Judgmental Catholics

[ncjohn]

fix:

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.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. I think the issue here is exactly that many people are condescending, overly demanding, and intolerant and that those who are do not get their message across exactly because of that, NOT because their message is necessarily wrong or their intentions are bad.

Maybe you’ve having great success with beating people into submission with the Bible and the CCC and an overwhelming knowledge of the Truth. I’m certainly not going to claim that that is impossible.

I’ve successfully raised two adult children as faithful, practicing Catholics using my approach, and have worked with people in RCIA and just general discussion groups without ever having been declared “judgmental” for proclaiming virtue, the Truth, or Catholic teaching–at least not that I’m aware of. I have similarly not found that people whom I’ve lovingly explained things to get self-righteous or start blaming me for pointing something out. Most people, if they are truly on any kind of journey are lookiing for the Truth, and will accept it if they recognize it, even if they recognize how hard it is to live it. God has built us that way, and Jesus himself taught us that way, with respect and humility. I’m certainly not going to claim that I can magically change people’s minds or that everyone I talk to comes to an “aha” revelation of the truth on the spot, but at the same time, I’ve not had them walk away in disgust and just ignore what I had to say later either.

My way has worked well for me, and my experience with other people employing it has been positive. If your way works for you, then to God be the glory. The harvest is His and He will bring it about according to His will.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

I think the issue here is exactly that many people are condescending, overly demanding, and intolerant and that those who are do not get their message across exactly because of that, NOT because their message is necessarily wrong or their intentions are bad

Really? I see few who exhibit those character flaws. I see many who are lukewarm, some who spread error and many who confuse charity with being polictally correct.

Maybe you’ve having great success with beating people into submission with the Bible and the CCC and an overwhelming knowledge of the Truth. I’m certainly not going to claim that that is impossible.

Why do you exaggerate the issue? Who has championed beating anyone into submission?

I’ve successfully raised two adult children as faithful, practicing Catholics using my approach, and have worked with people in RCIA and just general discussion groups without ever having been declared “judgmental” for proclaiming virtue, the Truth, or Catholic teaching–at least not that I’m aware of.

I am glad for your experience, but that in no way invalidates other folks experience. It is not an either/or approach. Circumstances vary and one’s approach will also vary.

I have similarly not found that people whom I’ve lovingly explained things to get self-righteous or start blaming me for pointing something out.

Take a look at the news, read some articles, see what is going on in Europe and Canada and may be heading this way.

 

[ncjohn]

Ok I give up. There’s probably not anything else new to say anyway.

I’ll still stand in the corner, beating my breast and saying “God, be merciful with me, a sinner” with the guy who pointed it out to me and is standing beside me doing the same, not thinking himself any better than me. That to me is the non-judgmental person.

I won’t be there with the guy standing up in front saying “Thank you Lord for not making me like those other sinners.”

In the end, at least to me, that is what this thread was about. I’ll concede that I may be 100% wrong or that what I say is probably not 100% applicable as people are different and respond to different motivations.

Peace be with all of you and may the Lord of the Harvest bless you for your efforts.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

I won’t be there with the guy standing up in front saying “Thank you Lord for not making me like those other sinners.”

This quote, I think, best illustrates the disconnect. I rarely read a post that claims one is more holy than another. I often read posts that go something along these lines:

A Catholic will write they are faithful, but thinks that the Church is wrong about…contraception, female ordination, abortion, gay marriage…someone else will write that to be faithful means we must accept the Church as having the authority of Christ. The first poster will then claim one is judgemental, intolerant, etc. Then, a third poster will claim the second poster did not understand the background of the first poster and thus needs to change their presentation in some way.

Then other posters will claim poster #2 is judgmental and we are all sinners, Jesus ate with sinnners, log-plank, etc.

The second poster will then offer proof from Church teachings.

On and on and in the end we have a microcosm of the Church right here.

 

[felra]

fix:

another. I often read posts that go something along these lines:

A Catholic will write they are faithful, but thinks that the Church is wrong about…contraception, female ordination, abortion, gay marriage…someone else will write that to be faithful means we must accept the Church as having the authority of Christ. The first poster will then claim one is judgemental, intolerant, etc. Then, a third poster will claim the second poster did not understand the background of the first poster and thus needs to change their presentation in some way.

Then other posters will claim poster #2 is judgmental and we are all sinners, Jesus ate with sinnners, log-plank, etc.

The second poster will then offer proof from Church teachings.

On and on and in the end we have a microcosm of the Church right here.

This is a very interesting insight and observation. I had not quite consiously considered this even though it has been there right in front of my eyes. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

This quote, I think, best illustrates the disconnect. I rarely read a post that claims one is more holy than another. I often read posts that go something along these lines:

You are very fortunate, and I guess that would explain why we view this differently. I see many thoughtful posts by people genuinely uniting themselves with Christ and their brothers for the life of the world. I see far too many posts though that reflect a “holier than thou” attitude, although I fully recognize that it may not be intentional. It is seldom a “claim,” but the implication is clear, even if accidental. It might be partly my own perception of that, but going on the responses of others that I’ve seen, I’m far from alone in perceiving it.

I do my best to be in the first group, while recognizing that my human nature will sometimes push me into the second, and that there are probably times where I am in the first, but perceived as being in the second. I would probably even be so presumptuous from the exchanges that we have had to say you’re probably in that boat with me, although please feel free to jump out if you feel I’m wrong there.

Peace,

 

[iserve]

The microcosm rarely includes people who are all equally well-versed in Scripture. I often wonder if the lack of balance in a person’s statements is reflecting a lack of study and knowlege of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, or a truly well-formed opinion based on the whole body of information available. Often, when I have been around these arguments, they prove to be products of prevailing opinion, poor catechesis, and a limited amount of study of the Scriptures.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

You are very fortunate, and I guess that would explain why we view this differently. I see many thoughtful posts by people genuinely uniting themselves with Christ and their brothers for the life of the world. I see far too many posts though that reflect a “holier than thou” attitude, although I fully recognize that it may not be intentional. It is seldom a “claim,” but the implication is clear, even if accidental. It might be partly my own perception of that, but going on the responses of others that I’ve seen, I’m far from alone in perceiving it.

I do my best to be in the first group, while recognizing that my human nature will sometimes push me into the second, and that there are probably times where I am in the first, but perceived as being in the second. I would probably even be so presumptuous from the exchanges that we have had to say you’re probably in that boat with me, although please feel free to jump out if you feel I’m wrong there.

Peace,

I think you are a very thoughtful person and have no quarrel with you. I think you make some very good points. I am only trying to point out there are varying views as to the understanding of words such as tolerance, compassion, judgementalism, etc…

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

I think you are a very thoughtful person and have no quarrel with you. I think you make some very good points. I am only trying to point out there are varying views as to the understanding of words such as tolerance, compassion, judgementalism, etc…

I understand that and realize how hard it is to have a rational discussion when people’s basic definitions and presumptions are different coming in. You can end up easily getting judgmental about someone defining the concept differently. Of course a person would have to be a total idiot to do that!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Quite a bit of ink has been spent in this thread talking about those who condemn others as hypocrites themselves in need of judgment. More perverse logic?

Here’s the rub. The same Catholics (Kennedy and Cuomo, for examples) who would condemn an abortion clinic bomber will not condemn the blood-soaked hands of hundreds of abortionists all over the land. Murder is murder. When Catholics put the law of men above the law of God … when they wink at the taking of innocent lives so long as those lives are unable to defend themselves, are they really Catholics?

Oh my, here I go judging again!!!

And by the way, are we to believe that excommunications are now verboten because it will be politically incorrect to judge?

No, I am not perfect. Far from it. Yes, I am in need of judgment. And, God willing, I’ll stand up to take my lumps when the time comes.

 

[mhansen]

Gilbert Keith:

Quite a bit of ink has been spent in this thread talking about those who condemn others as hypocrites themselves in need of judgment. More perverse logic?

Here’s the rub. The same Catholics (Kennedy and Cuomo, for examples) who would condemn an abortion clinic bomber will not condemn the blood-soaked hands of hundreds of abortionists all over the land. Murder is murder. When Catholics put the law of men above the law of God … when they wink at the taking of innocent lives so long as those lives are unable to defend themselves, are they really Catholics?

Oh my, here I go judging again!!!

And by the way, are we to believe that excommunications are now verboten because it will be politically incorrect to judge?

No, I am not perfect. Far from it. Yes, I am in need of judgment. And, God willing, I’ll stand up to take my lumps when the time comes.

Citing one or two examples is not indicative of the whole of Catholics. Making generalizations like that has been the cause of more than one argument on this forum.

At any rate, it appears that you’ve answered (for yourself, at least) the original question that you posted, so my continued participation in this thread is really a moot point. I’d like to thank everyone that contributed. This was an example of an informative and civil discussion. Thanks again.

Mike

 

[AlanFromWichita]

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.

I think you have many options, depending on the situation.

Just because the person acts like a jerk doesn’t mean he’s wrong, and I agree with that. That’s why I don’t mind hearing criticism from my enemies. At some point, of course, I want a break from it.

The nature of the criticism is also important, independent of the tone. If they say, “you’re the worst Christian I’ve ever met,” then I might ask, “what have I said that brought you to that conclusion,” or I may just disregard it as useless information. If they come through by saying something like, “you are judging me based only on what you see, and I can tell you that you haven’t been in my shoes and you don’t know me” then I might take that a lot more seriously, and try to figure out whether I actually did this, or something in my own manner gave that impression." The important part to making good use of judgmental statements is whether they give you enough information to actually know what the crime was, so you can go about trying to improve yourself.

If others witness the event and are more able to speak rationally to me, I may ask them later whether they understood what I had done to tee the person off. If they are my good friends, they will tell me straight up, “dude, when you used the word heresy I knew the conversation was over.” If they are not as good friends, they may hedge some but sufficiently goaded they may cough up something useful. They may try to explain why I was innocent and the other person was at fault, but it still may give me clues.

In short, their judging me does nothing to help me become better, unless they give enough information for me to go on. They do need to judge to accomplish the same ends. Since I seek truth even from the mouths of those I loathe, it’s pretty much all the same to me. Anger and judgment problems on their part do not constitute anxiety on my part.

Alan

 

[Adonis33]

Gilbert Keith:

I read passages in Scripture regarding not being judgmental of the wrongdoing of others. Jesus weighs in on this quite often.

The problem I have reconciling myself with this point of view is that if we are not judgmental, we are not speaking and exerting our will and influence to stop immoral conduct in those around us. “Who are you to judge?” we often hear wrongdoers say. But if judgment is not passed on their wrongdoing, how are they ever going to have reason to pause and consider their own moral stance?

It is said that the reason evil triumphs is that good men and women do or say nothing. And finally it is too late when outrage is no longer even possible.

We live in a sick world. It is getting sicker. Are we supposed to be passive and shut up?

You do not judge the individual - however you must make judgements on behavior.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Adonis33:

You do not judge the individual - however you must make judgements on behavior.

Why?

How can behavior be judged, without the context of the mental state of the behaver? (is that a word)

It cannot be judged. It can be observed, categorized, feared, regretted, and warned against, but not judged.

Judge them by their fruits. Since people are neither good nor bad, but are a mixture of the divine and the human, then their fruits are always mixed. If you presume to bear good fruit, you must presume to be a tree without any sin. If you presume to bear bad fruit, then you must be without goodness.

Combined with the fact that nobody is “good” except the Father who sent Him, that sounds kind of like He’s suggesting that one cannot judge another person at all by their fruit because you never know what the true “fruit” of an action is other than the limited knowledge you have of it. A fruit cannot be considered “good” but maybe it can be “good enough for the occasion” because in order to be objectively “good” would imply that the tree bearing the fruit is good, implying it is straight from the Father. Perhaps when one reaches spiritual perfection this might kick in, but I suggest for most of us it doesn’t.

Alan

 

[Adonis33]

AlanFromWichita:

Why?

How can behavior be judged, without the context of the mental state of the behaver? (is that a word)

It cannot be judged. It can be observed, categorized, feared, regretted, and warned against, but not judged.

Judge them by their fruits. Since people are neither good nor bad, but are a mixture of the divine and the human, then their fruits are always mixed. If you presume to bear good fruit, you must presume to be a tree without any sin. If you presume to bear bad fruit, then you must be without goodness.

Combined with the fact that nobody is “good” except the Father who sent Him, that sounds kind of like He’s suggesting that one cannot judge another person at all by their fruit because you never know what the true “fruit” of an action is other than the limited knowledge you have of it. A fruit cannot be considered “good” but maybe it can be “good enough for the occasion” because in order to be objectively “good” would imply that the tree bearing the fruit is good, implying it is straight from the Father. Perhaps when one reaches spiritual perfection this might kick in, but I suggest for most of us it doesn’t.

Alan

Society makes judgements against behavior by passing laws against certain behaviors.

As catholics - we must discern between wrong behaviors and good behaviors.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Adonis33:

Society makes judgements against behavior by passing laws against certain behaviors.

As catholics - we must discern between wrong behaviors and good behaviors.

Then if I understand you correctly, Catholics are not to “judge” but are to “discern?”

Societal laws are passed for different reasons, I believe, than Church laws. They are there mostly to protect our physical bodies and property from certain kinds of harm.

The Church laws involve protecting our souls, regardless of our physical situation.

Christ says not to judge, Paul says to judge. Christ admonishes judgment based on external observations of behavior, Paul requires it.

I think in this case I’d have to go with Jesus.

We can “discern” behavior to help ourselves become better and to help our friends, but we cannot truly “judge” them, nor should we.

From what is sounds like, Jesus is lucky Paul wasn’t around when He ate with sinners. Jesus can be pretty tricky with words, though. Maybe He didn’t consider those sinners “brothers” since He ate with them. After all, Paul admits you can’t avoid all sinners.

Maybe that’s why orthodox hate non-fully-assenting Catholics so much. It’s OK to eat with sinful Protestants, but not with us. I dunno. I still think Paul was having a bad hair day. Maybe God was like, “tell them not to avoid all sinners because they have to leave the world,” and Paul was like, “He has to be kidding. I get sick of these people. I know, I’ll say that I can only eat with sinners if they do NOT call me a brother.”

This is all too bizarre. I think it’s time I finally Do The World A Favor and provide it with the Gospel According to Saint Alan. If you don’t think I’m a saint, then just wait and see what my gospel says about your opinion.

In sincerity, though, I think the Bible does in fact contradict itself in many ways, or at least to our perception. I don’t think it is by accident. I think the Bible presents us with challenges that we have to discern in our hearts, rather than provide an infallible “cook book” of behavior that obviously wouldn’t stand the test of time under changing technology.

Remember the Word cuts both ways; it can be used to accuse or acquit. One can play “Bible verse wars” all day, as has been noted, and everyone can find something to justify their bad behavior or they can use it to improve themselves. The difference is not in the words they read, but the heart with which they read them. Are we going to use the Word to cut each other up, or to piece them back together? Who knows? Sometimes things have to be cut open, as in surgery, in order to fix it.

I think part of the mystical significance of the Bible, and why there are several deeper levels of intimacy with it than literal, is just that it gives us what sound like impossible situations and conflicting requirements to follow. When we conform our minds and hearts, and especially focus on the commandment to love one another, then we begin to see how verses can be used for healing, not dividing. The Bible is not God, because it is finite and written in human language. It is only a shadow of God, and if we forget that then when we play Bible wars we are chasing shadows of truth rather than actual truth.

Alan

 

[buffalo]

In today’s society we are all twiested up about the meaning of judgement.

Only God can judge a persons heart and will do so at death. No human is allowed to condemn another to hell.

Humans can and are encouraged to make judgements about behaviors. True Catholic charity demands fraternal correction.

 

[Adonis33]

buffalo:

In today’s society we are all twiested up about the meaning of judgement.

Only God can judge a persons heart and will do so at death. No human is allowed to condemn another to hell.

Humans can and are encouraged to make judgements about behaviors. True Catholic charity demands fraternal correction.

I think you said it better than I did.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ADONIS

You do not judge the individual - however you must make judgements on behavior.

The problem with this is that you no sooner judge the behavior, even in general and abstract terms, but someone who is engaged in the behavior see that it applies to himself and attacks you for being judgmental.

Isn’t that why so many gay people attack the Church even when the Church has not personally attacked them but has attacked their behavior? The same goes for the pro-abortion advocates, pro-euthanasia proponents, etc.

For these people we have judged them, not just the causes they espouse. I prefer to think that it is not we who have judged, but God who judges, and we (the Church) are merely conforming ourself to His will and His Truth.

Was Paul having a bad hair day? I’m not so sure about that. Who are we to judge? I think that Paul was very conformed to Jesus, a lot more than most of us. When he spoke in the manner cited above, he was speaking in a different context than Jesus spoke. Jesus associated with thieves and such because he came to save all of us and was himself immune to any corrupting influence they might have on him. Not so, from Paul’s point of view. None of us is a Jesus, and any of us could be corrupted by being a fellow traveler with thieves and murderers.

That does not mean we have to be entirely dissociated from the rascals of the world. Jesus tells us we ought visit those in prison if we are to be saved ourselves. But he tells us to visit, not to enter the prison and live with them.

 

[buffalo]

Gilbert Keith:

ADONIS

That does not mean we have to be entirely dissociated from the rascals of the world. Jesus tells us we ought visit those in prison if we are to be saved ourselves. But he tells us to visit, not to enter the prison and live with them.

Correct. There is a huge difference between tolerating sin and embracing it. Many times we are being asked to embrace it. No can do!