Judging others

[Lou_F]

The term “judging” has been terribly misused. A judge doesn’t accuse, he carrys out the sentence, in other words he enforces justice. An example of judging is when a road rage driver purposely slams on the brakes when being tailgated. He first accuses the tailgaiter of being either rude or ignorant, but he doesn’t judge until he carrys out his idea of justice with his own hands (even if his action doesn’t cause damage to the tailgaters vehicle, his intention to allow it to happen would be judging)

Accusing others, whether falsely or not, is not in itself judging. A better term for such accusations should be called “jurying” or just outright “ignorance”. A jury accuses rightly, sometimes falsely and sometimes out of ignorance.

When God said do not judge, He couldn’t have meant do not accuse others of wrong doing. Of course we have to accuse others, without proof. We sometimes have to use probability. If I know two of my neighbors like to throw stones, and I find my window broken (yet a third party actually did it) I have every right to assume one of those two kids did it on probability. I’m not judging. Even if I outright accuse one of them falsely (just like juries sometimes do) the act of judging does not occur. Not until I carry out a sentence on my own, such as throwing a rock at their window (or have somebody else do my dirty work) do I judge.

No matter how rude someone’s words or thoughts may be, judging is an action, not a comment, assumption, or accusation. Rude accusations & ignorance are awful, not judging.

Comments?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Lou,

“Judging” in the evangelical sense, is interpreting someone’s interior dispositions. If you see a man stealing, you can’t deny that he stole. But you can’t call him a thief, because you don’t know, and will never know, his interior dispositions at the moment of stealing.

Civil and criminal law do, in some cases, take into account, the “intention” of an accused person. But mistakes are made, aren’ t they?

Verbum

 

[Lou_F]

Hi Lou,

“Judging” in the evangelical sense, is interpreting someone’s interior dispositions. If you see a man stealing, you can’t deny that he stole. But you can’t call him a thief, because you don’t know, and will never know, his interior dispositions at the moment of stealing.

Civil and criminal law do, in some cases, take into account, the “intention” of an accused person. But mistakes are made, aren’ t they?

Verbum

Unless and until it is determined that he stole to feed someone starving, is too poor to pay and is ignorant of the fact that their are food shelters or he cannot reach them, he has to be punished accordingly. You are right that I cannot determine his conscience or intentions at the point of theft. What I want to know is: how can we be judging another without carrying out a sentence? As wrong as it is for me to have my mind made up that the person who stole is just selfish and only caring more about himself than the store owner (personally, I hope I am always smarter than that) isn’t that only an accusation? Plus, we can get into a tangled web if we start judging the store owner for “judging”. We can’t leave his conscience out of the equation. Since we do not leave him out of the equation, we cannot accuse his motives for “judging”, thus nobody is judging. Doesn’t judging require the carrying out of a sentence?

 

[bilop]

My understanding is that we can judge ACTIONS, and therefore, punish those actions as appropriate.

What we can not judge is the eventual salavtion or damnation of a soul.

So, I can say, “You are committing adultery, that is wrong, and sinful”.

What I can’t say is “You are committing adultery, you are going to Hell”.

Hope that helps,

God Bless

 

[John_Hiner]

Unless and until it is determined that he stole to feed someone starving, is too poor to pay and is ignorant of the fact that their are food shelters or he cannot reach them, he has to be punished accordingly. You are right that I cannot determine his conscience or intentions at the point of theft. What I want to know is: how can we be judging another without carrying out a sentence? As wrong as it is for me to have my mind made up that the person who stole is just selfish and only caring more about himself than the store owner (personally, I hope I am always smarter than that) isn’t that only an accusation? Plus, we can get into a tangled web if we start judging the store owner for “judging”. We can’t leave his conscience out of the equation. Since we do not leave him out of the equation, we cannot accuse his motives for “judging”, thus nobody is judging. Doesn’t judging require the carrying out of a sentence?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Lou F:

You have touched on an important issue, which I think is causing a great deal of damage to people’s ability to love. A false notion of “judging” has lead people to disregard sin and to back away from condemning it.

However, there is a direct corollary to this. If we take the position that “we cannot know what is in someone’s heart,” then we give up all hope of compassion.

Compassion is feeling what another feels and thinking what he thinks. It is fundamental to love.

Compassion cannot be replaced by a habit of romanticizing someone’s thoughts and feelings to make excuses for what he does. We need to strive to know the person, so that we can have true compassion. In those cases where the person is a sinner, we have to have compassion with his actual feelings and state of mind – in which case we would be more likely to discipline rather than “go easy.”

If we cannot have compassion, then we cannot love. If we cannot know what is in a sinner’s heart, then we cannot love him.

Is there any argument for distancing ourselves from one another by denying the ability to know each other’s hearts? Some people talk about this subject in such mystical, pseudo-psychological terms that they seem to believe that one cannot even know himself well enough to judge whether he has sinned. (Maybe this is why lines are down at Confession.)

Bishop Fulton Sheen has a shocking but provoking presentation on “False Compassion,” which is available on YouTube (youtube.com/results?search_query=Sheen+false+compassion&search_type=)). When one realizes that the Bishop is talking about compassion for what a person actually thinks and feels rather than imagining possible feelings or thoughts which might excuse any bad behavior, Bishop Sheen’s position becomes persuasive.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[CapIV]

No one but God may judge a man since no man knows what is in another man’s soul.

However, man, given the capacity to reason, may judge another’s actions.

 

[Jofantioch]

I think I’m getting the hang of what you’re saying. Let me know if the following is true.

Not Judging:

“That is the tackiest house I’ve ever seen. What poor taste.”

Judging:

“They must be on public assistance with a house like that.”

Not judging:

“By living with your boyfriend, you’re not giving him the chance to love you fully. Believe in your own dignity and worth and don’t do it.”

Judging:

“You’re not worthy of my company anymore because you’re shacking up.”

How am I doing?

 

[Lou_F]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Lou F:

You have touched on an important issue, which I think is causing a great deal of damage to people’s ability to love. A false notion of “judging” has lead people to disregard sin and to back away from condemning it.

However, there is a direct corollary to this. If we take the position that “we cannot know what is in someone’s heart,” then we give up all hope of compassion.

Compassion is feeling what another feels and thinking what he thinks. It is fundamental to love.

Compassion cannot be replaced by a habit of romanticizing someone’s thoughts and feelings to make excuses for what he does. We need to strive to know the person, so that we can have true compassion. In those cases where the person is a sinner, we have to have compassion with his actual feelings and state of mind – in which case we would be more likely to discipline rather than “go easy.”

If we cannot have compassion, then we cannot love. If we cannot know what is in a sinner’s heart, then we cannot love him.

Is there any argument for distancing ourselves from one another by denying the ability to know each other’s hearts? Some people talk about this subject in such mystical, pseudo-psychological terms that they seem to believe that one cannot even know himself well enough to judge whether he has sinned. (Maybe this is why lines are down at Confession.)

Bishop Fulton Sheen has a shocking but provoking presentation on “False Compassion,” which is available on YouTube (youtube.com/results?search_query=Sheen+false+compassion&search_type=)). When one realizes that the Bishop is talking about compassion for what a person actually thinks and feels rather than imagining possible feelings or thoughts which might excuse any bad behavior, Bishop Sheen’s position becomes persuasive.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

Thank you so much for sharing that fantastic presentation with me. The Bishop’s words are undeniable. I see the corollary with a person’s false idea of judging and the Bishop’s explanation of false compassion. I couldn’t ask for a better explanation. People who have false compassion are the one’s who have the defintion of judging all wrong. False judging must be when someone with false compassion is the one judging the individual that has more attention, compassion, & healing given to the victim than the attacker. If I say punish the criminal for committing rape, murder, assault, etc., I am rightly judging and I have a duty to judge the action. My compassion must be for the victim first, without delay. Can you imagine if Doctors in the ER were to do this? Is the Doctors priority to treat the victim dying with the gunshot wound first, or would the Doctor make the victim wait and care for the victim’s assailant first who hurt his finger while pulling the trigger? There is such thing as good judgement.

 

[Lou_F]

I think I’m getting the hang of what you’re saying. Let me know if the following is true.

Not Judging:

“That is the tackiest house I’ve ever seen. What poor taste.”

Judging:

“They must be on public assistance with a house like that.”

Not judging:

“By living with your boyfriend, you’re not giving him the chance to love you fully. Believe in your own dignity and worth and don’t do it.”

Judging:

“You’re not worthy of my company anymore because you’re shacking up.”

How am I doing?

I don’t think any of those are judging, even the last one. Is the last one terribly arrogant and rude? Yes. But you saying that is not judging. I may be mistaken, but wouldn’t it be judging only when you carried out your words? Remember the parable of the two Sons Mt21:28-31? The first son said “I will not” (help in the vineyard) but changed his mind and did. The second said “Yes sir” but did not go. The first son did his father’s will, not the son who said he was going to and did not. I really think that the moment you carry out your words/sentence is when judging begins, not the words themselves. If you say it while on the phone with that person and hang up right after, and never spoke to her again till the day her boyfriend left her (lets say 2 years later), that would be judging. But if you contacted her say 6 months after your statement (while she’s still shacking up) and you apologized, inviting her friendship, you didn’t carry out your sentence. You were like the first son who said “I will not” but changed your mind afterward.