We are not to judge others

[Ender]

We are not just judges. Only Christ is. We are all sinners. We can “correct” a sinner, but we are forbidden from judging a sinner. We cannot know or determine his guilt, that’s not our place unless we are asked to serve on a jury in a court of law.

If a woman has an abortion is she or is she not guilty of a grave sin? How do you correct a sinner - indeed, how do you even know he is a sinner - if you cannot say that what he has done is sinful?

I think you use the term “judgment” too broadly. We are forbidden to judge the state of someone’s soul but we are in no way forbidden from judging the nature of one’s actions. Part of judging justly is judging only those things which we can know.

Ender

 

[wildleafblower]

Adding a touch of pizaze to the topic. The American Psychological Association, Volume 39, No. 5, May 2008 had a make-me-giggle article Husbands, rate your wives by Nick Joyce and David B. Baker, PhD, . . . One such example is the “Marital Rating Scale—Wife’s Chart ,” a test developed in the late 1930s by George W. Crane, MD, PhD, (1901–95) of Northwestern University, who ran a counseling practice, wrote a syndicated national newspaper column called “The Worry Clinic” and started his own matchmaking service . . .
apa.org/monitor/2008/05/marriage.html

Time Capsule--Husbands, rate your wives

A psychologist's attempt to improve marriages provides an interesting glimpse into the social norms of the 1930s — and into one of the first scientific matchmaking services.

www.apa.org

(msg. 1)In a recent homily, the priest spoke mostly about being careful not to judge others. No mention of others’ actions. It bothers me, but can’t put my finger on what an appropriate response might be. The Bible says “Do not judge lest you be judged”, but we do need to be able to discern another’s motives and judge (for example) whether or not he or she would make a good political leader, or to vote appropriately for a church council member.

Hope I’m not being judgemental about this priest, just the homily.

God bless,
Mimi

Hi Mimi

I suggest you read from the Vatican:Holy See’s American Bible the Gospels, Matthew, Chapter 7 to obtain a fuller understand what you’re priest may have been referring to. Also, read all the footnotes, though I’ve provided only a few noted in red and blue. Remember, church documents contain evidence (eye-witness accounts) about Jesus! They aren’t myth.

1 "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. 1 2
2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

1 [1-12] In ⇒ Matthew 7:1 Matthew returns to the basic traditional material of the sermon (⇒ Luke 6:37-38, ⇒ 41-42). The governing thought is the correspondence between conduct toward one’s fellows and God’s conduct toward the one so acting.

2[1] This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with ⇒ Matthew 7:5, 6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVG.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVG.HTM

You might enjoy learning that on June 4, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about St Gregory the Great, "The “servant of the servants of God” placed his humble service at the benefit of both hierarchy and laity through practical teachings on holiness . . . Reading his homilies, one sees that Gregory truly wrote with his life-blood and, therefore, he still speaks to us today.

"Gregory also developed this discourse in the Book of Morals, a Commentary on Job. Following the Patristic tradition, he examined the sacred text in the three dimensions of its meaning: the literal dimension, the allegorical dimension and the moral dimension, which are dimensions of the unique sense of Sacred Scripture.

"Nevertheless, Gregory gave a clear prevalence to the moral sense. In this perspective, he proposed his thought by way of some dual meanings - to know-to do, to speak-to live, to know-to act - in which he evokes the two aspects of human life that should be complementary, but which often end by being antithetical.
The moral ideal, he comments, always consists in realizing a harmonious integration between word and action, thought and deed, prayer and dedication to the duties of one’s state: this is the way to realize that synthesis thanks to which the divine descends to man and man is lifted up until he becomes one with God.

"Thus the great Pope marks out a complete plan of life for the authentic believer; for this reason the Book of Morals, a commentary on Job, would constitute in the course of the Middle Ages a kind of summa of Christian morality.

"Of notable importance and beauty are also the Homilies on the Gospel. The first of these was given in St Peter’s Basilica in 590 during the Advent Season, hence only a few months after Gregory’s election to the Papacy; the last was delivered in St Lawrence’s Basilica on the Second Sunday after Pentecost in 593.

"The Pope preached to the people in the churches where the “stations” were celebrated - special prayer ceremonies during the important seasons of the liturgical year - or the feasts of titular martyrs.

“The guiding principle, which links the different homilies, is captured in the word “preacher”: not only the minister of God, but also every Christian, has the duty “to preach” of what he has experienced in his innermost being, following the example of Christ who was made man to bring to all the good news of salvation.”

 

[RachelsAlumni]

If a woman has an abortion is she or is she not guilty of a grave sin? How do you correct a sinner - indeed, how do you even know he is a sinner - if you cannot say that what he has done is sinful?

I think you use the term “judgment” too broadly. We are forbidden to judge the state of someone’s soul but we are in no way forbidden from judging the nature of one’s actions. Part of judging justly is judging only those things which we can know.

Ender

God through the Church determines what is grave sin, not you or I. Only God judges the guilt of that sin. You & I cannot know for certain that a woman has procured an abortion unless she confesses. We can know that abortion as an act is gravely immoral. We cannot determine or know whether a woman is guilty.

In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:

857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”[131]

As an objective observer you can only know the object. You cannot know whether it is ‘also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent’. In the case of the example given - abortion; most abortions that I’m aware of (and I’ve worked in post abortion counseling for years) many of these conditions are absent. Therefore, you can judge the object or act, but you cannot judge the person’s guilt. Only a properly established authority can do so.

 

[Pug]

I never said we should judge anyone’s soul, only their actions.

I know. My last sentence was my own reflection, to make certain that the general audience would not misunderstand my posting. The previous sentence and paragraph were my direct response to what you asked/said.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

If a woman has an abortion is she or is she not guilty of a grave sin? How do you correct a sinner - indeed, how do you even know he is a sinner - if you cannot say that what he has done is sinful? Ender

You can objectively say “an act” is sinful according to the teachings of Christ. Abortion is a gravely immoral act according to Church teaching. You can say “what he/she has done is sinful” according to the teachings of Christ. You can not judge them for having sinned, cause we’re all sinners.

I would tell a woman who has confessed that she has had an abortion AND has confided in me that she has not yet reconciled with God, to seek reconciliation. The advice is correction, setting a new course, not a judgment of her guilt. If I judge her, if she even gets a whiff or a look that even hints of judgment, chances are she will not listen to a word I have to say. Then who would I be serving if I only succeed in turning her away by judging her? The Church? The teachings of Christ? or my own ego and feeling superior.

I was talking with a man once, years after my reconciliation, who winced when I mentioned my abortion. I took the wince as a judgment. Yet I was not guilty. My guilt had been taken away years earlier in the confessional through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. I was no longer interested in what he had to say and excused myself from the conversation.

 

[Ender]

You can objectively say “an act” is sinful …

I think we’re fighting over the definition of “judging.” I agree with your statement - we may say that some actions are wrong and that a person is wrong to commit them. So, for example, we may condemn abortion, contraception, and homosexual behavior as immoral and those who commit the acts as having behaved immorally. What we cannot know is to what degree the person who commits the act will be held morally accountable; this seems to be the sense in which you define the term. We can know that someone has sinned; we cannot know his accountability for that sin but judging applies to both aspects and the fact that we are restrained from the latter form in no way means that we cannot engage in the former.

Abortion is a gravely immoral act according to Church teaching. You can say “what he/she has done is sinful” according to the teachings of Christ. You can not judge them for having sinned, cause we’re all sinners.

How do you mean we “can not judge them for having sinned”? I may not be able to say they will burn in hell for their sin but I may surely say their actions were sinful and they were wrong to have done them. How is it that you can say generically “we’re all sinners” but I cannot say Jane has sinned for committing a specific action - e.g. getting an abortion?

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

we may condemn abortion, contraception, and homosexual behavior as immoral and those who commit the acts as having behaved immorally.

No. WE don’t condemn these acts or the people who do them. God does. God is the Lawgiver and Judge.

How do you mean we “can not judge them for having sinned”? I may not be able to say they will burn in hell for their sin but I may surely say their actions were sinful and they were wrong to have done them. How is it that you can say generically “we’re all sinners” but I cannot say Jane has sinned for committing a specific action - e.g. getting an abortion?

See the last paragraphs of post #103

 

[Ender]

No. WE don’t condemn these acts or the people who do them. God does. God is the Lawgiver and Judge.

We don’t condemn acts??? Don’t you find this just a bit preposterous? Many acts are immoral, certain ones are gravely immoral, and some are immoral in all circumstances. That is, we condemn the acts by calling them immoral. The Church has devoted hundreds of paragraphs in the catechism explaining what these actions are and in some cases specifically calls for their condemnation:

1916 "Fraud and other subterfuges, by which some people evade the constraints of the law and the prescriptions of societal obligation, must be firmly condemned."

2313 “Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin.”

2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”

2485 “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”

Your position is directly counter to what the Church unambiguously teaches. Shouldn’t that give you some incentive to rethink your objections?

Ender

 

[fix]

I think we’re fighting over the definition of “judging.” I agree with your statement - we may say that some actions are wrong and that a person is wrong to commit them. So, for example, we may condemn abortion, contraception, and homosexual behavior as immoral and those who commit the acts as having behaved immorally.

Is it a fight over language?

If one says they want to commit genocide and then does commit genocide may we say that act is bad?

May we say that person acted badly?

May we say that person acted in an immoral way?

May we say the person is not immoral but they *acted *immorally?

May we say the person committed an objective sin, yet we may not know their* subjective* culpability?

 

[Ender]

May we say the person committed an objective sin, yet we may not know their* subjective* culpability?

Clearly we may say (in many cases) that a person has sinned by what he has done. It is incomprehensible to me how one can say that murder is a sin yet also believe that we cannot say the murderer has sinned and is therefore a sinner.

Determining subjective culpability is different. I accept what Aquinas said on the subject: we are to judge justly and to judge only those things which we can know. We certainly cannot know how God views their subjective culpability but we can just as certainly know when someone has sinned - we would be pretty ignorant of Church teaching if we didn’t.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Is it a fight over language?

I think this is partially so but I also believe the larger battle is over whether one has the right to judge another’s actions. That is, whether it is ever appropriate to say: “What you did was wrong; it was sinful.” I think it’s part of the battle over whether right and wrong are objective or subjective.

“Man’s condition is such that a more profound analysis of individuals’ actions and omissions cannot be achieved without implying, in one way or another, judgments or references of an ethical nature.” (Sollicitudo rei socialis #36 - JPII)

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

We don’t condemn acts??? Don’t you find this just a bit preposterous? Many acts are immoral, certain ones are gravely immoral, and some are immoral in all circumstances. That is, we condemn the acts by calling them immoral. The Church has devoted hundreds of paragraphs in the catechism explaining what these actions are and in some cases specifically calls for their condemnation.

Your position is directly counter to what the Church unambiguously teaches. Shouldn’t that give you some incentive to rethink your objections?

Ender

No. My position is not contrary to what the Church teaches.

What part of God being the lawgiver and judge are you having difficulty relating to when I say “WE don’t condemn these acts or the people who do them. God does. God is the Lawgiver and Judge”

All the quotes from the CCC can be considered as part of the law given us by God through His Church. The Church has the authority to condemn (loose & bind). I don’t believe I can usurp the authority given the Church as my own and make the claim that “I can condemn” or “We, as people, can condemn”. In fact, I think that to do so is a grave error.

It is not you or I who either decide what is immoral or condemn immoral acts. That is entirely God & the Church’s doing. The Absolute Authority of God is what both defines good & in the end judges good & bad. You don’t define it, you don’t create it, you don’t stand in judgment, and you don’t condemn it.

If you are serving on a jury in a court of law and have been shown all the evidence then you can “judge” as a right given to you by the law. In that case you are not putting yourself above the law as in the bible quote I gave earlier.

I do think we can objectively apply our logic & reason to acts that the Church has clearly defined as immoral and know that we are not to do them and give correction to ourselves and others when they are doing them.

Perhaps it is a matter of definitions, but to me it seems more an issue of respecting authority vs. usurping authority or claiming God’s authority as our own.

 

[fix]

I think this is partially so but I also believe the larger battle is over whether one has the right to judge another’s actions. That is, whether it is ever appropriate to say: “What you did was wrong; it was sinful.” I think it’s part of the battle over whether right and wrong are objective or subjective.

“Man’s condition is such that a more profound analysis of individuals’ actions and omissions cannot be achieved without implying, in one way or another, judgments or references of an ethical nature.” (Sollicitudo rei socialis #36 - JPII)

Ender

Thanks. That is what I believe as well.

 

[Fitswimmer]

This has been a really interesting and thought provoking discussion.

I’m wondering also if the knee jerk reaction against judging others is more about the way said judgement is expressed.

For example, if a good friend or close family member approaches you in a loving, caring fashion-you’re likely to be receptive to what they have to say, even if you don’t agree. If someone who really doesn’t know you approaches you with their finger wagging, you’re probably tuning them out before they even start talking. Obviously those are extremes, but I think everyone can agree that we gather more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

[wildleafblower]

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY
OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO CROATIA (OCTOBER 2-4, 1998)
SPEECH TO THE PEOPLE
2 October 1998

[snip-Please read the document in its entirety.]

In a particular way, I address you Christians, who, according to the words of the Apostle Peter, must be “prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15).

I thank Providence which has guided my steps and brought me back once more to Croatia. The words of one of your poets come spontaneously to my lips: “Here all are brothers to me / I feel really at home . . .” (D. Domjanic, Kaj). I would like to be able to greet personally all the people of this land, whatever their social condition: from farmers to manual workers, from housewives to professionals, from sailors and fishermen to office workers and people of culture and science; from the youngest to the elderly and the sick. My good wishes of peace and hope go to everyone!

[snip]

Today Christ is knocking at the door of your hearts: open the door to welcome him in! He has the complete answers to your expectations. With him, under the loving gaze of the Blessed Virgin Mary, you will be able to build your future creatively.

Draw inspiration from the Gospel! In the light of its teaching you will be able to cultivate a healthy critical spirit in the face of fashionable conformity, and you will succeed in bringing to your world the liberating newness of the Beatitudes. Learn to distinguish between good and evil, without being hasty in judging. This is the wisdom which must be the mark of every mature person.

1. The citizen, particularly the believer, has precise responsibilities with regard to his own homeland. Your country expects from you a significant contribution in the different areas of social, economic, political and cultural life. Its future will be better to the degree that each one of you makes a commitment to self-improvement.

Human life on this earth entails difficulties of various kinds: solutions to these are certainly not to be found by seeking refuge in hedonism, consumerism, drugs or alcohol. I exhort you to face adversities with courage, to look for answers to them in the light of the Gospel. You must rediscover the resources of faith, so that you can draw from them the strength to bear courageous and consistent witness.

The Servant of God Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, who tomorrow — God willing — I shall raise to the honours of the altar, encouraged the youth of his day:** “Pay attention to yourselves and continue to grow up, because without people who are solid and mature from a moral point of view nothing is accomplished. The greatest patriots are not those who shout the loudest, but those who most conscientiously fulfil the law of God” **(Homilies, Speeches, Messages, Zagreb 1996, p. 97).

May your youthful enthusiasm, nourished by a profound relationship with God, never fade. In this regard, the same Cardinal Stepinac said to his priests: “Put far from our youth all faint-heartedness, as though it were the plague, for it is unworthy of Catholics, who can boast so great a name as is the name of our God” (Letters from Prison, Zagreb 1998, p. 310).

[snip]

I wish to quote here the words spoken by my Predecessor of venerable memory, Pius XII, on 24 December 1939: “A fundamental basis for a just and honourable peace is the guarantee of the life and independence of all Nations, big and small, strong and weak” (AAS, 32 [1940], p. 10). These words retain all their value also in the prospect of the new millennium which is now at the threshold. But they are also words which call upon every individual Nation to model its own juridical system according to what is demanded of the State ruled by law, thanks to the growing respect for the aspirations rooted in the innate dignity of the citizens who make up the State.

It is my hope that the fundamental rights of the person will be ever better recognized and embraced in this country, beginning with the right to life from its very first moments until its natural end. The degree of a Nation’s civilization is measured by the compassion which it shows its weakest and most needy members, and by its commitment to work for their rehabilitation and their full insertion into the life of society.

1. The Church feels called to be part of this process of human promotion. She knows, however, that her first and primary duty is to make her contribution by proclaiming the Gospel and forming consciences. In fulfilling this task she counts on each one of you, dear faithful people who are listening to me today: she counts on your witness and, before all else, on your prayers. It is by prayer, in fact, that we open ourselves to the constant saving presence of God in the life of every person and every people. Communion with God nourishes courage and hope in our hearts. May each one of you rediscover the immense treasures hidden in personal and community prayer!

With all my heart I hope that the people of Croatia will remain faithful to Christ also in the future. This faithfulness holds the secret of true freedom: it is Christ, in fact, who “for freedom . . . has set us free” (Gal 5:1). And this freedom, as one of your poets sings, “is a gift in which God Most High has given us every treasure” (I. Gundulic, Dubravka).

[snip]

May the Lord grant you steadfast faith, active harmony and the wisdom to make decisions inspired by the common good.
[snip]
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_02101998_croazia-people_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j.../hf_jp-ii_spe_02101998_croazia-people_en.html
Well, hopefully if you take my last three postings to this topic and this one, you should be able to figure it out! The Vatican loves me.

 

[Ender]

All the quotes from the CCC can be considered as part of the law given us by God through His Church.

True - and we specifically are told by the Church to condemn certain actions. *“By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.” *What can that possibly mean other than … lying is to be condemned?

The Church has the authority to condemn (loose & bind). I don’t believe I can usurp the authority given the Church as my own and make the claim that “I can condemn” or “We, as people, can condemn”. In fact, I think that to do so is a grave error.

If the Church says murder is sinful in what way have I usurped her authority when I apply her teaching to a specific incident?

It is not you or I who either decide what is immoral…

Agreed.

… or condemn immoral acts.

It is incomprehensible to me that someone can argue that we are not to condemn sins, especially in the face of statements from the Church directly telling us to condemn certain acts.

Perhaps it is a matter of definitions, but to me it seems more an issue of respecting authority vs. usurping authority or claiming God’s authority as our own.

God creates the laws, the Church presents them to us, and we are to live by them, but while we do not get to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong we certainly know these things from what the Church teaches. If someone was to ask you if murder is wrong surely you would say yes. If he then asks if what Ted Bundy did was wrong would you say yes to that?

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

True - and we specifically are told by the Church to condemn certain actions. *“By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.” *What can that possibly mean other than … lying is to be condemned?

It doesn’t say I am to condemn. It says the act of lying is to be condemned. Only an authority can condemn. The Church certainly has the authority to condemn acts.

It is incomprehensible to me that someone can argue that we are not to condemn sins, especially in the face of statements from the Church directly **telling us **to condemn certain acts.

Where does the Church tell US to condemn, as opposed to the Church speaking *of her own *authority to condemn?

God creates the laws, the Church presents them to us, and we are to live by them, but while we do not get to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong we certainly know these things from what the Church teaches. If someone was to ask you if murder is wrong surely you would say yes. If he then asks if what Ted Bundy did was wrong would you say yes to that?

Ted Bundy was convicted of the crime of murder by an authority. An authority given by God and responsible for the common good and for carrying out justice. Authority can condemn. You & I don’t condemn Ted Bundy, someone with the authority to do so, a judge in a court of law condemns him.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Ender, since you seem to be a fan of St. Thomas Aquinas here’s a quote regarding the authority to condemn:

Can a man justly judge one who is not his subject?

A judge’s sentence is like a particular law regarding some particular fact. Wherefore just as a general law should have coercive power, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. x, 9), so too the sentence of a judge should have coercive power, whereby either party is compelled to comply with the judge’s sentence; else the judgment would be of no effect. Now coercive power is not exercised in human affairs, save by those who hold public authority: and those who have this authority are accounted the superiors of those over whom they preside whether by ordinary or by delegated authority. Hence it is evident that no man can judge others than his subjects and this in virtue either of delegated or of ordinary authority.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

If the Church says murder is sinful in what way have I usurped her authority when I apply her teaching to a specific incident?

Again you’ll find the answer in St. Thomas Aquinas:

Is It Lawful to Judge?

Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. First, when it is contrary to the rectitude of justice, and then it is called “perverted” or “unjust”: secondly,** when a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority, and this is called judgment “by usurpation”**: thirdly, when the reason lacks certainty, as when a man, without any solid motive, forms a judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, and then it is called judgment by “suspicion” or “rash” judgment.

 

[Ender]

Where does the Church tell US to condemn, as opposed to the Church speaking *of her own *authority to condemn?

73. "Such unworthy and idle opinions are condemned by that noble instinct which is found in every chaste husband and wife." (Castii connubii - Pius XI)

1. “Those who know the Savior’s words on scandal and the giver of scandals, know, too, the judgment which the Church and all her sons must pronounce on what was and what is sin.” (Mit Brennender Sorge - Pius XI)

Ender