We are not to judge others

[SpiritMeadow]

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)

LOL. now you are going to confuse folks with real facts! I’m afraid the desire to admonish the sinner is just a bit too loved here for serious discussion. Course, I’m not about to judge what may be the motivation.

 

[surfinpure]

LOL. now you are going to confuse folks with real facts! I’m afraid the desire to admonish the sinner is just a bit too loved here for serious discussion. Course, I’m not about to judge what may be the motivation.

Facts? As it stands, Christ Jesus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Chrysostom, and the Navarre Bible all agree that it is a responsibility and a work of charity to admonish a sinner. Indeed, we have yet to see a text that calls this a sin. Those are the facts.

And presuming an ill motive would be precisely what the Lord warned us not to do.

 

[Pug]

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?

I don’t know. That’s just it. I watch this type of thread and I’m just not sure where each poster is coming from. I think sometimes it is solely in the language and most of the posters are really on the same side of the issue. Of course, I do know people who will tell me it is none of my business if I try to admonish them. There are people who reject being admonished. But I’m not sure that is who is on these threads, typically. I just know that I read them and tend to think what is being criticized is an unwillingness to use certain language, and not an unwillingness to be admonished. So I struggle with these threads, trying to puzzle them out.

In my real-life admonishing, I avoid saying “that was a mortal sin” in an absolute tone. I will say “that was grave matter.” See the partial avoidance of the word “sin”? In some contexts that word implies to me an analysis of internal states or an interior judgment. I usually don’t formally admonish someone for light matter, so in the context of this discussion, mortal sin is what comes to mind when you point out that

The entire point of the discussion was whether or not one person may say that another is sinning.

and I usually don’t say “you are sinning (mortally)” I will admonish as I state in a previous post, though. Since you see that as a clear case, then it is just a language thing that is puzzling me, I think.

I only mentioned the communion thing to make clear that I view certain statements if uttered by me to constitute an assessment or judgment on that level (interior). That’s how I hear these discussions, as being about interior things. I think on account of language differences. But maybe not.

 

[surfinpure]

Pug,

I think you and I are not so very far apart on this matter. These discussions often tend to lack an important context, which can make viewpoints look extreme. That context is, of course, charity, which should be both the motivation, the means, and the end in any and all situations involving another’s sin. Even if I reprove my brother correctly and he ceases to sin, if my motives were impure, the act is wrong.

At least in my own experience, I have several times approached a person I loved about his grave and habitual sin and appealed to him with truth and great compassion, only to hear the words, “Only God can judge me.” It is always heartbreaking, because the person is destroying himself. I’m reminded of the popular song by The Fray, “How to Save a Life.”

I’m also reminded of an entry in the Diary of St. Faustina. She speaks of a Sister who was “about to enter Hell,” and she flew to her and pleaded with her not to sin. This is how we ought to think of fraternal correction. I believe any other way would be wrong.

 

[wildleafblower]

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.

Hi SpiritMeadow , considering your above statement, here’s an excellent example of admonishment that I’m hopeful you’ll agree with:

**CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
NOTIFICATION
CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF
FATHER ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ **

The Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello (1931-1987) is well known due to his numerous publications which, translated into various languages, have been widely circulated in many countries of the world, though not all of these texts were authorized by him for publication. His works, which almost always take the form of brief stories, contain some valid elements of oriental wisdom. These can be helpful in achieving self-mastery, in breaking the bonds and feelings that keep us from being free, and in approaching with serenity the various vicissitudes of life. Especially in his early writings, Father de Mello, while revealing the influence of Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, remained within the lines of Christian spirituality. In these books, he treats the different kinds of prayer: petition, intercession and praise, as well as contemplation of the mysteries of the life of Christ, etc.

But already in certain passages in these early works and to a greater degree in his later publications, one notices a progressive distancing from the essential contents of the Christian faith. In place of the revelation which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he substitutes an intuition of God without form or image, to the point of speaking of God as a pure void. To see God it is enough to look directly at the world. Nothing can be said about God; the only knowing is unknowing. To pose the question of his existence is already nonsense. This radical apophaticism leads even to a denial that the Bible contains valid statements about God. The words of Scripture are indications which serve only to lead a person to silence. In other passages, the judgment on sacred religious texts, not excluding the Bible, becomes even more severe: they are said to prevent people from following their own common sense and cause them to become obtuse and cruel. Religions, including Christianity, are one of the major obstacles to the discovery of truth. This truth, however, is never defined by the author in its precise contents. For him, to think that the God of one’s own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism. “God” is considered as a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the personal nature of God is ignored and in practice denied.

Father de Mello demonstrates an appreciation for Jesus, of whom he declares himself to be a “disciple.” But he considers Jesus as a master alongside others. The only difference from other men is that Jesus is “awake” and fully free, while others are not. Jesus is not recognized as the Son of God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of God. In addition, the author’s statements on the final destiny of man give rise to perplexity. At one point, he speaks of a “dissolving” into the impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water. On various occasions, the question of destiny after death is declared to be irrelevant; only the present life should be of interest. With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality. Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.

Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one’s personal access to truth. The Church, making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple. She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ.

With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 24, 1998, the Solemnity of the Birth of John the Baptist.

• Joseph Card. Ratzinger
  Prefect
• Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
  Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
  Secretary
  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ts/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980624_demello_en.html

 

[Pug]

charity, which should be both the motivation, the means, and the end in any and all situations involving another’s sin. Even if I reprove my brother correctly and he ceases to sin, if my motives were impure, the act is wrong.

I have experienced pleading with someone like you say.:crying: It is about the person and their health. It is about helping them. It is true, though, that it is hard to watch someone self-destruct. But that is not why we correct. It isn’t to make ourselves more comfortable. It is supposed to be something we do to benefit the other, and not ourselves. We do agree.

 

[surfinpure]

I have experienced pleading with someone like you say.:crying: It is about the person and their health. It is about helping them. It is true, though, that it is hard to watch someone self-destruct. But that is not why we correct. It isn’t to make ourselves more comfortable. It is supposed to be something we do to benefit the other, and not ourselves. We do agree.

Indeed, it is well worth noting that in correcting someone we usually put our own comfort on the line. Anyone who has attempted this can testify to it. The person may become angry and lash out at you, accuse you of wrongdoing or bad motives, or even sever the relationship. I had a good friend in high school whom I eventually lost, because he made terrible choices, and when he asked what I thought, I tried to tell him in the kindest way I knew that he was living a dangerous lifestyle and abandoning his faith. He hated me for it, and does not speak to me to this day. I know my motives were good and what I said was true, but he wasn’t in a place where he could hear it.

Being the friend who confronts can be extremely costly. I’m sure this is one of the reasons for the list of criteria. We must take our time and choose very carefully why, when, how, and to whom we speak about their faults. Otherwise, we do more harm than good.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by RachelsAlumni
Neither of the quotes from the CCC given here say anything about us judging “what others do”.

:

Quote: Originally Posted by RachelsAlumni
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’.

You are interjecting “their" action, “another’s" action where no such distinction is made. The CCC says “we can judge an act". refering to ‘an act’ and not a** person** committing ‘an act’ ”. When you interject “their” and “another’s” you go from judging “the act” to judging the person commiting the act.

If someone says they want to go rob 10 banks would we say , hmm, I better reflect on my own sins before I mention that robbing a bank is wrong?

To use your own example: if my brother said he wants to rob 10 banks I would first assume that he knows robbing banks is wrong so there would be no need to mention robbing a bank is wrong. I would, in all charity, remind him of the consequences if he were to “act” upon this desire. I would even go so far as to remind him of the consequences I would face as an accomplice if I fail to notify the police if he carries out his thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RachelsAlumni
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?

Then you are certainly reading something into what I’ve posted. I have not asserted ‘we really should not judge bad actions’ and Scripture doesn’t merely ‘mention the log/speck teaching as if in passing. Judging others is repeatedly condemned throughout Scripture:

Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.

Romans 14:9-1 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat

.

James 4:11-12
 Do not speak against one another, brethren He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

Matthew 7:1" Do not judge so that you will not be judged”

Luke 6:37
" Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.

Romans 14:3
The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

 

[Ender]

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

Here is Aquinas quoting Augustine:

"Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 4): “You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him.” (ST II/II,33)

You would think that the words of Augustine and Aquinas would settle this debate. In fact, this is a debate that is a bit incomprehensible to me. For example, we are told to forgive one another but what exactly are we forgiving? If we cannot pass judgment and determine that we have been wronged then there is nothing that can be forgiven.

One entire section of the Catechism is devoted to the ten commandments which is nothing so much as an explanation of those things which we are to do and to avoid doing. If a person violates one of the commandments (or the extensions that flow from it) are we not to say he has sinned when the Church has explicitly defined his action as sinful?

(CCC 1807) “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”

Ender

 

[surfinpure]

Thank you, Ender. And with that, I believe I will step out of the discussion. I hope that those who disagree about judging actions will at least take the time to read the numerous texts posted on this thread. There is far more than enough evidence here to settle the argument once and for all.

Good night, everyone, and peace to you in Christ Jesus.

mary

 

[Pug]

I know my motives were good and what I said was true, but he wasn’t in a place where he could hear it.

I’m sorry about your friend/friendship loss. Sometimes we don’t know if what we have said will be received. That is not your fault that it turned out that it wasn’t. I’m sure you know that, of course, but the incident has stuck with you. The sad things often do.

Yes, it is extremely important to chose the right time to say certain things. For exactly the reason that the wrong time and the wrong words can cause damage to the person, which defeats the object. If we know we are going to cause damage, we should keep silent. (I mean real damage, not a little hit to the self-esteem).

EDIT: Oh, I just saw your post. Goodnight!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Facts? As it stands, Christ Jesus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Chrysostom, and the Navarre Bible all agree that it is a responsibility and a work of charity to admonish a sinner. Indeed, we have yet to see a text that calls this a sin. Those are the facts.

And presuming an ill motive would be precisely what the Lord warned us not to do.

Perhaps you might read through the posts and see the serious references to all the times Jesus warned of this. I don’t think the Navarre bible is authority. And again, speaking of Aquinas and Chrysostom is speaking of those trained in the practice of giving advice about sins. I simply suggest that some here take these things out of all context. Many of the same ones who are so determined to go around advising everyone of their sins are the same one complaining that their priests are not sermonizing on the issue. For good reason i would suggest, but of course that is not what people want to hear. Those are facts as well.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, I’m pretty much done with the conversation as well. I see no point in rehashing the same things again and again. those who feel this is their place will continue. Parish priests and other religious who work there will continue to be hampered in their efforts by well-meaning interference in the name of admonishing the sinner. There are always a couple in every parish it seems.

I guess what bugs me is simply that while I believe what I believe, i never feel that I KNOW God’s mind to the point that I feel I can claim that someone is destroying themselves by not APPEARING to follow the Gospel as I do. This type of self-assurance leads it appears to the believe that one should interdict themselves unasked in another’s life to “correct” them. When God makes it clear to me that my take on sin is correct, perhaps I might, but until then, I shall leave it to those who have been trained to do so.

I can respect that others feel differently, but I caution only this, If you are so correct, why is it that so often you are complaining that your Priest/relgiious,/bishops don’t do as you think they should? Are we so callous in our attitude toward clergy in this country that with arrogance we simply declare that they are wrong? That seems to be what I hear all the time.

 

[Pug]

I can respect that others feel differently, but I caution only this, If you are so correct, why is it that so often you are complaining that your Priest/relgiious,/bishops don’t do as you think they should? Are we so callous in our attitude toward clergy in this country that with arrogance we simply declare that they are wrong? That seems to be what I hear all the time.

These Catechism quotes have already got to be on this thread somewhere, but I find it hard to search threads. Here they are:**1829 **The *fruits *of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.

**1435 **Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one’s brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one’s cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance.
The time I am most likely to actually correct someone is when I see them right there in front of me about to defraud someone. At least, historically speaking. I’m the one who ends up standing there at their elbow at the time, not a priest. Also, I do not typically complain about my bishop or priest. That would be hard for me to do. They are both excellent. Although, I do not agree with how every program is run, that isn’t about fraternal correction that goes on (or doesn’t go on) in those programs. It is about other things.

 

[adrift]

Parish priests and other religious who work there will continue to be hampered in their efforts by well-meaning interference in the name of admonishing the sinner. There are always a couple in every parish it seems.

Parish priests and other religious cannot be everywhere. As I sit with fellow Christians I must not be silent. We must witness our faith and others must witness to us. We are all sinners needing support. Admonishing one another is a gift. We need each other for as Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow. Admonishing is not the same as condemning. Admonishing is as simple as saying read the insert of the pill you are using to see what it does. We are our brothers keeper. I have never had a priest come to me and say you better forgive this person who has offended you. I have had my friend tell me. The idea that we should leave it to “experts” is sad. If I see someone in need, should I just leave it to Catholic Charities because they are the experts? Thank goodness when my house burned down my neighbors did not say well just leave it to the Red Cross.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

I’m seeing alot of confusion between fraternal correction and judgment. It’s not fraternal judgment. It’s fraternal correction. The OP is about “judging others”.

There is a difference between judging and fraternal correction:

Fraternal correction ignores the issue of guilt. It addresses actions that are wrong, without making judgment about a person’s moral character or guilt.

Judgment is an act of assessing guilt. It is not my position to make a judgment about my brother’s subjective guilt. I can only ask questions in charity, always giving the benefit of the doubt:

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

*Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280 *

Notice it does not say to judge the person even if ‘the latter understands it badly’, but to ‘correct him with love’.

The judgment of my neighbor’s guilt is up to those who have been given the authority to judge. To take the judgment of others’, outside my authority, is to speaketh evil of the law!

*Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" James 4:8-12 *

 

[fix]

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

 

[fix]

You are interjecting “their" action, “another’s" action where no such distinction is made. The CCC says “we can judge an act". refering to ‘an act’ and not a** person** committing ‘an act’ ”. When you interject “their” and “another’s” you go from judging “the act” to judging the person commiting the act.

You may judge they acted wrongly. That is not judging their soul. Objectively some actions are wrong, regardless of intentions. The wrongness of some actions does not address personal culpability before God.

Do actions spontaneously happen without reference to a person?

Did Hitler act justly? I am not asking the fate of his soul. I am simply asking if objectively his actions were good, bad, or neutral.

To use your own example: if my brother said he wants to rob 10 banks I would first assume that he knows robbing banks is wrong so there would be no need to mention robbing a bank is wrong. I would, in all charity, remind him of the consequences if he were to “act” upon this desire. I would even go so far as to remind him of the consequences I would face as an accomplice if I fail to notify the police if he carries out his thought.

That is judging. You simply dance around the topic by choosing different terminology.

Then you are certainly reading something into what I’ve posted. I have not asserted ‘we really should not judge bad actions’ and Scripture doesn’t merely ‘mention the log/speck teaching as if in passing. Judging others is repeatedly condemned throughout Scripture:

I think everyone agrees judging another’s soul is never right.

 

[Ender]

There is a difference between judging and fraternal correction:

Fraternal correction ignores the issue of guilt. It addresses actions that are wrong,

At least we are agreed that one may judge actions that are wrong. After all, offering fraternal correction for actions that are not wrong hardly makes sense.

Judgment is an act of assessing guilt.

Not always, but that is sometimes appropriate as well.

It is not my position to make a judgment about my brother’s subjective guilt.

If someone behaves contrary to Church teaching he is guilty of sin. We cannot know if he will be held accountable for that sin but we can certainly know that he is guilty of it. We are to judge justly; we are not forbidden to judge at all.

*“On the one hand, there are positive remarks about the great moral virtues that brighten the “house”, that is, the family of the just man: the wisdom that helps us understand and judge properly; the innocence that is purity of heart and of life; and lastly, the integrity of conscience that tolerates no compromise with evil.” *(JPII General Audience 4/30/03)

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

If someone behaves contrary to Church teaching he is guilty of sin. We cannot know if he will be held accountable for that sin but we can certainly know that he is guilty of it. We are to judge justly; we are not forbidden to judge at all.

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.

He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" James 4:8-12

Now correction is exactly that, correction. For example someone is driving and gets off course, they can make corrections to their direction. Correction does not impute motives or judge guilt, it merely attempts to correct the action.

Giving Up Your Need to Judge and Dominate Others
By Dr. Joe Rubino

By judging others as wrong, flawed, or defective, we get to feel superior to them. As long as our focus is on their flaws, we have less time to bother with our own. Ironically, we are only able to see in others those faults we also possess ourselves. When judging others, we forgo the ability to move our own lives in a forward direction with deliberate intention.

One of the challenges we face when we judge others is we come from an egotistical perspective that is aware only of how we would act differently based upon our prior experiences and what we consider to be our superior wisdom. We completely discount how the experiences and perceptions of another may have resulted in their saying or doing something so much in conflict with how we would have acted. Because we are not privy to their history, to their painful childhood decisions about their own imperfections, and to the ways they have decided it is necessary to act in order to survive in the world, we have no ability to put ourselves into their world and therefore better understand the reasons why they acted as they do.

By judging them, we forfeit the empathy required to see the situation from their perspective. We do it because it feels good. Judging gives us the sensation of knowing more than they do and of being wiser and better. It provides us with a false sense of power and as a result allows us to temporarily forget about our own inadequacies and struggles.

By judging others, we distance ourselves from the qualities we loathe about them. While doing so, we lose sight of the fact that we too possess those qualities. If we did not, we would not be drawn to recognize them in other people with such a degree of anger, sadness, or fear. When we judge others of being arrogant, our own arrogance increases. When we see others as ignorant, we ignore our own ignorance being manifest. We get swept away in the lie that only other people are capable of possessing such despicable traits to such a great degree. By doing so, we dominate them in our minds and tell ourselves that we are wiser, more evolved, more powerful than they are.

The problem with this perspective is that it keeps us separate from others. When we judge others, we relinquish our ability to learn from their experiences. As long as we refuse to see in ourselves the same qualities that we detest in others, we will attract those qualities into our lives.

By judging, we forfeit our ability to connect with others. We sacrifice intimacy and mutuality by placing ourselves on a higher level than them. As a result, our relationships and ability to influence those we hold as flawed suffers further. We give up our ability to understand how we might impact them to see or do things differently. Because we trade this authentic personal power for the false sense that we are more powerful than they are by virtue of being better than they are, we become less and less likely to influence them to act differently as time goes on. We also lose our ability to influence others we see as possessing similar faults. So, the chasm between us and others grows wider. We lose personal power rather than gain it.

The more we judge, the greater the pain we feel in our lives. To distract us from this pain, we then condemn others even more. We want desparately to connect on a deeper, more intimate level with other human beings but our superior attitude and destructive actions make such a connection impossible. A vicious circle of increasing pain, isolation, unhappiness, and ineffectiveness is thus created. This costs us our happiness, our physical and mental health (all illnesses are an outward manifestation of our internal state), our relationships, and our ability to impact others.