Judgmental Catholics

[gardenswithkids]

mhansen:

That being said, either the job of “rebuking” is for the Church ONLY, NOT the layman, or we ALL have the power to loose and bind, since these two topics follow each other in succession in the same passage.

That is an excellent point, and might also be applied to I Corinthians 5, where St. Paul, (a bishop) was writing to a church about a specific situation.

As pointed out we need to deal lovingly with others, and allowing (and supporting) the Church in correcting them may be the best way to do this lovingly.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mhansen:

That being said, either the job of “rebuking” is for the Church ONLY, NOT the layman, or we ALL have the power to loose and bind, since these two topics follow each other in succession in the same passage. It would be ridiculous to assume that Jesus spoke to all of us only up to verse 17, and then only to the disciples in verse 18.

I’ve noticed this, too. Methinks each of us has the power to loose and bind in our hearts, and part of our problem is we get our hearts all bound up with judging others. The problem is such judgment then is reflected back to us, because it takes one to know one. So the Church may not judge us, but like I heard one country song I think it was something like, “God may forgive you but I don’t”

This is what I think of when people gang up and ask why the Vatican doesn’t discipline some bishop for this or that apparent shortcoming.

Alan

 

[ncjohn]

AlanFromWichita:

Methinks each of us has the power to loose and bind in our hearts, and part of our problem is we get our hearts all bound up with judging others. The problem is such judgment then is reflected back to us, because it takes one to know one.

Very true! Because it is so hard for us to forgive, we also find it hard to accept forgiveness, most often realizing we don’t “deserve” it. And thus we do end up bound by other’s refusal to forgive us, and in our pain we refuse to forgive our brother, and the cycle goes on and on…

We can’t “earn” forgiveness any more than we can earn grace. It is unconditionally given and received. We must learn to forgive others (and ourselves!) “seventy times seven.” That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t repent, or that we shouldn’t try to correct situations where we have hurt someone–it only means that our ability and responsibility to forgive those who hurt us can’t be dependent on that. I guess that’s what makes it so hard!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Many thoughtful and interesting remarks as to answering the question of this thread.

Thank you for making the distinction between admonishing and judging. Christ admonishes quite often … Peter most often being the beneficiary. This is not quite the same as judging a person guilty of a crime and administering punishment of some sort … even the punishment of being ostracized that Paul recommends to the chronic sinners.

NC raised this scripture:

“Do not speak evil of one another, brothers. Whoever speaks evil of a brother or judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law. If you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?” James 4: 11-12.

Now I ask how this admonishing from James would have or should have played out with the American bishops regarding the scandal of pedophile priests. Were the bishops being obedient to the advice of James, refusing to judge “evil” priests reported to be molesting children … passing them on from parish to parish … from child to child, because they were afraid to judge lest they be judged? Was it because of James that they were afraid to judge their priests and strip them of their Roman collars and their opportunities to victimize children in the guise of Christ who loved children so much?

What does zero tolerance mean if it does not mean that a judgment has been passed and will be strictly enforced?

 

[mhansen]

Gilbert Keith:

Now I ask how this admonishing from James would have or should have played out with the American bishops regarding the scandal of pedophile priests. Were the bishops being obedient to the advice of James, refusing to judge “evil” priests reported to be molesting children … passing them on from parish to parish … from child to child, because they were afraid to judge lest they be judged? Was it because of James that they were afraid to judge their priests and strip them of their Roman collars and their opportunities to victimize children in the guise of Christ who loved children so much?

What does zero tolerance mean if it does not mean that a judgment has been passed and will be strictly enforced?

A good question, but one you’d probably have to ask the bishops. I don’t purport to know what went on “behind the scenes”, so any answer I have would be pure speculation. Unfortunately, we may never know their true motives.

As for “zero tolerance”, I suspect that you mean in regard to matters of law and crime. This is an entirely different subject, as we have governments and authorities whose job it is to judge criminals and criminal activities. However, I don’t think crime is what we’re discussing here. Either way, that’s a governmental authority issue, and not an issue of individual Catholic laypeople judging the sins and/or shortcomings (which MAY include crimes, but usually doesn’t) of others. One can certainly argue that God instituted “government” (kings, judges) since Old Testament times for this purpose (among others).

Mike

 

[Coder]

I think a key thing to understand about 1 Corinthians 5:10 is that those who claim to be Catholics must not scandalize the faith by implying that immoral behavior is normal for a Catholic. This misrepresents the faith to others.

Mark 9:42-43 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off…”

Mark 9:43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. "
1 Corinthians 5:13: “Purge the evil person from your midst.”

Is there a connection?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Gilbert Keith:

What does zero tolerance mean if it does not mean that a judgment has been passed and will be strictly enforced?

I wish, like Mike suggested, this was just in the political scene, along with such other nuggets of Superior Moral Wisdom such as “three strikes and you’re out.”

Unfortunately, I have heard Catholics authority figures use “zero tolerance” as if it were a badge they could wear to prove they run a tight ship.

To me, in a Catholic institution, “zero tolerance” has been used to mean teachers must not deviate from Church teachings, or it can mean that We Don’t Do Forgiveness Here. I think this phrase became popular mostly during the War On Drugs. They had a perfectly good anti-peer pressure slogan “it’s OK to just say no” to help children think they didn’t have to have an excuse not to join their friends. Of course it soon became politically expedient for law makers to put on shining armor and save the day, charging in with the slightly new slogan, “just say no, or else.” To me that took the best part of the drug war, and turned it into a double-dog-dare that few kids can resist.

Tough Love. There’s another one that once had some merit but is abused to itself excuse abuse, neglect, abdication of authority, and silly power struggles.

That’s the problem with catchy slogans. They’re easy to remember, but they’re so often BS disguised as wisdom, especially once they’ve been around long enough that the Loud Mouths of Society attach alternative meaning to them.

Imagine how gullible we must be; Dr. Pepper commercials advertised you should “be a Pepper” to be among the most original, so they wanted to use bandwagon advertising to invite you to be a non-conformist by means of conforming. Sound about like ear piercing. Show nonconformity by conforming to the appropriate nonconformity guidelines.

Alan

 

[buffalo]

If a person admonishes or judges my behavior as being wrong I have two options. I can reject it completely because of his manner or tone. If it is the Truth what does it matter how I hear it? Once I hear it should I reject it and face eternity in hell? Seems like that would be very counterproductive.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

If you do not ‘judge’ people, how do you recommend someone for an important job? How do you not recommend an incompetent for a promotion if you don’t judge. What if you lose a promotion because your judgement had been questioned by a superior for promoting an incompetent person to an important position and he caused some irreperable damage? Just like war, sometimes judging a person is an ugly necessity?

 

[felra]

buffalo:

If a person admonishes or judges my behavior as being wrong I have two options. I can reject it completely because of his manner or tone. If it is the Truth what does it matter how I hear it? Once I hear it should I reject it and face eternity in hell? Seems like that would be very counterproductive.

Yes, for some folks, their emotional and psychological wounds strictly filter (as way of self protection) any critical or contrary (name removed by moderator)ut. These souls are truly wounded folks in need of kid gloves (and likely pastoral and/or professional help) and I suspect are very much a minority.

For the rest, in varying degrees, choose to focus on their perceived/fabricated offensiveness of the messenger and choose not to hear the message (and allow the Holy Spirit to convict them). Why is this I ponder? Perhaps a thin skin. Perhaps do not like getting hand caught in the cookie jar. Perhaps have been snagged by a “this world” (secular/pagan) mentality. Perhaps honestly does not want to quit sinning. Perhaps have a personal agenda that is anti-Gospel. Perhaps …

Whatever there reason, the solution for them would be sensitivity and retracting training for those pronouncing the Truth: spread the corn flakes, put on the cushy slippers, take one cautious step then freeze, peruse the audience for objections, finger up in the air testing for any tension, then proceed next step. This is a silly exaggeration, but operationally this is what some folks would have me do to avoid the perception/accusation of being judgmental. I am all for a balanced presentation (mercy and justice) of the Gospel, but how can the Truth speak if to the sinner if it is not unabashedly announced?

Okay, let me get my tomatoe shield out now.

 

[ncjohn]

Bobby A. Greene:

If you do not ‘judge’ people, how do you recommend someone for an important job? How do you not recommend an incompetent for a promotion if you don’t judge. What if you lose a promotion because your judgement had been questioned by a superior for promoting an incompetent person to an important position and he caused some irreperable damage? Just like war, sometimes judging a person is an ugly necessity?

I don’t think those kinds of situations are what this thread is addressing. Of course we have to make judgments every day as has been noted. What we are not called to do is to be judging the state of someone’s heart or soul, in effect proclaiming them to be unworthy before God.

That doesn’t mean we don’t deal with the outer maifestations of sin or evil; it just means that we do so lovingly without condemning the person, who is also made in the image of God just as we are, and struggles just as we do.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

I sense very strongly that the refusal to judge, to call a thing wrong when it is wrong, and to call those people wrong who are wrong, is very much at the heart of what has made ours a relativist culture … a culture in which it has become politically incorrect, as the Kennedys and Cuomos of the world would have it, to judge abortionists as evil doers, to judge a homosexual marriage as a perverse mockery of traditional marriage, and for bishops to rip the Roman collars from the necks of perverse child molesters.

If that makes me a judgmental Catholic … you may judge me such. I’m really tired of the wimpy morality that nowadays calls itself Catholic and Christlike. The sooner we confront evildoers with their evildoing, the sooner real dialogue with them will begin, and the sooner we will have a chance to air the mystery of evil in all public forums and get people to start thinking differently about judgment … including the way we judge ourselves, which ought to be as harsh and, if possible, harsher than the way we judge others.

 

[ncjohn]

felra:

Yes, for some folks, their emotional and psychological wounds strictly filter (as way of self protection) any critical or contrary (name removed by moderator)ut. These souls are truly wounded folks in need of kid gloves (and likely pastoral and/or professional help) and I suspect are very much a minority.

For the rest, in varying degrees, choose to focus on their perceived/fabricated offensiveness of the messenger and choose not to hear the message (and allow the Holy Spirit to convict them). Why is this I ponder? Perhaps a thin skin. Perhaps do not like getting hand caught in the cookie jar. Perhaps have been snagged by a “this world” (secular/pagan) mentality. Perhaps honestly does not want to quit sinning. Perhaps have a personal agenda that is anti-Gospel. Perhaps …

Whatever there reason, the solution for them would be sensitivity and retracting training for those pronouncing the Truth: spread the corn flakes, put on the cushy slippers, take one cautious step then freeze, peruse the audience for objections, finger up in the air testing for any tension, then proceed next step. This is a silly exaggeration, but operationally this is what some folks would have me do to avoid the perception/accusation of being judgmental. I am all for a balanced presentation (mercy and justice) of the Gospel, but how can the Truth speak if to the sinner if it is not unabashedly announced?

Okay, let me get my tomatoe shield out now.

Let me throw out a hypothetical situation. Which kind of boss would you prefer to work for, and which is going to be most likely to not only get your attention, but inspire you to do a better job: one who comes to you when you have a substandard effort and notes how that is out of character and wants to see you do better and reach your potential; or one who day in and day out blasts everyone for anything that goes wrong, but never has anything positive to contribute to the situation.

As human beings, we respond to people who appear to have our best interests at heart. When they do, they have credibility with us and can even get away with pointing out the negative because of that. That takes time, lots of effort, and an overall loving intention to accomplish however.

On the other hand, we do not respond well to people who do not seem to have our best interests at heart, or who have not established the credibility that allows them to insert the negative perception. Even if I am doing nothing more than trying to point out the truth to someone, if I come across as a “know it all”, which implies that they are therefore LESS intelligent, I am not going to get my point across.

I don’t think it has anything to do with obstinacy. It has to do with how the messenger is perceived and how we have been culturally conditioned to accept a particular message. I don’t think it is a “choice” not to accept the messenger; it’s more a choice on the part of the messenger whether they are presenting the message to really be helpful, or to reinforce their own “righteousness.” I have found some of both here and can tell you from experience that these are the ways I tend to react, which means I may sometimes reject a good message to my detriment. The old saying about catching more flies with honey than you do with vinegar is just as true here as anywhere else. The Truth is sweet, so why make it taste bitter?

 

[buffalo]

ncjohn:

Let me throw out a hypothetical situation. Which kind of boss would you prefer to work for, and which is going to be most likely to not only get your attention, but inspire you to do a better job: one who comes to you when you have a substandard effort and notes how that is out of character and wants to see you do better and reach your potential; or one who day in and day out blasts everyone for anything that goes wrong, but never has anything positive to contribute to the situation.

As human beings, we respond to people who appear to have our best interests at heart. When they do, they have credibility with us and can even get away with pointing out the negative because of that. That takes time, lots of effort, and an overall loving intention to accomplish however.

On the other hand, we do not respond well to people who do not seem to have our best interests at heart, or who have not established the credibility that allows them to insert the negative perception. Even if I am doing nothing more than trying to point out the truth to someone, if I come across as a “know it all”, which implies that they are therefore LESS intelligent, I am not going to get my point across.

I don’t think it has anything to do with obstinacy. It has to do with how the messenger is perceived and how we have been culturally conditioned to accept a particular message. I don’t think it is a “choice” not to accept the messenger; it’s more a choice on the part of the messenger whether they are presenting the message to really be helpful, or to reinforce their own “righteousness.” I have found some of both here and can tell you from experience that these are the ways I tend to react, which means I may sometimes reject a good message to my detriment. The old saying about catching more flies with honey than you do with vinegar is just as true here as anywhere else. The Truth is sweet, so why make it taste bitter?

Would concern for their soul getting to heaven be in their best interests? Of course it would. Is God trying to catch more flies with honey? Is the Truth hard to swallow? You bet it is!

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

Let me throw out a hypothetical situation. Which kind of boss would you prefer to work for, and which is going to be most likely to not only get your attention, but inspire you to do a better job: one who comes to you when you have a substandard effort and notes how that is out of character and wants to see you do better and reach your potential; or one who day in and day out blasts everyone for anything that goes wrong, but never has anything positive to contribute to the situation.

As human beings, we respond to people who appear to have our best interests at heart. When they do, they have credibility with us and can even get away with pointing out the negative because of that. That takes time, lots of effort, and an overall loving intention to accomplish however.

On the other hand, we do not respond well to people who do not seem to have our best interests at heart, or who have not established the credibility that allows them to insert the negative perception. Even if I am doing nothing more than trying to point out the truth to someone, if I come across as a “know it all”, which implies that they are therefore LESS intelligent, I am not going to get my point across.

I don’t think it has anything to do with obstinacy. It has to do with how the messenger is perceived and how we have been culturally conditioned to accept a particular message. I don’t think it is a “choice” not to accept the messenger; it’s more a choice on the part of the messenger whether they are presenting the message to really be helpful, or to reinforce their own “righteousness.” I have found some of both here and can tell you from experience that these are the ways I tend to react, which means I may sometimes reject a good message to my detriment. The old saying about catching more flies with honey than you do with vinegar is just as true here as anywhere else. The Truth is sweet, so why make it taste bitter?

Take a look at Canada right now. Even quoting the bible may be considered hate speech. In our public discourse even discussing CC teaching in a reasoned way is called homophobic, sexist, intolerant and such.

The times are such that we have been conditioned into a distorted way of perceiving every moral teaching as judgmental. The issue is not that those who speak of virtue are overly demanding or “negative”, but the issue is that those who listen are too self righteous to hear the truth, or more aptly, they refuse to hear the truth because it would mean changing the way they lead their lives, so they charge the speaker with intolerance or judgmentalism.

 

[fix]

felra:

Whatever there reason, the solution for them would be sensitivity and retracting training for those pronouncing the Truth: spread the corn flakes, put on the cushy slippers, take one cautious step then freeze, peruse the audience for objections, finger up in the air testing for any tension, then proceed next step.

In many circles this would be classified as compassion.

 

[ncjohn]

buffalo:

Would concern for their soul getting to heaven be in their best interests? Of course it would. Is God trying to catch more flies with honey? Is the Truth hard to swallow? You bet it is!

That concern is critical but how we present it is going to make a HUGE difference in how people accept it. That’s the whole point. I am no better than you, nor are you any better than me–as we “all sin and fall short of the glory of God”–so for either of us to be acting as if we are is to set ourselves up as God.

As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s not about not confronting evil; it is in whether we think we are capable of judging the *heart and soul * of the person. Only God can do that. The only part we can do is to lovingly offer to help them carry their cross.

Maybe you truly are way further along on the journey than I am, and truly are capable of reading other people’s hearts, and truly do possess the whole Truth. It still won’t help unless you’re perceived as being willing to help rather than just stand back and point out the problem. Unfortunately, the bulk of people, including Catholics, are willing to do just that.

 

[felra]

That takes time, lots of effort, and an overall loving intention to accomplish however. …if I come across as a “know it all”, which implies that they are therefore LESS intelligent, I am not going to get my point across

Yes, the relationship and being respectful of the Christ in each other is key to getting the message across.

I don’t think it has anything to do with obstinacy. …I don’t think it is a “choice” not to accept the messenger; it’s more a choice on the part of the messenger whether they are presenting the message to really be helpful, or to reinforce their own “righteousness.”

Uhmmm …(cough, cough), I differ with you across the great divide on this point. As I pondered myself, some folks simply not ready, do not want, or are openly antagonistic to the Truth being presented to them. No amount of tactfulness of schmoozing will assist them to “choose” to hear the message.

The old saying about catching more flies with honey than you do with vinegar is just as true here as anywhere else. The Truth is sweet, so why make it taste bitter?

The truth is not always initially sweet to the palate of one practicing/living in sin. Under docility to the Spirit, there comes a time to deliver the medicine. Like insistent children or a rebellious teenager, some folks will keep reaching only for the sugar and pushing aside the lemon.

 

[buffalo]

ncjohn:

That concern is critical but how we present it is going to make a HUGE difference in how people accept it. That’s the whole point. I am no better than you, nor are you any better than me–as we “all sin and fall short of the glory of God”–so for either of us to be acting as if we are is to set ourselves up as God.

As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s not about not confronting evil; it is in whether we think we are capable of judging the *heart and soul * of the person. Only God can do that. The only part we can do is to lovingly offer to help them carry their cross.

Maybe you truly are way further along on the journey than I am, and truly are capable of reading other people’s hearts, and truly do possess the whole Truth. It still won’t help unless you’re perceived as being willing to help rather than just stand back and point out the problem. Unfortunately, the bulk of people, including Catholics, are willing to do just that.

In some ways you are correct.

I simply try to transmit the true Church teachings, which I am convinced many are hearing for the first time. It is not by my authority, but God’s, therefore it is pointless to argue with me for I am just the messenger. (Don’t shoot me!)

I think problems arise when the teachings are presented as one of many opinions that one can choose from.

 

[felra]

Maybe you truly are way further along on the journey than I am, and truly are capable of reading other people’s hearts, and truly do possess the whole Truth.

It is more a matter of being taken possesion of by the Truth than possessing the Truth, and proclaiming the Truth that is Jesus Christ. Not so much a matter of who is further along the journey.

It still won’t help unless you’re perceived as being willing to help rather than just stand back and point out the problem.

Maybe we would all do better to let Christ worry about the perception problem, and focus more about living and proclaiming the Gospel mesage.

Unfortunately, the bulk of people, including Catholics, are willing to do just that.

I agree, there is a requisite place for ministering to the person caught, struggling in sin, otherwise you become that noisy gong that St. Paul speaks of.