We are not to judge others

[fix]

Can you distingish between a thief and a theft, a murderer and a murder? I can.

Is a rapist the same thing a rape? Is a homosexual the same thing as sodomy?

That is the point. Some do not want that distinction and will try to use Scripture to enofrce it. Failure to discern evil is not consistent with the Gospel.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

… 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.

I don’t think judging is the correct word to use for determining whether a political candidate is worthy of my vote. I’m not sure how “discern[ing] motives” has anything to do with this process. I can’t read minds or hearts so I don’t know how I could go about “discerning motives”. All I can go by is what values the candidate exhibits in their voting history, contributions to organizations, etc. compared to what values I hold. I’m not passing judgment on him/her, rather I am assessing whether or not I believe they will uphold my values as my representative.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If we follow this sort of advice we have no way to determine whether our tax accountant is a scoundrel we don’t want to patronize or whether we should vote for Bill Jones or Bob Smith. Buffalo has hit the nail on the head, we cannot and should not judge whether one is going to hell or not, but we sure are not going to walk through life like naifs and let every Tom, **** and Harry rip us off in one way or another. If the guy acts like a scoundrel, I don’t care if his heart is pure gold and his reasons flawless, he ain’t gonna get my vote. Theres a vast gulf between being judgemental in the manner Jesus repudiates and being stupid.

I am not referring to the day to day decisions we all make as citizens and as consumers. Of course we make judgments in a world of open choice. We cannot avoid doing this. I am referring to social judging that leads to informing others that they are sinful from our definition or faith tradition.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

In Sunday’s homily my Priest said we can judge someone’s actions as sinful. He said we cannot say where they’d end up if they died, but sin is sin and we’re allowed to call it just that.

I love my Priest. He doesn’t sugar coat anything.

Did he also advise you to go to them and tell them what you had concluded? I suspect not.

 

[Brendan]

I I am referring to social judging that leads to informing others that they are sinful from our definition or faith tradition.

Catholics only inform others their behavior is sinful based on absolute, objective truth

Would you avoid telling a rapist that it is a moral wrong to assault little girls simply because it would be your definiton that it is wrong to do so, or is there an objective truth that applies to all?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Huh? Who here cannot distingish between an act and a person.

A person is a living rational entity. An act is the end result of a verb.

Two completely different things.

Can you distingish between a thief and a theft, a murderer and a murder? I can.

Is a rapist the same thing a rape? Is a homosexual the same thing as sodomy?

So how can anyone have problems distinguishing between a person and and action?

The Bible is pretty clear on that.

James 5:19-20

James knows that we can recognize when a person sins, and that they are in the state of sin. He also praises when we bring them back to the Truth. Doing so even removes the temporal effects of our own sins.

That is why Admonishment of Sinners is an Act of Mercy.

Of course we can intellectually define one from another. That is hardly the point here. Any cursory look at threads that involve issues that deal with sin as defined by the church, finds that when one is defined as a sinner by another, many folks here are not limited to defining the action as sinful. The “sinner” is called all manner of names, such as heretic, satanist, playing at being Catholic, self-excommunicant. The list is quite endless. This gives strong evidence that a judgment has indeed been made about the person. That is what I was referring to in saying that it is quite easy to define one from the other, quite another to keep them separate in practice.

The CAF reliance on Acts of mercy as the defense to what Jesus himself taught is interesting but hardly convincing. After all, CAF was originally set up as an apologist site to refute Protestant claims against the Church. It has morphed into a vehicle to beat up on those not deemed Catholic enough in the opinion of certain adherents. It is a dangerous road to give too much emphasis to a singular teaching of the Church in disregard to very clear statements of Jesus himself.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Catholics only inform others their behavior is sinful based on absolute, objective truth

Would you avoid telling a rapist that it is a moral wrong to assault little girls simply because it would be your definiton that it is wrong to do so, or is there an objective truth that applies to all?

Nice to say but quite hard to define. And of course, it is objective truth only to the Catholic. It may not at all be objective truth to others. I remain unconvinced that the nasty practice (IMO) of deliberately offering unsolicited comment on another’s behavior or belief is appropriate.

I would tell the rapist that it is against the law. That is objective truth. It is my personal subjective truth as well, but again, you are on a very dangerous ground in trying to prove objective truth.

You are mistating my words. You may have whatever personal belief about another that you wish. You may perfectly rightly say that some things are wrong in your opinion and that you think everyone should agree they are wrong. Taking examples of murder, theivery, rape and so on are obvious to most anyone. Issues of homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception and others are not objectively evil for millions of people. They simply disagree with your beliefs. You can’t lump them all in the same boat.

Can you not realize that in telling others that their behavior on these social mores is sinful is akin to being assaulted by folks like Jehovah’s witnesses and being told that you are going to hell because you are Catholic? They believe that is objective truth as well.

 

[rwoehmke]

I am not referring to the day to day decisions we all make as citizens and as consumers. Of course we make judgments in a world of open choice. We cannot avoid doing this. I am referring to social judging that leads to informing others that they are sinful from our definition or faith tradition.

Now there is a vast difference between telling a brother or sister that they are sinful and in telling them that certain actions or omissions in their lives are objectively sins. Normally lay people have no business trying to evaluate and assign culpability except as jurers in a court of law, where we are concerned with legality and not the condition of someones soul.

One of the seven corporal works of mercy is to admonish the sinner.

1 Thess 5:14 and Col 3:16

 

[Howard_Roark]

Of course the person called “Spirit Meadow” wants to be nice to everyone and ends up making no sense.

There IS a certain fatality in names!

 

[Brendan]

The “sinner” is called all manner of names, such as heretic, satanist, playing at being Catholic, self-excommunicant. The list is quite endless. This gives strong evidence that a judgment has indeed been made about the person.

All of those have objective criteria. If someone has performed an act to which the Canonical punishement is a Excommunication latae sentientiae are, in fact, self-excommunicated. That is their state in relation to the Church, but it still does not define the person themselv, only what their actions were. Do you object to people making factual claims? Do facts bother you that much?

The same is true for a person who, after Baptism, denies a tenent of the Faith. That person is factualy a heretic.

Both 'self excommunicated" and “heretic” are terms that describe a person who has accomplished a particular action. If a person commits an act of rape, we refer to that person as a “rapist”, do we not.

Again, the term ‘rapist’ does not define who the person is. They have an identity of being that differs from a description of what actions they have performed.

“Heretic”, “Satanist”, “Self-excommunicated” are all very similar, they have objective criteria that describe actions that the person have done ( or are doing).

That is what I was referring to in saying that it is quite easy to define one from the other, quite another to keep them separate in practice.

The CAF reliance on Acts of mercy as the defense to what Jesus himself taught is interesting but hardly convincing. After all, CAF was originally set up as an apologist site to refute Protestant claims against the Church. It has morphed into a vehicle to beat up on those not deemed Catholic enough in the opinion of certain adherents. It is a dangerous road to give too much emphasis to a singular teaching of the Church in disregard to very clear statements of Jesus himself.

 

[Brendan]

Normally lay people have no business trying to evaluate and assign culpability except as jurers in a court of law, where we are concerned with legality and not the condition of someones soul.

One of the seven corporal works of mercy is to admonish the sinner.

1 Thess 5:14 and Col 3:16

Not quite true, we admonish the sinner because we CAN recognise the sin.

James 5 also tells us that.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Now there is a vast difference between telling a brother or sister that they are sinful and in telling them that certain actions or omissions in their lives are objectively sins. Normally lay people have no business trying to evaluate and assign culpability except as jurers in a court of law, where we are concerned with legality and not the condition of someones soul.

One of the seven corporal works of mercy is to admonish the sinner.

1 Thess 5:14 and Col 3:16

True. But there are limits and conditions given us on admonishing the sinner:

Fraternal Correction

“If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother” (Matthew 18:15).

Given a sufficiently grave condition of spiritual distress calling for succour in this way, this commandment may exact fulfilment under pain of mortal sin. This is reckoned to be so only when

• the delinquency to be corrected or prevented is a grievous one;
• there is no good reason to believe that the sinner will adequately provide for himself;
• there is a well-founded expectation that the admonition will be heeded;
• there is no one else just as well fitted for this work of Christian charity and likely to undertake it;
• there is no special trouble or disadvantage accruing to the reformer as a result of his zeal.

Practically, however, individuals without any official capacity are seldom impeachable as having seriously transgressed the law in this matter because it is but rarely one finds the coalition of circumstances just enumerated.

Of course the reproof is to be administered privately, i.e. directly to the delinquent and not in the presence of others.

…unless the sin is itself a public scandal.

In either case, fraternal correction is hardly a matter of judgment and this can be gleaned from the manner in which the admonishment is given: whether it’s given in humility and charity or whether it’s given through self righteousness & pride. Name calling and accusatory remarks are certainly lacking in humility & charity.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Do people here really go up to strangers in real life and “admonish” them for their sins?

I get this vision of the CAF police running around their parishes “admonishing” people left and right that they believe violated some tenet of the faith.

For me, I’ve got enough to do every day to keep my own house clean. I don’t have the time to be running around looking for evidence of sinful behavior in others.

 

[Mimi]

Catholics only inform others their behavior is sinful based on absolute, objective truth

Would you avoid telling a rapist that it is a moral wrong to assault little girls simply because it would be your definiton that it is wrong to do so, or is there an objective truth that applies to all?

So, if I know a fellow parishioner advocates and supports (by her membership in a certain organization) women’s “ordination”, then it would be okay to remind her in a charitable way that this is a sinful activity?

This person in fact has told me enthusiastically that she was at a conference where women were ordained (last fall). I’ve been trying to think of what I should/could do (besides pray for her).

Perhaps she will take notice of the recent official statement the Vatican has put out in the Catholic press, but seeing as she isn’t respectful of Papal Authority on the ordination matter, what good does it do?

Also, regarding my original post; I wonder if the priest was alluding to pro-choice politicians being refused Holy Communion in some places. Guess I’ll have to ask him directly if I want to find out.

I’ll keep praying.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
Mimi

 

[wildleafblower]

Do people here really go up to strangers in real life and “admonish” them for their sins?

Ever heard of neighborhood watch? If solicitors come within my neighborhood without a permit, we call the cops. Adults take a proactive stance where I live. We keep a watchful eye on EVERYONE, especially the kids. Young teens have at least 3 to 4 bodyguards (adults) at any given time. I should mention in my neighborhood filled with every faith imaginable, as well as non-religous folks, the adults are like-minded professionals and pretty much agree with and teach their children the following:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144 (144 John Paul II, RP 16) [PART THREE LIFE IN CHRIST, SECTION ONE, MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT, CHAPTER ONE, THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON, ARTICLE 8, SIN]

I get this vision of the CAF police running around their parishes “admonishing” people left and right that they believe violated some tenet of the faith.

For me, I’ve got enough to do every day to keep my own house clean. I don’t have the time to be running around looking for evidence of sinful behavior in others.

Fitswimmer, your statement is ironic to say the least, considering you state, “I don’t have the time to be running around looking for evidence of sinful behavior in others” yet you make me think you do by your complaint, “I get this vision of the CAF police running around their parishes “admonishing” people left and right that they believe violated some tenet of the faith.” Take off your rose-colored glasses and smell the flowers. And I’ll be quite honest with you and SpiritMeadow (ref. msg. 26), in my opinion you should both stop making snide remarks about CAF which is comprised of over 80,000 members. We can’t please everyone though there are those of us that do attempt to help in a small way. It may not be perfect but we try our best.

Ah well, I happen to agree with the following two statements which pertain to the OP’s topic of discussion regarding JUDGEMENT:

"The combination of historical judgement and theological judgement in the process of interpreting the past is connected to the ethical repercussions that it may have in the present and entails some principles corresponding, on the moral plane, to the hermeneutic foundation of the relationship between historical judgement and theological judgement. These are: a. The principle of conscience. **Conscience, as “moral judgement” and as “moral imperative,” constitutes the final evaluation of an act as good or evil before God. In effect, only God knows the moral value of each human act, even if the Church, like Jesus, can and must classify, judge, and sometimes condemn some kinds of action. **(cf. Mt 18:15-18).
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html

It is urgent then that Christians should rediscover the newness of the faith and its power to judge a prevalent and all-intrusive culture. As the Apostle Paul admonishes us: “Once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of the light (for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful words of darkness, but instead expose them… Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil” (Eph 5:8-11, 15-16; cf. 1 Th 5:4-8). (Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Veritatis splendor)

 

[9Choirs]

Some food for thought…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=237985

**
Judge others, without being judged; that is what people want today.

I believe that this problem is caused by a lack of humility and a desire by some to behave as they wish, without anyone correcting them.

Many today, are self-centered and they want everyone to agree with them on their terms. Some misuse the “don’t judge others’ comment, not because they have a problem with “judging” others but because, they don’t want you to judge them, when they are engaged in bad or disagreeable behavior.

Some people need to be judged and corrected. The “don’t judge others” comment has turned into a tool, misused by some today, to win, or end arguments. Often times, it is a comment, which is intended to insult and when misused, it is condescending and hypocritical. Some use this comment to divert attention away from themselves and their own negative behavior.

Judging

* There is - “Final Judgment”, which is reserved for God alone
* There is - “Falsely judging” others
* There is - “Wrongly judging” others
* There is - “Hypocritical judgment” of others
* There is - Judging others to identify and avoid sin and the occasion of sin
* There is - Judging others, in order to identify a problem and offer a solution
* There is - Judging others and situations for the purpose of a threat assessment
* There is - Judging others, involved in the educational and training process
* There is - Judging others, in the context of the Criminal Justice System
* There is - Judging, involved in a selection process
* There is - Judging, involved in a background and security clearance process

And so on…and so on…

Not all “judging” is wrong and in some cases, “judging” someone is absolutely necessary in order to identify and correct negative behavior. I believe that relativism and widely accepted immoral behavior goes unchecked today, because people are afraid to “judge”. We could all use a little corrective “judging” but unfortunately for many; their egos will not allow it.**

• By Jimmy B.

Ave Maria

 

[Fitswimmer]

Ever heard of neighborhood watch? If solicitors come within my neighborhood without a permit, we call the cops. Adults take a proactive stance where I live. We keep a watchful eye on EVERYONE, especially the kids. Young teens have at least 3 to 4 bodyguards (adults) at any given time. I should mention in my neighborhood filled with every faith imaginable, as well as non-religous folks, the adults are like-minded professionals and pretty much agree with and teach their children the following:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144 (144 John Paul II, RP 16) [PART THREE LIFE IN CHRIST, SECTION ONE, MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT, CHAPTER ONE, THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON, ARTICLE 8, SIN]

Fitswimmer, your statement is ironic to say the least, considering you state, “I don’t have the time to be running around looking for evidence of sinful behavior in others” yet you make me think you do by your complaint, “I get this vision of the CAF police running around their parishes “admonishing” people left and right that they believe violated some tenet of the faith.” Take off your rose-colored glasses and smell the flowers. And I’ll be quite honest with you and SpiritMeadow (ref. msg. 26), in my opinion you should both stop making snide remarks about CAF which is comprised of over 80,000 members. We can’t please everyone though there are those of us that do attempt to help in a small way. It may not be perfect but we try our best.

Ah well, I happen to agree with the following two statements which pertain to the OP’s topic of discussion regarding JUDGEMENT:

"The combination of historical judgement and theological judgement in the process of interpreting the past is connected to the ethical repercussions that it may have in the present and entails some principles corresponding, on the moral plane, to the hermeneutic foundation of the relationship between historical judgement and theological judgement. These are: a. The principle of conscience. **Conscience, as “moral judgement” and as “moral imperative,” constitutes the final evaluation of an act as good or evil before God. In effect, only God knows the moral value of each human act, even if the Church, like Jesus, can and must classify, judge, and sometimes condemn some kinds of action. **(cf. Mt 18:15-18).
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html

It is urgent then that Christians should rediscover the newness of the faith and its power to judge a prevalent and all-intrusive culture. As the Apostle Paul admonishes us: “Once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of the light (for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful words of darkness, but instead expose them… Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil” (Eph 5:8-11, 15-16; cf. 1 Th 5:4-8). (Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Veritatis splendor)

It was not intended as complaint just a mental picture that I got after reading some of the responses-and since I read them on CAF it would be fairly logical for that mental picture to contain CAF members.

I’m not making a judgement on what people choose to do. If people feel called to admonish others on what they feel is sinful behavior then more power to them.

I’ve clarified church teaching with people I’ve been conversing with if they have a misunderstanding or misconception-but it’s not something that I actively seek out.

 

[fix]

Nice to say but quite hard to define. And of course, it is objective truth only to the Catholic. It may not at all be objective truth to others.

Is this not contradictory? Objective truth is just that objective regardless of who does or does not accept such.

I would tell the rapist that it is against the law. That is objective truth. It is my personal subjective truth as well, but again, you are on a very dangerous ground in trying to prove objective truth.

I find this peculiar reasoning. You assert rape is wrong simply because it is illegal in this society? Further, you assert it is dangerous to prove objective moral truth? I see, once again, we head toward relativism.

I

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Nice to say but quite hard to define. And of course, it is objective truth only to the Catholic. It may not at all be objective truth to others. I remain unconvinced that the nasty practice (IMO) of deliberately offering unsolicited comment on another’s behavior or belief is appropriate.

Why is it so nasty to tell someone what you think!?

Jesus said that we will be judged as we judge others. So, if we tell other people what we think about them, we’ll be subjected to the same in return? What’s the big deal about that? It’s not like we’re punishing people, we’re just telling them what we think! Why would anyone fear being judged like that?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Do people here really go up to strangers in real life and “admonish” them for their sins?

I get this vision of the CAF police running around their parishes “admonishing” people left and right that they believe violated some tenet of the faith.

For me, I’ve got enough to do every day to keep my own house clean. I don’t have the time to be running around looking for evidence of sinful behavior in others.

It certainly is not the kind of thing I have found in any parish I’ve been associated with. I know that a priest or two has commented that every parish has one “troublemaker” or two who tries to involve themselves in everyone’s lives a lot, but other than that, it has always been a badge of honor in some sense that we as Catholics did not go around harassing people, but rather showed by example the Christian life.

I’ve never heard such an emphasis on “corporal works of mercy” specifically admonish the sinner. Of course within one’s family that is quite another thing. I think it is a danger concept for a number of reasons, one of which is that it encourages people who otherwise are enclined to bias and prejudiced to see this as an acceptable way to express it, couched in this religious mantle.