Should abortion providers be given “the benefit of the doubt” because opposing abortion is merely a “political” view? Be brave enough to admit it if your “religion” is merely capitalism and conservatism, if it flies in the face of Jesus’ teachings.
2. If the answer made any difference, Jesus would have provided the answer at the end of the parable. The point is that the answer makes NO difference. When have you ever left the confessional a changed person, without returning to a life of sin? Or are you perhaps, like the rest of us, returning to confession again and again? The parable is about the mercy and grace of God, not our feeble attempts to avoid sin. If anything depended on our ability to completely avoid sin, there would not be hope for a single human being on the planet right now, and the work of the Church would be totally futile.

 

[MaryT777]

Pope Francis also used the word arrogant. How often do you REALLY see or hear Christians making upright judgements though? Free of arrogance or hypocrisy. Where are the Pauls and Judes of today? I haven’t found them anywhere, and I’m looking all the time. The judgements that are made today are not corporal work of mercy type admonitions, they’re simply arbitrary lines drawn between ideologies with people proclaiming that anyone on the other side of the line is wrong. That is not upright Christian judgement. We should first be most judgemental and critical of ourselves, if we hope to have any credibility when admonishing other sinners.

I remember once upon a time on Ask a Priest/Deacon site someone asked a specific question regarding having a son and his male partner over for Thanksgiving if that would be “condoning their sin” and the Priest so eloquently said. Who will be left at your dinner table? What about pre marital sex, those using birth control and he named many Catholic issues and he said you will be left alone. Be careful who you judge for by that standard is which you will be judged by.

Jesus ministered and hosted sinners.

Pope Francis is correct. It’s not an a liberal/conservative issues it’s an issue of mercy and judging others like a Pharisee who were hypocrites.

Mary.

Sorry for the run on sentence; too lazy to correct it to be grammatically acceptable.

 

[1neophyte]

I remember once upon a time on Ask a Priest/Deacon site someone asked a specific question regarding having a son and his partner over for Thanksgiving if that would be “condoning their sin” and the Priest so eloquently said. Who will be left at your dinner table? What about pre marital sex, those using birth control and he named many Catholic issues and he said you will be left alone. Be careful who you judge for by that standard is which you will be judged by.

It’s funny how there is such a select few list of “Catholic” issues that some Catholics are so concerned about. I’ve never heard anyone ask if they shouldn’t invite someone who is known to gossip, when they will likely engage in that very sin at the dinner table as everyone silently condones it. However, a same sex couple is extremely unlikely to engage in their sin in front of everyone at Thanksgiving. It’s amazing how easy it is to put the sins we don’t commit ourselves at the top of the list of most serious and unforgivable.

 

[2PT3]

1. That is absolutely ridiculous, subjective, and self-serving. You can’t dismiss his views as “political” unless you consider all of your own views as “political” as well. Do you support transgender rights? If not, why are you incessantly heaping scorn without acknowledging that there is merit to their position? Should abortion providers be given “the benefit of the doubt” because opposing abortion is merely a “political” view? Be brave enough to admit it if your “religion” is merely capitalism and conservatism, if it flies in the face of Jesus’ teachings.
2. If the answer made any difference, Jesus would have provided the answer at the end of the parable. The point is that the answer makes NO difference. When have you ever left the confessional a changed person, without returning to a life of sin? Or are you perhaps, like the rest of us, returning to confession again and again? The parable is about the mercy and grace of God, not our feeble attempts to avoid sin. If anything depended on our ability to completely avoid sin, there would not be hope for a single human being on the planet right now, and the work of the Church would be totally futile.

We obviously disagree. I would make 3 points.

1. My point is not that I believe Pope Francis is wrong about migration, socialist economics or global warming. My point is that he is harshly condemnatory of those who have a different view on these issues than he does. The point I was making is that Pope Francis comes off to me as an extremely judgmental pontiff. He issues scathing indictments of such people in a fashion that, for example, Pope St. John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict never did on other issues such as homosexuality or abortion.
2. Elsewhere in the Gospel,we do receive an answer to the unanswered question in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. See, Luke 5:31-32; Luke 19:1-10.
3. Yes, we are all sinners. None of us is saved by his own merit. Of course, we all commit venial sins because of our concupiscence. But, it should be the “normal” state of affairs for a practicing Catholic to be able to avoid mortal sin through the grace of the Holy Spirit living in him and the help of the Sacraments. Living consistently in God’s grace is not and should not be portrayed as an impossible or heroic task. To suggest it is would be to deny the power of the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments.

Peace.

 

[MaryT777]

It’s funny how there is such a select few list of “Catholic” issues that some Catholics are so concerned about. I’ve never heard anyone ask if they shouldn’t invite someone who is known to gossip, when they will likely engage in that very sin at the dinner table as everyone silently condones it. However, a same sex couple is extremely unlikely to engage in their sin in front of everyone at Thanksgiving. It’s amazing how easy it is to put the sins we don’t commit ourselves at the top of the list of most serious and unforgivable.

I agree with this completely. That was this priest’s whole point and you are spot on. Where are you gonna draw the line over who is “too sinful” to come over and have Thanksgiving with you once you walk down this Pharisee like path.

Can you possibly imagine telling Aunt Tilly she can’t come over because of this sin (gossip for example as you use) or Uncle Joe he drinks too much so he’s barred too?

If we were honest we would, indeed, put ourselves at the top of the list.

No way,
Lord have Mercy on me a sinner and I confess with St. Paul I am the worst of sinners at times.

Everyone is invited for Fourth of July at my place on this thread sinner or not.

Mary.

 

[1neophyte]

We obviously disagree. I would make 3 points.

1. My point is not that I believe Pope Francis is wrong about migration, socialist economics or global warming. My point is that he is harshly condemnatory of those who have a different view on these issues than he does. The point I was making is that Pope Francis comes off to me as an extremely judgmental pontiff. He issues scathing indictments of such people in a fashion that, for example, Pope St. John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict never did on other issues such as homosexuality or abortion.
2. Elsewhere in the Gospel,we do receive an answer to the unanswered question in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. See, Luke 5:31-32; Luke 19:1-10.
3. Yes, we are all sinners. None of us is saved by his own merit. Of course, we all commit venial sins because of our concupiscence. But, it should be the “normal” state of affairs for a practicing Catholic to be able to avoid mortal sin through the grace of the Holy Spirit living in him and the help of the Sacraments. Living consistently in God’s grace is not and should not be portrayed as an impossible or heroic task. To suggest it is would be to deny the power of the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments.

Peace.

1. Can you give an example of a quote and source of something he said that crossed the line?
2. Luke 5:31-32 would indicate that Jesus is calling all of us at all times, since none of us are flawless or righteous. Not for very long, at least. And what is your point about Luke 19:1-10? Is there a biography of Zacchaeus somewhere that I haven’t read which says that he never sinned again? I could quote you the chapter and verse of when Peter earnestly vowed never to deny Jesus, but we all know how meaningless that vow was.
3. I hate to break it to you, but the line between mortal and venial is fairly meaningless. If you think you live consistently in God’s grace because you “only” commit the inevitable venial sins, and this puts you in a position to righteously judge those who commit the sins you’re not even tempted to commit, you’re fooling yourself.

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

Jesus himself judged others, sometimes very harshly, while also warning against “judging”.

Yes, but Jesus has several advantages that we don’t have, not least of which is the ability to read people’s hearts.

Part of judging includes usurping for ourselves an alleged ability to properly determine people’s motivations and secret intentions and thoughts. That’s part of what makes it sinful for us. The other part of it is that we often judge because because we want to drag others down so as to prop ourselves up.

Christ’s judgments are true, and He doesn’t tear down to make Himself feel more important or better or more holy.

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

Living consistently in God’s grace is not and should not be portrayed as an impossible or heroic task. To suggest it is would be to deny the power of the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments.

This may make sense in theory, but on the practical level, people do fall, and they do succumb to temptations.

That doesn’t undermine God’s grace or its efficacy, since free will exists, and grace does not remove our potential to resist or to cooperate with God, but it only makes such cooperation possible.

It furthermore speaks to our nature as fallen human beings, which has often been further wounded by years of bad habits acquired when we may well have been living outside of a state of grace in the first place.

For some people, it does require a heroic sort of virtue to consistently cooperate with grace and to restrain themselves from certain sins.

Those people shouldn’t be ignored, and we should both praise God that they are doing well, and we should respect them for their consistent desire to do God’s will.

 

[1neophyte]

This may make sense in theory, but on the practical level, people do fall, and they do succumb to temptations.

That doesn’t undermine God’s grace or its efficacy, since free will exists, and grace does not remove our potential to resist or to cooperate with God, but it only makes such cooperation possible.

It furthermore speaks to our nature as fallen human beings, which has often been further wounded by years of bad habits acquired when we may well have been living outside of a state of grace in the first place.

For some people, it does require a heroic sort of virtue to consistently cooperate with grace and to restrain themselves from certain sins.

Those people shouldn’t be ignored, and we should both praise God that they are doing well, and we should respect them for their consistent desire to do God’s will.

 

[2PT3]

1. Can you give an example of a quote and source of something he said that crossed the line?
2. Luke 5:31-32 would indicate that Jesus is calling all of us at all times, since none of us are flawless or righteous. Not for very long, at least. And what is your point about Luke 19:1-10? Is there a biography of Zacchaeus somewhere that I haven’t read which says that he never sinned again? I could quote you the chapter and verse of when Peter earnestly vowed never to deny Jesus, but we all know how meaningless that vow was.
3. I hate to break it to you, but the line between mortal and venial is fairly meaningless. If you think you live consistently in God’s grace because you “only” commit the inevitable venial sins, and this puts you in a position to righteously judge those who commit the sins you’re not even tempted to commit, you’re fooling yourself.

1. Crossed what line? The Pope is the Pope. Read his speeches from his trip to South America. Read his speech at the conclusion of the Synod. Oh, and of course, Donald Trump is not a Christian but Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are invited to give speeches at Pontifical academies during an election season.
2. Luke 5:31-32 - “I came not to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.” The key: to repentance. Jesus’ specific purpose in eating with tax collectors and prostitutes is to call them to repentance. This is where he is showing the Pharisees their failure. Instead of going out to meet their brothers and sisters and call them to repentance, the Pharisees have written them off and refuse to be associated with them at all. Luke 19:1-10 - Zacchaeus repents; he offers to return his ill-gotten gain.
3. The distinction between venial and mortal sin makes all the difference in the world. Mortal sin kills the grace of God in us and separates us from him. Mortal sin that is not confessed and absolved will send you to hell forever. Venial sin wounds our relationship with God but does not sever it. My point is not that being given the grace to avoid mortal sin permits one to act self-righteously. Of course not; it is the Holy Spirit that gives someone that grace, so they’d better be humble about it. My point is simply that the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments should “normally” give baptized Catholics the grace to avoid mortal sin. We should commit mortal sin very infrequently, if ever. If we commit mortal sin frequently then there is something deeply wrong. My only point on this issue was, please don’t make it seem like an impossible or herculean task for a committed, practicing Catholic to avoid committing mortal sin on a regular basis. On the contrary, it should be the “normal” state of affairs. See, 1 John 3:4-10.

Peace.

 

[2PT3]

This may make sense in theory, but on the practical level, people do fall, and they do succumb to temptations.

That doesn’t undermine God’s grace or its efficacy, since free will exists, and grace does not remove our potential to resist or to cooperate with God, but it only makes such cooperation possible.

It furthermore speaks to our nature as fallen human beings, which has often been further wounded by years of bad habits acquired when we may well have been living outside of a state of grace in the first place.

For some people, it does require a heroic sort of virtue to consistently cooperate with grace and to restrain themselves from certain sins.

Those people shouldn’t be ignored, and we should both praise God that they are doing well, and we should respect them for their consistent desire to do God’s will.

You make good points. I accept that some people are so wounded that it does take heroic effort. I appreciate that. How would you interpret 1 JN 3:1-10?

Thank you.

 

[2PT3]

Yes, but Jesus has several advantages that we don’t have, not least of which is the ability to read people’s hearts.

Part of judging includes usurping for ourselves an alleged ability to properly determine people’s motivations and secret intentions and thoughts. That’s part of what makes it sinful for us. The other part of it is that we often judge because because we want to drag others down so as to prop ourselves up.

Christ’s judgments are true, and He doesn’t tear down to make Himself feel more important or better or more holy.

Thank you for this. How do you interpret the following?

MT 18:17
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

1 COR 5
11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. 12 For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? 13 God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.”

 

[RPRPsych]

Thank you for this. How do you interpret the following?

MT 18:17
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

1 COR 5
11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. 12 For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? 13 God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.”

I think those verses should be interpreted in the context of early Church discipline, particularly when dealing with obstinate sinners whose offence is of such a nature as to cause public scandal (gravely harming a brother, alcoholism, idolatry, adultery, and so on.) Moreover, 2 Corinthians 2 also prescribes limits on such a procedure, provided the offender repents.

 

[2PT3]

Is it necessarily the case that “modern” Church discipline should be radically different from “early” Church discipline?

 

[RPRPsych]

Is it necessarily the case that “modern” Church discipline should be radically different from “early” Church discipline?

Well, there have been gradual changes in Church discipline, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Confession in the early Church was a one-time opportunity for grave and public sins, such as murder or adultery. Today, several Saints recommend frequent Confession as a vital part of a spiritual life.

Receiving the Eucharist once a year was once routine. St. Pius X (if I recall correctly) was one of the first to emphasize the benefits of early and frequent reception, provided one is in a state of grace.

Those are just two examples, but they should suffice to illustrate that differences are possible. I’m not sure what you mean by “radical” differences - do you mean the young man who started this thread should be allowed to make only one Confession, as in 100 AD?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I took his reference to the word arrogant to mean two things:

1. It is arrogant to pray while simply focusing on other people’s sins.
2. It is arrogant to pray while not acknowledging whether or not the things we individually do and believe are actually conforming to the teachings of Christ and the Church.

The former is the stereotype that gets applied to “conservatives” around here. The latter is the stereotype that gets applied to “liberals” around here.

Neither is an acceptable way to present ourselves to God.

Regarding inviting people over based on certain sins, I’d say the previous argument greatly oversimplifies that discussion.

1. Manifest public sin is vastly different from less obvious behavior.
2. Not all sin is equal in gravity and impact.
3. Whether or not my children are present affects what I watch on TV, what conversations I have, and who is allowed to present with them in my home. Does this hypothetical diner involve my children, who are sponges and easily confused?

 

[PatrickC]

The desert fathers existed rather early in Church history, and here are a few things they had to say about judging others:

"The old men used to say, “there is nothing worse than passing judgement.”

They said of abba Macarius that he became as it is written a god upon earth,
because just as God protects the world, so abba Macarius would cover the
faults that he saw as though he did not see them, and those which he heard as
though he did not hear them.

Abba Pastor said, “Judge not him who is guilty of fornication, if you are
chaste, or you will break the law like him. For He who said “do not commit
fornication” said also “Do not judge”.”

A brother asked abba Poemen, “If I see my brother sin, is it right to say
nothing about it?” The old man replied, “whenever we cover our brother’s sin,
God will cover ours; whenever we tell people about our brother’s guilt, God
will do the same about ours.”

That’s the first paragraph after the foreword.
coptic.net/articles/sayingsofdesertfathers.txt