Today's reading "Not to Judge" or can we?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JourneyForTruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MichaelP3 said:
Let’s start of with, do you accept you can be wrong in your feeling/viewpoint to another’s actions? Do you know all about the situation?

(I realise you agreed context would be key in another reply so elaborate on that if needed)
Click to expand...
Now, my question to you: do you see how your position that you “can’t have enough knowledge to make a determination” allows evil to flourish?

You can see something horrific, like an "honor killing", and you say, “Well, I really can’t tell you if that’s wrong or right”.
 
MichaelP3 said:
So help me out, I do not want to put words into your mouth?

We can then Judge sometimes? When we do know all these things?
Click to expand...
Of course we can judge sometimes.

For example: I can tell you that this action is wrong:

stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/wentzville-man-shoved-fingers-in-throat-of-infant-son-to/article_06081719-55b5-5c8a-8194-7e42072dfdf7.html

And I’m 100% certain that you would say the same, even if you don’t know “all these things”.

And to say that we couldn’t judge this action is to have the most irrelevant, otiose, inutile paradigm ever.
 
JourneyForTruth said:
I often said to non-Catholics we are allowed to judge people on actions but not on heaven and Hell.
Click to expand...
You see this a lot (even on this forum) with people asking ad nauseam “Is X a mortal sin?”

When talking about the material of sin, you can’t really ask that. You can ask if X is a grave matter and get somewhat of an objective answer, but an action by itself cannot be mortal or venial. Without repeating the tired 3-point definition of mortal sin, I will say that mortal sin requires certain elements of will and awareness. You can even commit a mortal sin without ever getting a chance to bring it to fruition in reality (if, say, you set out to commit evil with full knowledge, but a hiccup happens that thwarts your attempt; you have still committed a mortal sin).

So, I agree with your quote with some modifications. We can judge actions as being either moral or immoral and, given the rarely occurring appropriate circumstances, we can respond to them by fraternal correction or moral education. But, we cannot EVER judge if a human being (who is not our self) has committed a mortal sin; even from among the very worst of atrocities committed by a single person. For example, John Wayne Gacy, despite all his outward appearances of having fully meant the crimes he committed with no sign of remorse whatsoever, could have had a countless number of internal factors that would’ve made his awful sins less than mortal. We just don’t know. He could have honestly not known that his actions were bad. (Real bad instances of psychopathy could conceivably cause this). Or, he could have been possessed of some terribly uncontrollable urge which might have moved him to do what he did.

Does this mean the state wasn’t justified in executing him? No. But, it does mean that we can’t say for certain that he is in hell. I’ve heard people argue that a person cannot commit the kinds of crimes that he did without being mentally sick on a ridiculous level; a level so ridiculous that his culpability for the crime is reduced. But, crimes of the same magnitude as the ones which he committed are just so bad that it would be immoral for the state to do nothing, even if he didn’t commit them mortally. Fortunately for him, God is merciful and all-knowing. So, if he had some internal factors that reduced his culpability for his crimes, he is in good hands; and that is what people mean when they say that Roman Catholicism has a version of possible Universalism; that it is possible there no soul is in hell.

It is also why Catholicism is often very unpopular and its actions hard to explain. Because, as the Scriptures tell us, God judges the heart. So, it can seem puzzling when the Church pardons a terrible criminal. But, if you are proficiently spiritual, you should recognize that this is a good thing, because we are all terrible sinners. We usually can’t know the depths of our own depravity because most of us will mercifully never be put in situations that would cause our worst evil to manifest. We would all like to think we would be noble in life or death situations; during trying times of suffering and torture, but I am wary of boasting that for myself. If I can’t even keep from being snappish and rude when I am tired and hungry, I shudder to think of what worse evil I might commit if I were suffering more.
 
PRmerger said:
Of course we can judge sometimes.

For example: I can tell you that this action is wrong:

stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/wentzville-man-shoved-fingers-in-throat-of-infant-son-to/article_06081719-55b5-5c8a-8194-7e42072dfdf7.html

And I’m 100% certain that you would say the same, even if you don’t know “all these things”.

And to say that we couldn’t judge this action is to have the most irrelevant, otiose, inutile paradigm ever.
Click to expand...
You know, most people who I have met, who directly call themselves “moral relativists”, aren’t actually moral relativists according to what that label actually means.

The following account contains a terribly graphic story that is very hard to read:

When a friend of mine said that he was a moral relativist, I responded by telling a story I heard in police academy of a man who injected his infant daughter with meth so that she could feel him rape her more intensely. I asked him to drum up a scenario where this action wasn’t evil. He responded by saying that the man was obviously sick, so sick, in fact, that it was likely he couldn’t be held responsible for the action because he may not have known what he was doing or was influenced by irresistable, sick compulsions that he did not have the mental ability to control.

I then pointed out that this did not tell us anything about whether or not the action itself was evil. He realized this and then conceded that the action could never be anything but evil. I told him that this belief made him fall outside of the definition of “moral relativist.” He agreed.
 
Mort_Alz said:
You know, most people who I have met, who directly call themselves “moral relativists”, aren’t actually moral relativists according to what that label actually means.
Click to expand...
Yep.

No one who has an opinion is a moral relativist–ESPECIALLY those putative moral relativists who come to this forum to offer their thoughts.

The fact that they post a commentary about a particular issue limns the fact that they actually are moral absolutists…at least on that particular issue.
 
I used to think it was a terrible sin to judge people. After all, in the scriptures Christ said judge not, lest you be judged… and also when you judge others you condemn yourself.

But are we really to go through life not using our intellect to judge other people’s characters? I look back and find that much of the judgements I tried to suppress of others, - because I considered judging sinful- turned out to be a warning mechanism of their character flaws.

While charity and forgiveness are always in order within our interpersonal relationships, is not our ability to judge a person’s character a valuable tool for self preservation in this fallen world?
 
MainBrain said:
I used to think it was a terrible sin to judge people. After all, in the scriptures Christ said judge not, lest you be judged… and also when you judge others you condemn yourself.

But are we really to go through life not using our intellect to judge other people’s characters? I look back and find that much of the judgements I tried to suppress of others, - because I considered judging sinful- turned out to be a warning mechanism of their character flaws.

While charity and forgiveness are always in order within our interpersonal relationships, is not our ability to judge a person’s character a valuable tool for self preservation in this fallen world?
Click to expand...
We can judge actions as sinful but we can also not have enough information about a particular situation and judge a person to be sinning when in reality they are innocent. So before we say a person sinned we have to have certain clarity.
 
Our lives are made up of a combination of all the good and bad things we have done, as well as all of the good and bad things that have happened to us.

To judge another person–in entirety-- as “good” or “bad” is impossible. We can point to actions they have done that are good or bad, but that’s it. There is too much about others that we can never possibly know, nor is it any of our business.
 
MainBrain said:
I used to think it was a terrible sin to judge people. After all, in the scriptures Christ said judge not, lest you be judged… and also when you judge others you condemn yourself.

But are we really to go through life not using our intellect to judge other people’s characters? I look back and find that much of the judgements I tried to suppress of others, - because I considered judging sinful- turned out to be a warning mechanism of their character flaws.

While charity and forgiveness are always in order within our interpersonal relationships, is not our ability to judge a person’s character a valuable tool for self preservation in this fallen world?
Click to expand...
There has never been such a rule in the entire history of Catholicism.

St Paul’s command to the Church is to judge between what is good and evil. It’s not just okay, it’s morally/materially necessary in order to have any sort of compass in life.

Christ’s passage is in the context of putting yourself in the authority to condemn somebody, or to take His place as Judge. It follows the same narrative as “let he who has not sinned cast the first stone…”
 
I think it’s wrong to judge someone’s character and/or their intentions because of their beliefs or actions made according to those beliefs. An example of a judgmental statement would be “He is a bad person because he is gay”. It wouldn’t be judgmental to say “I believe it is wrong to engage in homosexual acts” because nothing is said about the intentions or character of the person who engages in such behavior. This is what I believe to be the difference between being judgmental and having a difference of belief.
 
PRmerger said:
Scripture tells us to judge.

See John 7:24
Click to expand...
Most people get messed up on these passages because Jesus tells us not to judge and then St. Paul says that the spiritual man judges all things, but many years ago I found a good study that pointed out that there is a difference in the Greek words used in each case.

In the passage in Matthew 7 the Greek word “krino” is used which is also used in 1st Corinthians 11:31 to tell us not to judge and if we do then we face that kind of judgement.

This judgement has 3 essential parts because it is what a judge actually does.
  1. He examines the facts
  2. Discerns whether the action is right or wrong
  3. Passes sentence/condemns
The difference is that 2 other Greek words are used as well. Anakrino and diakrino…
“Anakrino”, is used in 1 Corinthians. 2:15, where Paul says that: “He that is spiritual judges all things” and both of these have basically the same meaning which is better translated "discerns’. Diakrino is used in 1st Corinthians 11:31 along with krino where it tells us that if we judge ourselves then we won’t be judged by God.

This “judgement” discernment has only 2 essential parts but it’s important to understand this because this is what we are instructed to do. This is more like a detective…
  1. He examines the facts
  2. Discerns whether the action is right or wrong
    **-]3. Passes sentence/condemns/-]
**See the difference?We discern actions (our own and others) and perform the first 2 functions but avoid that final one that belongs to God alone.

Our response at that point is probably best summarized by the following Old Testament scripture from Proverbs 27:[12] A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but the simple go on, and suffer for it.
 
mikeeh said:
I think you can judge actions, but not people. Like what you did was wrong, but I don’t know if you knew that or are doing it on purpose. Also, you can’t be pushy. You’re supposed to preach to those who want to hear you. If you waste time trying to teach someone who’s not interested you’ll miss someone who is interested.

Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven
Luke 6:37

If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.”
Mark 6:11
Click to expand...
Well said. This is exactly it. I find any current confusion about this regrettable (and unnecessary), though there is much of it about. We’re getting into rhetoric instead of Gospel.
 
Church_Militant said:
Most people get messed up on these passages because Jesus tells us not to judge and then St. Paul says that the spiritual man judges all things, but many years ago I found a good study that pointed out that there is a difference in the Greek words used in each case.

In the passage in Matthew 7 the Greek word “krino” is used which is also used in 1st Corinthians 11:31 to tell us not to judge and if we do then we face that kind of judgement.

This judgement has 3 essential parts because it is what a judge actually does.
  1. He examines the facts
  2. Discerns whether the action is right or wrong
  3. Passes sentence/condemns
The difference is that 2 other Greek words are used as well. Anakrino and diakrino…
“Anakrino”, is used in 1 Corinthians. 2:15, where Paul says that: “He that is spiritual judges all things” and both of these have basically the same meaning which is better translated "discerns’. Diakrino is used in 1st Corinthians 11:31 along with krino where it tells us that if we judge ourselves then we won’t be judged by God.

This “judgement” discernment has only 2 essential parts but it’s important to understand this because this is what we are instructed to do. This is more like a detective…
  1. He examines the facts
  2. Discerns whether the action is right or wrong
    **-]3. Passes sentence/condemns/-]
**See the difference?We discern actions (our own and others) and perform the first 2 functions but avoid that final one that belongs to God alone.

Our response at that point is probably best summarized by the following Old Testament scripture from Proverbs 27:[12] A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but the simple go on, and suffer for it.
Click to expand...
Not that my Greek is that great, but if what you are saying is true, I agree with this!
 
Church_Militant said:
Most people get messed up on these passages because Jesus tells us not to judge and then St. Paul says that the spiritual man judges all things, but many years ago I found a good study that pointed out that there is a difference in the Greek words used in each case.

In the passage in Matthew 7 the Greek word “krino” is used which is also used in 1st Corinthians 11:31 to tell us not to judge and if we do then we face that kind of judgement.

This judgement has 3 essential parts because it is what a judge actually does.
  1. He examines the facts
  2. Discerns whether the action is right or wrong
  3. Passes sentence/condemns
The difference is that 2 other Greek words are used as well. Anakrino and diakrino…
“Anakrino”, is used in 1 Corinthians. 2:15, where Paul says that: “He that is spiritual judges all things” and both of these have basically the same meaning which is better translated "discerns’. Diakrino is used in 1st Corinthians 11:31 along with krino where it tells us that if we judge ourselves then we won’t be judged by God.

This “judgement” discernment has only 2 essential parts but it’s important to understand this because this is what we are instructed to do. This is more like a detective…
  1. He examines the facts
  2. Discerns whether the action is right or wrong
    **-]3. Passes sentence/condemns/-]
**See the difference?We discern actions (our own and others) and perform the first 2 functions but avoid that final one that belongs to God alone.

Our response at that point is probably best summarized by the following Old Testament scripture from Proverbs 27:[12] A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but the simple go on, and suffer for it.
Click to expand...
PRmerger likes! 🙂
 
MichaelP3
Click to expand...
“Let’s start of with, do you accept you can be wrong in your feeling/viewpoint to another’s actions? Do you know all about the situation?”
Click to expand...
According to Jimmy Akin
“He doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t judge others in the sense of forming a moral appraisal of their behavior.
We can’t avoid doing that, given our nature, and we should not avoid doing that, or the injustice in the world can never be addressed”
Link

Of course, you can be wrong. Police officers shoot to defend citizens and sometimes are wrong. Presidents go to war and we find out their premises were wrong. Finally, the Catholic has a just war doctrine precisely because we have a right to make judgments and do harm. How do you think Islam was stopped at TOURS?
 
Mort Alz
“But, we cannot EVER judge if a human being (who is not our self) has committed a mortal sin; even from among the very worst of atrocities committed by a single person.”
Click to expand...
You are talking about Heaven and Hell. This topic is about judging the fruits of what we see and whether we should take action to protect ourselves, children, wives. Some things we see in society are just wrong: abortion, sharia law, pornography, same-sex marriage (hurts children).

Catholics need to take a stand and figure out if they are going to teach God’s will from the gospel or follow political correctness and let everyone just “do as they wish so long as it does not hurt ME”
 
LittleFlower378
“We can judge actions as sinful but we can also not have enough information about a particular situation and judge a person to be sinning when in reality they are innocent. So before we say a person sinned we have to have certain clarity.”
Click to expand...
You are dreaming if we will ever know all the facts before we take action. Catholic church teaches capital punishment is just if we can not reasonably hold the person in prison and protect society. Our court judges make decisions to execute prisoners and we now find many times we are wrong. However, the church teaches we are not wrong to sometimes have to make those decisions.

We can say a person is sinning even if they are innocent. We are not concerned about their soul only about them bearing fruits that are in accordance to God will. Fruits that we can see such as did you take out the garbage like I asked? Did you cut the grass?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top