Judging w/o arrogance

[fakename]

People say to judge w/o arrogance.

I think that this means that if you are facing the same sin, then don’t judge the other person since you have the same problem. Also, unless you are simply good, then don’t judge people from the POV of being simply good, but at best only relatively good.

But is that a correct interpretation of not judging with arrogance or is there some additional duty RE: judgment that I’m not meeting?

 

[Bookcat]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9068172&postcount=1

Judging vs not judging: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9068173&postcount=2

 

[fakename]

Actually I realized that judging w/o arrogance just means that. There is no logical inconsistency between doing this and what I described above.

But I read through some of your links and I have a question:

why can’t we judge the degree to which we are morally better than others that is, our degree of distance from God?

After all, in politics, as aristotle stated, we (at least sometimes) judge to put the best (most virtuous) man in place which implies that at least sometimes, everyone else is less virtuous than he is. Also, we know that God does in fact, favor some over others so it seems that we might be able to conclude that this individual is so favored over this other (though of course the conclusion does not follow from the premise however, it is at least consistent).

 

[Bookcat]

But I read through some of your links and I have a question:

why can’t we judge the degree to which we are morally better than others that is, our degree of distance from God?
.

I would imagine in part due to not being God. We do not see others as God sees them.

 

[fakename]

I would imagine in part due to not being God. We do not see others as God sees them.

But let me object:

(1) in politics we often want to choose the best man, and by best we mean morally best. Either we are acting viciously in trying to choose good men to lead us, or we can see who is better. And to be better is to be nothing except closer to God than others.

(2) If it is true that we cannot know who is closer to God, then it is true that we cannot call other people evil, because to affirm it would be to know how close (or rather far) some people are to God. But we do correctly call some people evil and not always because it was divinely revealed that they were so. For instance, nazis, communists, HHS Mandate, etc. were/are evil and it did not take a revelation for us to know it.

But maybe my premise was wrong, perhaps we don’t judge who is closer to God because this knowledge of who is closer is in fact dependent on revelation. So really it is God who judges. But to be closer to God is to be better and to be better is to be closer to God. Surely, we cannot (or can we?) claim that we only know what is better by a revelation (for the natural law is innate).

But perhaps our knowledge of what is better is different from our knowledge of who is better. But in that case, we speak rashly when we call someone good or evil. Is this true then, that when we call someone good we only mean “good-insofar-as-we-know”?

Or perhaps we don’t judge other’s proximity to God because w/o revelation, it is possible for this particular murderer to confess his sins. But we can judge the proximity to God of abstract things like the class of all murderers as such. Is this the truth?

Are they all true?

 

[underacloud]

As Bookcat has addressed, there is a difference between judging and fraternal correction.

As for judging in the sense that you speak of, I think Jesus’ own words are sufficient:

Matthew 7: 1-5

“1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”.

You should also take lead from the great saints, all of whom considered themselves to be sinners and undeserving of God’s graces. None of them engaged in the sorts of moral comparisons that you speak of. They focussed on their own need for forgiveness, mercy, and grace, not on considering themselves any better than others.

 

[Abu]

fakename #1
People say to judge w/o arrogance.
I think that this means that if you are facing the same sin, then don’t judge the other person since you have the same problem. Also, unless you are simply good, then don’t judge people from the POV of being simply good, but at best only relatively good.
But is that a correct interpretation of not judging with arrogance or is there some additional duty RE: judgment that I’m not meeting?

Rather than what “people say” we need to listen to Christ’s Church and Her Sacred Scriptures. It is very important not to judge a person’s guilt before God as commanded (Mt 7:1-5). We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

But it is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.

Christ and His Church’s Scriptures tell us:

“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).

“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).

“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgement by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgement on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

We can’t judge according to truth by being mesmerized by others and giving them adulation, but according to the teaching of Christ’s Church, Her Tradition and Her Scriptures.

 

[NeedImprovement]

But let me object: . . .

(2) If it is true that we cannot know who is closer to God, then it is true that we cannot call other people evil, because to affirm it would be to know how close (or rather far) some people are to God. But we do correctly call some people evil and not always because it was divinely revealed that they were so. For instance, nazis, communists, HHS Mandate, etc. were/are evil and it did not take a revelation for us to know it.
. . .

I wonder if we actually do call people evil …?..

We call certain acts and intentions evil ; some intrinsically so. But usually we refer to the person(s) comitting those acts or harboring those intentions as an evil doer, rather than an evil person ; which basically makes them a sinner - just like the rest of us.

We must always judge the act , the sin , to see it for what it is. How else would we know the difference , between serious sin, between mortal and venial sin.

As far as trying to use others as our objective reference point to measure how far or close we are to God, we would be deceiving ourselves , unless, as Bookcat says , we were God.

With underacloud’s citation of our Blessed Lord’s words from Matthew 7:1-5 , and the plank in our own eye , we could further consider our Lord’s instruction recorded in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector - Luke 18:9-14

{11-14}

, , , The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity - greedy, dishonest, adulterous - or even like this tax collector.

I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

 

[DarkLight]

A practical comment here might be “Don’t assume you know what’s going on in the heart or mind of a person.” If I may use an example from my own life…when I became an atheist, many people accused me of having some secret sin in my life that I was desperately hanging on to. Often the accusation was of some sexual misconduct. Others assumed I was ignorant of the Bible or Christianity. Many people refused to consider that I might simply have thought atheism was the truth. As far as actually coming back to Christianity, I can tell you those people only served to push me further away! The people that were instrumental were the ones that were willing to discuss both of our belief systems in charity and without making assumptions.

 

[fakename]

In light of the responses I must continue to object, since they don’t really help to shed light on the situtation. Here’s my commentary on some of the comments:

“We call certain acts and intentions evil ; some intrinsically so. But usually we refer to the person(s) comitting those acts or harboring those intentions as an evil doer, rather than an evil person ; which basically makes them a sinner - just like the rest of us.”

(1) We can’t judge the person. But yet, we can judge the morality of the intention, acts, and consequences of an act. But to do this, is to be able to judge a person; for we have knowledge even of the intention. And intention is itself an act, so we in fact, we can judge everything.

Unless you meant that we can only judge our intentions, I don’t think that one can avoid the contradiction above.

The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity - greedy, dishonest, adulterous - or even like this tax collector.

I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

(2) About the parable and the relation of humility and judgment to the good man, I would say that it is the ability to judge people that makes humility possible.

Now humility means to be able to praise and accept one’s inferiority in relation to someone with a superior good. But to be able to do this obviously takes knowledge that someone else is better and that you are worse. So humility means the ability to know who is closer to God.

And indeed, how could it be said that humility requires nescience RE: who is more favored by God? For the parable of the pharisee seems to tell us that the man who regards himself humbly is better than the man who regards himself in the opposite way. But to know who is better or worse is to know who is more favored by God.

(3) And why should judgment always result in bad judgment (like our [presumably] atheist poster said)? For instance, it is humanly possible to make good character judgments, for some people are called good judges of character.

So my problem must lie in some other unexplored areas: (1) I don’t understand what “being closer to God means” (2) I don’t understand what “judging” means.

So that is why I now ask: “Does being closer to God mean possessing any moral good whatsoever or does it rather mean being good in the sense of being ‘immaculate’”?

And again: “Does judging mean to say ‘this man is good’ or does it mean to say ‘this man does good things but I don’t know in total, whether he is good or bad’”? I think that it is this latter meaning that everyone is trying to get at but I’m not sure.

 

[NeedImprovement]

This, more precisely , if you prefer (since each of us can only know the secrets of our own heart) . It may not have been worded as clearly as you wished (sorry) although reference had been made to the parable of the publican and the pharisee :

. . . Unless you meant that we can only judge our intentions, I don’t think that one can avoid the contradiction above. . . .

(2) About the parable and the relation of humility and judgment to the good man, I would say that it is the ability to judge people that makes humility possible. . . .

Perhaps some of the confusion lies in one’s sense of perception. I saw no “good man” initially in the parable of the pharisee and the Tax collector : I saw two men , both of whom were sinners:

• One was not afraid (… reticent – whatever) to admit his sin before God .
• The other did *everything but * admit his sin before God ; continuing in his hypocrisy , distorting/exaggerating his illusory self perception (which he actually believed was how God also perceived him) preferring rather , to contrast his positive attributes against the sins of others . . .

. . . Now humility means to be able to praise and accept one’s inferiority in relation to someone with a superior good. But to be able to do this obviously takes knowledge that someone else is better and that you are worse. So humility means the ability to know who is closer to God.

And indeed, how could it be said that humility requires nescience RE: who is more favored by God? For the parable of the pharisee seems to tell us that the man who regards himself humbly is better than the man who regards himself in the opposite way. But to know who is better or worse is to know who is more favored by God.

I believe Father John Hardon S.J.’s definition of humility is a good working one( both ensuing definitions are quoted from Fr. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary ) Moral humility tends to focus on creaturely equality with others; as opposed to disparity.

HUMILITY. The moral virtue that keeps a person from reaching beyond himself. It is the virtue that restrains the unruly desire for personal greatness and leads people to an orderly love of themselves based on a true appreciation of their position with respect to God and their neighbors. Religious humility recognizes one’s total dependence on God; moral humility recognizes one’s creaturely equality with others. Yet humility is not only opposed to pride; it is also opposed to immoderate self-abjection, which would fail to recognize God’s gifts and use them according to his will. (Etym. Latin humilitas, abasement, humility, from humus, ground.)

I saw no mention of humility requiring nescience . Actually Father Hardon asserts that nescience falls more along the lines of agnosticism.

NESCIENCE. A state of ignorance, especially such as an agnostic professes. It is therefore ignorance based on a theory, notably that a human being cannot attain to any (or at least certain) knowledge of God. (Etym. Latin ne-, not + scire, to know: nescientia.)

How close or far we are from God, as this may relate to others, would best be expressed in the manner that we would love and respect each of them, and in the manner that we love and respect the truth.

The only part that should really matter to us, right down to our innermost being , is how close we are to God. If we want to be close to God, then we must readily admit our own sins.

Once the prodigal son admitted his sins, see how close he was to God :

Luke 15:20 [NAB]

So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.

And it gets better. Once we admit our own sins, as Catholics we not only can be close to God, but we are further invited to become intimate with Him in Holy Communion :

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1382

1382 The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.


Closeness to God is attainable and is never meant to be complicated for us.

 

[fakename]

The moral virtue that keeps a person from reaching beyond himself. It is the virtue that restrains the unruly desire for personal greatness and leads people to an orderly love of themselves based on a true appreciation of their position with respect to God and their neighbors. Religious humility recognizes one’s total dependence on God; moral humility recognizes one’s creaturely equality with others. Yet humility is not only opposed to pride; it is also opposed to immoderate self-abjection, which would fail to recognize God’s gifts and use them according to his will. (Etym. Latin humilitas, abasement, humility, from humus, ground.)

A good definition but one that does not interfere with this one: “The virtue of humility”, he says, “Consists in keeping oneself within one’s own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one’s superior”

That is, to know who is superior and to submit to him because of this superiority.

I’m just saying, that when one has the virtue or excellence of humility, then the cat is out-of-the-bag as far as who is better and who is worse so that there is no question of judgment. Since it is a virtue, it follows that the person who has it is ceteris paribus, better than he who doesn’t. And also, God does not possess the virtue of humility properly, since he has no superior, so God . Of course this brings up the question of whether someone is truly humble who declares that he is “a million times humbler than you are!” but that’s a question for another day.

So why do we only judge the act and not the intention of others again? I think it is because we cannot know their intentions all the time?

 

[underacloud]

A good definition but one that does not interfere with this one: “The virtue of humility”, he says, “Consists in keeping oneself within one’s own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one’s superior”

That is, to know who is superior and to submit to him because of this superiority.

I don’t think this is the correct way to interpret “superior”. A superior is someone higher in a hierarchy (say family, church, society) who has authority to teach, guide, and correct you. Your parents when you are growing up. Your priest and other clergy. Your teachers at school. A policeman. Etc.

These people are not suprior to you in that they are closer to God. They are superior in that they are in a position above you.

Let’s again take the example of the saints. Many of them took on spiritual advisors. These were thereby their superiors in a sense that they advised them, guided them, heard confessions, etc. Many saints obeyed their spiritual advisors as a pure practice of obedience, for obedience sake, rather than on the basis that their advisor was any better than they were, or even that the advice itself was any good. God alone can judge whether a given saint was any more or less good than their spiritual advisor.

In the same way, there are people in each of our lives who are our superiors, but that does not mean they are better or closer to God on that basis.

 

[fakename]

I don’t think this is the correct way to interpret “superior”. A superior is someone higher in a hierarchy (say family, church, society) who has authority to teach, guide, and correct you. Your parents when you are growing up. Your priest and other clergy. Your teachers at school. A policeman. Etc.

These people are not suprior to you in that they are closer to God. They are superior in that they are in a position above you.

Let’s again take the example of the saints. Many of them took on spiritual advisors. These were thereby their superiors in a sense that they advised them, guided them, heard confessions, etc. Many saints obeyed their spiritual advisors as a pure practice of obedience, for obedience sake, rather than on the basis that their advisor was any better than they were, or even that the advice itself was any good. God alone can judge whether a given saint was any more or less good than their spiritual advisor.

In the same way, there are people in each of our lives who are our superiors, but that does not mean they are better or closer to God on that basis.

well that’s a plausible enough interpretation. I still think that the example of politics still needs some response (why people want to be governed by the best as opposed to the worst men).

Is it okay to say that “everything being equal” this guy is better than this guy?

 

[underacloud]

When judging politicians, what we’re really doing is assessing who the best person for a given job is. It’s not a moral judgement, it’s an assessment of credentials for a job, although of course their moral standing may be relevant to that assessment.

I suppose there are occasions in life when we need to judge, as best we can, the moral goodness of other people. For example, in discerning marriage we want to marry someone who is as morally good as possible. It is even entirely appropriate to reject potential spouses on the basis of their morals. Or in finding a regular confessor, we may judge that a certain priest seems to be more morally upright than others.

But once again, the judgement is really an assessment that is needed in determining a person’s credentials. It’s not a judgement of who is closer to God or who is a better person (as opposed to who is a better spouse, or confessor, or politician). Moreover, we’re judging their morality in a practical sense, not in the sense of assuming anything regarding their intentions. We’re not judging who is closer to God, or who is better or worse than we are. We are assessing credentials for a definite purpose. In terms of who is closer to God, and eventually who does or doesn’t enter heaven, that is for God alone to judge, and I’m still not sure why you want to get involved in such.

 

[fakename]

When judging politicians, what we’re really doing is assessing who the best person for a given job is. It’s not a moral judgement, it’s an assessment of credentials for a job, although of course their moral standing may be relevant to that assessment.

I suppose there are occasions in life when we need to judge, as best we can, the moral goodness of other people. For example, in discerning marriage we want to marry someone who is as morally good as possible. It is even entirely appropriate to reject potential spouses on the basis of their morals. Or in finding a regular confessor, we may judge that a certain priest seems to be more morally upright than others.

But once again, the judgement is really an assessment that is needed in determining a person’s credentials. It’s not a judgement of who is closer to God or who is a better person (as opposed to who is a better spouse, or confessor, or politician). Moreover, we’re judging their morality in a practical sense, not in the sense of assuming anything regarding their intentions. We’re not judging who is closer to God, or who is better or worse than we are. We are assessing credentials for a definite purpose. In terms of who is closer to God, and eventually who does or doesn’t enter heaven, that is for God alone to judge, and I’m still not sure why you want to get involved in such.

For the sake of logical consistency and logical inference (that’s the reason why I ask right now), it seems from what you say, though, that we can infer that “everything being equal” this one person is better or not “as far as we know”. That is, when we judge anyone’s acts (in choosing a wife for instance), we mean to judge that if they are what we see, then they are that good/bad according to how we see them. And if someone is good or bad, just in that case then, they are closer/farther from God. And we are not saying that they are actually better but only that if they are as we judge them, then they are really better/worse, etc. The hypothetical conclusion seems inescapable.

So we judge, as far as we can judge, that people are closer/further from God, correct?
But why stop there? The intentions themselves are acts, so these too can be judged unless of course, intentions are simply unobservable by us. But yet, we find that sometimes people appraise us of their intentions, for on the opposite assumption then it follows that democracy would be impossible. So we can know others intentions in some sense, and if so, then we can judge them better? Unless somehow, what you mean by “intention” is different from mine?

 

[underacloud]

For the sake of logical consistency and logical inference (that’s the reason why I ask right now), it seems from what you say, though, that we can infer that “everything being equal” this one person is better or not “as far as we know”. That is, when we judge anyone’s acts (in choosing a wife for instance), we mean to judge that if they are what we see, then they are that good/bad according to how we see them. And if someone is good or bad, just in that case then, they are closer/farther from God. And we are not saying that they are actually better but only that if they are as we judge them, then they are really better/worse, etc. The hypothetical conclusion seems inescapable.

I think you go too far and infer too much.

Firstly, we judge their actions as being good or bad, not them. This is important. If we judge someone as to whether they are suitable as a spouse, priest, politician, etc, we are interested in how they will act in that role. We are predicting as best we can their future actions based on past actions.

Secondly, I see no reason and no biblical/theological basis for judging people as good or bad. That is for God alone to judge.

Thirdly, I don’t understand from where you derive the notion of closer/further from God. In the bible, Jesus rebuked those who asked to be seated next to Him. Generally, the bible talks about being with God or against Him, or being righteous or a sinner. Or going to heaven or hell.

Fourthly, you do not need to judge yourself against others, but against the moral laws that God has provided through natural law, revelation, and the teaching of His Church. God has provided all the information neccessary to navigate our way through this life safely into the next. Being close to God is a relationship involving you and He. It may definitely benefit from following the positive example of the saints, who we know have received their salvation. We may judge that the saints were close to God (at least eventually) and wish to follow their examples. But I don’t see how it can benefit from judging that we are better than others. This leads to pride, and as addressed earlier it was the tax-collector who was right with God when he prayed ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner’, not the proud Pharisee.

So we judge, as far as we can judge, that people are closer/further from God, correct?
But why stop there? The intentions themselves are acts, so these too can be judged unless of course, intentions are simply unobservable by us. But yet, we find that sometimes people appraise us of their intentions, for on the opposite assumption then it follows that democracy would be impossible. So we can know others intentions in some sense, and if so, then we can judge them better? Unless somehow, what you mean by “intention” is different from mine?

Unless you are a mind reader or they tell you, you cannot know a person’s intentions. Even if you may think it reasonable to infer an intention, we are instructed to always assume as much as possible that a person’s intentions are good.

 

[Abu]

fakename #16
when we judge anyone’s acts (in choosing a wife for instance), we mean to judge that if they are what we see, then they are that good/bad according to how we see them.
if someone is good or bad, just in that case then, they are closer/farther from God.
The intentions themselves are acts, so these too can be judged unless of course, intentions are simply unobservable by us.

Intentions are not acts.
A saying attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) is “Hell is full of good intentions or desires.”
When good intentions are actually translated into good acts they become meritorious.

We may not judge motives, intentions, and guilt before God but are commanded to judge actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth. See post #7.

 

[fakename]

user "underacloud":

I think you go too far and infer too much.

Firstly, we judge their actions as being good or bad, not them. This is important. If we judge someone as to whether they are suitable as a spouse, priest, politician, etc, we are interested in how they will act in that role. We are predicting as best we can their future actions based on past actions.

Secondly, I see no reason and no biblical/theological basis for judging people as good or bad. That is for God alone to judge.

Thirdly, I don’t understand from where you derive the notion of closer/further from God. In the bible, Jesus rebuked those who asked to be seated next to Him. Generally, the bible talks about being with God or against Him, or being righteous or a sinner. Or going to heaven or hell.

Fourthly, you do not need to judge yourself against others, but against the moral laws that God has provided through natural law, revelation, and the teaching of His Church. God has provided all the information neccessary to navigate our way through this life safely into the next. Being close to God is a relationship involving you and He. It may definitely benefit from following the positive example of the saints, who we know have received their salvation. We may judge that the saints were close to God (at least eventually) and wish to follow their examples. But I don’t see how it can benefit from judging that we are better than others. This leads to pride, and as addressed earlier it was the tax-collector who was right with God when he prayed ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner’, not the proud Pharisee.

(1) what do you mean by actions? It seems that the word actions, in the above post, doesn’t have any connection with what can be thought of as a person’s character. That is, from an act, we can’t infer anything about a person’s character since to make such a judgment would cause us to know that person’s intentions and to thereby render it an object of future evaluation possibly. And so, the idea that one can never judge someone’s intentions is contradicted.

It seems implausible though, that actions should afford no view into a person’s intentions or character (how good or bad they are). First, because we often try to defend a person’s honor or reputation and we punish slander and such. But if we knew nothing of a person’s intentions from their acts, then a person’s actions could not garner that person a reputation, and so we could never call anyone deserving of honor or dishonor, which is impossible and it would be absurd to say that a reputation belongs to a person’s actions and not to the person itself; for then an action (a non-moral agent which probably doesn’t even exist except for the person acting) would be capable of deserving dishonor or honor.

Indeed, it is important to judge others for then, who would you know to rightfully honor or dishonor?

(3) The notion of proximity to God is based on the traditional idea that God loves people unequally. If that is true, then it follows that some people are closer to him than others for one is closer in proportion as one is beloved.

(4) If you say that people can make their intentions known (and since all known things can be judged correctly) then at least sometimes a person’s intentions (and so his character) can be assessed so that it is untrue that “one can never judge”.

(5) Now it may very well be that intentions are not acts. But I’ll ask this question: if intentions are not acts, then how can be judged on them? For to even intend to commit adultery is adultery and we can be punished for it. But if it is not even an act, it can hardly be punishable. Also, this equation between intentions and acts is all under a part of the ten commandments. But the commandments are summaries of the natural law. But natural law is discoverable by reason. So it follows that the intention=acts expression which exists in a part of the natural law, is clearly derivable from human thought. So it happens that to judge intentions (and by extension people) is a matter for human thought. So God cannot be the sole judge nor could it be said that “no one can ever judge”.

I’m sorry for being so “uncompromising” but I think that the answers continue to run afoul contradictions in other parts of morality. So can actions belong to the class of things which indicate character? Are intentions actions? Perhaps some are and some aren’t, etc?

 

[fakename]

I think you go too far and infer too much.

Firstly, we judge their actions as being good or bad, not them. This is important. If we judge someone as to whether they are suitable as a spouse, priest, politician, etc, we are interested in how they will act in that role. We are predicting as best we can their future actions based on past actions.

Secondly, I see no reason and no biblical/theological basis for judging people as good or bad. That is for God alone to judge.

Thirdly, I don’t understand from where you derive the notion of closer/further from God. In the bible, Jesus rebuked those who asked to be seated next to Him. Generally, the bible talks about being with God or against Him, or being righteous or a sinner. Or going to heaven or hell.

Fourthly, you do not need to judge yourself against others, but against the moral laws that God has provided through natural law, revelation, and the teaching of His Church. God has provided all the information neccessary to navigate our way through this life safely into the next. Being close to God is a relationship involving you and He. It may definitely benefit from following the positive example of the saints, who we know have received their salvation. We may judge that the saints were close to God (at least eventually) and wish to follow their examples. But I don’t see how it can benefit from judging that we are better than others. This leads to pride, and as addressed earlier it was the tax-collector who was right with God when he prayed ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner’, not the proud Pharisee.

(1) what do you mean by actions? It seems that the word actions, in the above post, doesn’t have any connection with what can be thought of as a person’s character. That is, from an act, we can’t infer anything about a person’s character since to make such a judgment would cause us to know that person’s intentions and to thereby render it an object of future evaluation possibly. And so, the idea that one can never judge someone’s intentions is contradicted.

It seems implausible though, that actions should afford no view into a person’s intentions or character (how good or bad they are). First, because we often try to defend a person’s honor or reputation and we punish slander and such. But if we knew nothing of a person’s intentions from their acts, then a person’s actions could not garner that person a reputation, and so we could never call anyone deserving of honor or dishonor, which is impossible and it would be absurd to say that a reputation belongs to a person’s actions and not to the person itself; for then an action (a non-moral agent which probably doesn’t even exist except for the person acting) would be capable of deserving dishonor or honor.

Indeed, it is important to judge others for then, who would you know to rightfully honor or dishonor?

(3) The notion of proximity to God is based on the traditional idea that God loves people unequally. If that is true, then it follows that some people are closer to him than others for one is closer in proportion as one is beloved.

(4) If you say that people can make their intentions known (and since all known things can be judged correctly) then at least sometimes a person’s intentions (and so his character) can be assessed so that it is untrue that “one can never judge”.

(5) Now it may very well be that intentions are not acts. But I’ll ask this question: if intentions are not acts, then how can be judged on them? For to even intend to commit adultery is adultery and we can be punished for it. But if it is not even an act, it can hardly be punishable. Also, this equation between intentions and acts is all under a part of the ten commandments. But the commandments are summaries of the natural law. But natural law is discoverable by reason. So it follows that the intention=acts expression which exists in a part of the natural law, is clearly derivable from human thought. So it happens that to judge intentions (and by extension people) is a matter for human thought. So God cannot be the sole judge nor could it be said that “no one can ever judge”. (This could very well be the biblical proof that underacloud is looking for).

I’m sorry for being so “uncompromising” but I think that the answers continue to run afoul contradictions in other parts of morality. So can actions belong to the class of things which indicate character? Are intentions actions? Perhaps some are and some aren’t, etc?