We are not to judge others

[fix]

“Sins/Trespasses” can denote things a person has done, even though they are not culpable.

Sure, but that does not exclude situations were we know some person has acted unjustly toward us. Their personal culpability is not the issue. Their objectively sinful actions are the issue in this thread though.

It really seems absurd we cannot “judge” if one has wronged us. If we cannot determine that does it not follow we have no conscience?

 

[Fitswimmer]

We really don’t like to confuse a opinion with facts? Don’t ya know?

Who teaches the justice side of God? We hear perfectly loving, perfectly merciful, but no one wants to touch perfectly just. It opens too many unpleasant doors.

God is the arbiter of both justice and mercy. We are not God and cannot know God’s mind. He retains the absolute power to distribute justice and mercy as HE sees fit, not as WE see fit. If He chooses, he could forgive all or condemn all.

All we can do is use the guidance we have been given to the best of our ability. That guidance is quite clear about who is in charge, and it’s not us.

 

[fix]

And why has nobody commented on my earlier quotes regarding the reproof of a brother who is in sin (otherwise known as “fraternal correction”)? Can no one answer this?

My answer is that we “judge” actions. To claim otherwise is to create a type of sociopathy where there is no right or wrong. Or, we claim right and wrong exist we simply cannot claim any person’s actions are good or bad. Strange.

 

[surfinpure]

God is the arbiter of both justice and mercy. We are not God and cannot know God’s mind. He retains the absolute power to distribute justice and mercy as HE sees fit, not as WE see fit. If He chooses, he could forgive all or condemn all.

All we can do is use the guidance we have been given to the best of our ability. That guidance is quite clear about who is in charge, and it’s not us.

But don’t you see, that is the whole point? Nobody here is claiming to be in charge of justice and mercy. There are two non-interchangeable concepts being discussed here, which makes this a bait-and-switch argument. It goes like this:

I say, “It is possible and sometimes quite necessary to deem the actions of another person sinful.”

You say, “No, you cannot decide the fate of another person’s soul.”

But when have I mentioned the person’s soul? Not once.

You see, I am talking about one thing, and you are talking about an entirely different thing. There is a huge leap to be made between a) objectively stating that it is a sin for you to beat me up, and** b)** deciding that you are going to hell for doing so. What is so hard about acknowledging that difference?

And still no response on the two quotes I posted about fraternal correction?

 

[surfinpure]

Here’s what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about it.

(Links were already in the text. Find the entire text at NewAdvent.org.)
**

To correct the wrongdoer is a spiritual almsdeed. But almsdeeds are works of charity, as stated above (Question 32, Article 1). Therefore fraternal correction is an act of charity.

I answer that, The correction of the wrongdoer is a remedy which should be employed against a man’s sin. Now a man’s sin may be considered in two ways, first as being harmful to the sinner, secondly as conducing to the harm of others, by hurting or scandalizing them, or by being detrimental to the common good, the justice of which is disturbed by that man’s sin. Consequently the correction of a wrongdoer is twofold, one which applies a remedy to the sin considered as an evil of the sinner himself. This is fraternal correction properly so called, which is directed to the amendment of the sinner. Now to do away with anyone’s evil is the same as to procure his good: and to procure a person’s good is an act of charity, whereby we wish and do our friend well. Consequently fraternal correction also is an act of charity, because thereby we drive out our brother’s evil, viz. sin, the removal of which pertains to charity rather than the removal of an external loss, or of a bodily injury, in so much as the contrary good of virtue is more akin to charity than the good of the body or of external things. Therefore fraternal correction is an act of charity rather than the healing of a bodily infirmity, or the relieving of an external bodily need. There is another correction which applies a remedy to the sin of the wrongdoer, considered as hurtful to others, and especially to the common good. This correction is an act of justice, whose concern it is to safeguard the rectitude of justice between one man and another.

There you go. Sin, correction, even justice.

 

[buffalo]

Here’s what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about it.

(Links were already in the text. Find the entire text at NewAdvent.org.)

There you go. Sin, correction, even justice.

You have passed go and you get $200.00. You get an extra turn - take a walk to post #2

 

[Fitswimmer]

But don’t you see, that is the whole point? Nobody here is claiming to be in charge of justice and mercy. There are two non-interchangeable concepts being discussed here, which makes this a bait-and-switch argument. It goes like this:

I say, “It is possible and sometimes quite necessary to deem the actions of another person sinful.”

You say, “No, you cannot decide the fate of another person’s soul.”

But when have I mentioned the person’s soul? Not once.

You see, I am talking about one thing, and you are talking about an entirely different thing. There is a huge leap to be made between a) objectively stating that it is a sin for you to beat me up, and** b)** deciding that you are going to hell for doing so. What is so hard about acknowledging that difference?

And still no response on the two quotes I posted about fraternal correction?

How about a post # for those quotes? I just went scrolling and I’m not sure which post you’re referring to.

If we are ready to go tell someone that they are committing a sin, haven’t we already determined for ourselves that they have done it and are going to face the consequences?

 

[surfinpure]

You have passed go and you get $200.00. You get an extra turn - take a walk to post #2

Hahaha – now there’s the mark of a long thread!

I’m just puzzled as to why it wasn’t over at post #2. uch:

 

[surfinpure]

How about a post # for those quotes? I just went scrolling and I’m not sure which post you’re referring to.

If we are ready to go tell someone that they are committing a sin, haven’t we already determined for ourselves that they have done it and are going to face the consequences?

Aha! No, we haven’t. Because, as it was pointed out a moment ago, only God judges the heart of the sinner. All we can say is he sinned. But God decides to what degree he is culpable and what his consequences will be.

The Aquinas quote is the best on, anyway. Just refer to that one. And Buffalo gets credit for posting it first.

 

[Pug]

This sounds like a bit of a loophole. Let’s say someone didn’t trample my foot, then. Let’s say they became angry and knocked my teeth out.

Are you seriously suggesting that we are never, ever to judge a situation of deliberate sin? This is ludicrous.

And why has nobody commented on my earlier quotes regarding the reproof of a brother who is in sin (otherwise known as “fraternal correction”)? Can no one answer this?

If someone knocks your teeth out, avoid them. Keep your kids away from them. Maybe even file charges. If there seems to be opportunity, admonish them. If appropriate to the situation, tell your boss or whomever, so that the person can be removed from a position where they can do further harm. But, I don’t see any need for me decide fully to my satisfaction that they are no longer able to go up for communion (a judgment that they are definitely in mortal sin). That doesn’t seem to go anywhere or accomplish anything in the average case, unless I need the information for something(?). If they ask me, then based upon the info they provide and whatever facts I know, I will provide them an assessment of how to proceed, and that could definitely include me telling them not to go to communion. I decide up to the point that is needed for me to act or not, correct or not, etc. I don’t typically decide beyond that, unless I am upset.

I’m not sure which post you mean about fraternal correction, maybe the one with the Navarre quote? Of course we ought to offer fraternal correction. It is an act of charity. Say a brother is using contraception. Tell him it is wrong. Make it clear that it is grave, too, and not just some trivial thing. Encourage him to stop. Explain to him about grave matter and mortal sin and hell, if you think he doesn’t know that stuff, too. Also explain about confession, communion, and mortal sin, if you think it needed. It depends on where you diagnose the ignorance lies. Or, if you think it isn’t ignorance, then address whatever issue you think it is.

 

[Fitswimmer]

This is from the Fraternal Correction section referred to in Post #2. I found this part to be interesting.

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.

Which grevious sins would an observer be able to determine without question that someone else had committed? Remember, these would be mortal sins-both serious matter and full consent of the will are required.

How do we determine if there is “no good reason” that another person will discern the sinful nature of the behavior for himself?

How often would a layperson be the only person “well fitted” for this action and the most likely to undertake it?

What would be considered “special trouble or disadvantage”? (I find that interesting)

 

[Pug]

Sure, but that does not exclude situations were we know some person has acted unjustly toward us. Their personal culpability is not the issue. Their objectively sinful actions are the issue in this thread though.

It really seems absurd we cannot “judge” if one has wronged us. If we cannot determine that does it not follow we have no conscience?

Say we are falsely accused of murder and sent to jail on the false testimony of someone, and we know they knew it was false. That is unjust, even if they are somehow to be excused. It is flat out wrong to bear false witness. Even if their family is being held hostage at gunpoint, it is still wrong. It is unjust to be sent to jail for something you did not do, and it is wrong to bear false witness, even if under pressure.

It is not wrong to be aware of injustice within the world, even that which happens to ourselves.

It is impossible, I think, for us to judge culpability in the eternal sense with certainty. I don’t have any real motive to try.

 

[surfinpure]

If someone knocks your teeth out, avoid them. Keep your kids away from them. Maybe even file charges. If there seems to be opportunity, admonish them. If appropriate to the situation, tell your boss or whomever, so that the person can be removed from a position where they can do further harm. But, I don’t see any need for me decide fully to my satisfaction that they are no longer able to go up for communion (a judgment that they are definitely in mortal sin). That doesn’t seem to go anywhere or accomplish anything in the average case, unless I need the information for something(?). If they ask me, then based upon the info they provide and whatever facts I know, I will provide them an assessment of how to proceed, and that could definitely include me telling them not to go to communion. I decide up to the point that is needed for me to act or not, correct or not, etc. I don’t typically decide beyond that, unless I am upset.

I’m not sure which post you mean about fraternal correction, maybe the one with the Navarre quote? Of course we ought to offer fraternal correction. It is an act of charity. Say a brother is using contraception. Tell him it is wrong. Make it clear that it is grave, too, and not just some trivial thing. Encourage him to stop. Explain to him about grave matter and mortal sin and hell, if you think he doesn’t know that stuff, too. Also explain about confession, communion, and mortal sin, if you think it needed. It depends on where you diagnose the ignorance lies. Or, if you think it isn’t ignorance, then address whatever issue you think it is.

The entire point of the discussion was whether or not one person may say that another is sinning. You have just demonstrated a clear-cut case in the affirmative.

I don’t believe anyone has mentioned making a determination about a person’s ability to receive communion. That was never in question, because that goes back to making the sort of interior judgment that only God and that soul can make.

Let us not stray too far from the real reason and context in which “do not judge” is thrown around so loosely in our quite wicked society. The context is always when a person or group of persons is said to be doing something against God’s law. The reason is that nobody wants to be told this.

The real point here is that “do not judge me” has come down to “do not presume to tell me what I do is a sin.” All the hypotheticals thrown out, is that not what we’re really talking about here?

 

[surfinpure]

Say we are falsely accused of murder and sent to jail on the false testimony of someone, and we know they knew it was false. That is unjust, even if they are somehow to be excused. It is flat out wrong to bear false witness. Even if their family is being held hostage at gunpoint, it is still wrong. It is unjust to be sent to jail for something you did not do, and it is wrong to bear false witness, even if under pressure.

It is not wrong to be aware of injustice within the world, even that which happens to ourselves.

It is impossible, I think, for us to judge culpability in the eternal sense with certainty. I don’t have any real motive to try.

I agree, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Catholic who is actually interested in judging culpability. Still, many of us remain implicitly accused…

 

[buffalo]

The point is - we are to concern ourselves with sin committed by ourselves and others. We should not be ambivalent.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The point is - we are to concern ourselves with sin committed by ourselves and others. We should not be ambivalent.

Yes!

We should forgive others. To forgive means that we do not wish harm or punishment to come to that person for what they did. That is what ‘not judging’ is… it means that we understand that we have no right to condemn another person, since we were once condemned too.

To judge someone is to impose a punishment on them. Pointing out the objective fact that someone has done something that’s wrong isn’t judging (unless its going to subject them to some sort of humiliation or mob justice that is a form of punishment).

 

[surfinpure]

This is from the Fraternal Correction section referred to in Post #2. I found this part to be interesting.

Which grevious sins would an observer be able to determine without question that someone else had committed? Remember, these would be mortal sins-both serious matter and full consent of the will are required.

How do we determine if there is “no good reason” that another person will discern the sinful nature of the behavior for himself?

How often would a layperson be the only person “well fitted” for this action and the most likely to undertake it?

What would be considered “special trouble or disadvantage”? (I find that interesting)

I don’t know how to go about interpreting the line about “special trouble or disadvantage,” but as for the rest of the qualifications, I can cite a recent personal instance in which all of them were met:

A certain Catholic member of my family, to whom I am very close, had for many years neglected the Sunday obligation to attend Mass. She had also neglected to go to confession once a year. Despite these things, when she went to Mass sporadically she would receive Communion.

So let’s work through the list:

“the delinquency to be corrected or prevented is a grievous one;”

Failure to meet the Sunday obligation is grave matter. The faithful are also required to receive Penance once a year.

“there is no good reason to believe that the sinner will adequately provide for himself;”

This was a long established pattern, and this person was seeking no form of Catholic spiritual guidance or formation. To that I can testify.

“there is a well-founded expectation that the admonition will be heeded;”

My family member has a very good heart and conscience and would not knowingly commit a grave error.

“there is no one else just as well fitted for this work of Christian charity and likely to undertake it;”

None of her friends are practicing Catholics, and the relatives who are are far away and rarely in touch with her.

“there is no special trouble or disadvantage accruing to the reformer as a result of his zeal.”

Still unsure about the meaning here, but if it means “am I going to be arrested for telling her,” then no, I’m not.

We had the conversation several months ago, she was baffled, I showed her evidence in writing, and she corrected the error and thanked me for letting her know.

So the point is, these cases do exist, perhaps quite a bit more than you’d think.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think we need to remember that though the Lord said not to judge, He also said to instruct the ignorant.( I heard a wonderful sermon on this by a devout priest awhile back and was ready to stand and cheer!!) And, as Catholics it is our responsibility to lead others to salvation as best we can. If someone is in a sinful situation, we are WRONG not to speak up and gently correct them. I’m more than a little tired of liberals who constantly wiggle their fingers and say ‘no no --we can’t judge!’ and then find they are constantly judging those of us who are trying to live our faith. Such hypocrasy! Just today I had an editorial in the paper, and a liberal contacted me and said I was wrong because ‘you only get your sources from blogs so it’s not the truth!’ I had a good laugh at that and am still laughing, because I had gotten the information from numerous sources- none of them blogs! He was judging me and he had no clue, yet he is the first to say ‘we can’t judge’ which really means we can’t judge what liberals do, but they can judge what everyone else does. Brainwashed!!

I accept your point to a point. The fact that someone may need “correction” is true. Your children do and your immediate family perhaps. But just because there are statements that sins should be corrected or pointed out, doesn’t mean than everyone should weigh in. People are actually TRAINED for this, and its best left to them. They have the training and expertise to do it so that it can be fruitful. The average person’s interference is usually distructive and not helpful in the least.

I don’t know what this has to do with liberals. And anecdotal references are interesting but hardly proof of the point you are attempting.

You are going to have a tough row to hoe as they say to prove that liberals are the ones telling you to beware of admonishing those YOU consider as sinners. It is not judgement, certainly not of you, but only of the activity of admonishing by one not trained to do so. I dare say your issue with liberals is some kind of judgment is it not?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What you are referring to is subjective truth, not objective truth.

It can be either or both, depending on the size of the group that adhers to a particular maxim as truth. To them at least if sufficiently large, it has become objective truth. But I would agree, in technical terms, there can be but one objective truth on any given subject. There are very few that I suspect all would agree with.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Neither of the quotes from the CCC given here say anything about us judging “what others do”. It says “we can judge that** an act** is in itself a grave offense”. This is an objective judgment, judging ‘an act’ and not a person committing ‘an act’. IMO it is for our guidance in forming a proper conscience, to discern and make choices to obey the Lord’s commands for ourselves not a free for all to judge others. IMO it boils down to where my focus is placed. Am I focusing on my brothers’ acts or my own? Am I looking for the speck in my brother’s eye or trying to remove the log from my own eye?

Excellent point!