We are not to judge others

[Ender]

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?” *
You misunderstand this point: Aquinas is speaking specifically about judges, that is, a person who is charged with the duties of a magistrate; he is not speaking about individuals. Your quote is from Q67: The Injustice of a Judge, in Judging.

“Is it lawful to judge?”
This is from Q60: Judgment. You still miss the point Aquinas is addressing which is whether or not even a duly appointed magistrate may judge or whether the act of judgment itself is forbidden. Note his second reply: *“A judge is appointed as God’s servant…” *Again, he is not really addressing an individuals rights and responsibilities as regards correcting his neighbor.

I also think Aquinas is more precise with his words than we tend to be; that is, he uses “judging” when it is done by a judge and “reprove” and “correct” when it is done by an individual.

Q33 on Fraternal Correction is more to the point of our discussion.

“The correction of the wrongdoer is a remedy which should be employed against a man’s sin.” (Article 1)
*
“You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him.”* (Article 2 - quoting Augustine)

“Both priests and all the rest of the faithful should be most solicitous for those who perish, so that their reproof may either correct their sinful ways. or, if they be incorrigible, cut them off from the Church.” (Article 3) Aquinas goes on to point out that correction has two parts, the first of which is charity and belongs to all and the second part of which is justice and belongs only to those having authority. This goes to the point you raised about judging being authorized only to those in authority.

No one argues that individuals have the right to punish sinners; the argument is over whether they (we) have the right to reprove, correct, and admonish.

Aquinas (Article 5) also addresses the question of whether we do not have the right to correct others because we ourselves are sinners.

“As stated above (3, ad 2), to correct a wrongdoer belongs to a man, in so far as his reason is gifted with right judgment. Now sin, as stated above (I-II, 85, 1,2), does not destroy the good of nature so as to deprive the sinner’s reason of all right judgment, and in this respect he may be competent to find fault with others for committing sin.”

This is really the question: whether we may find fault with others for committing sin. Whether it is called judging, reproving, correcting or some other synonym it is not just our right but our duty to do so.

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

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)

This says nothing of a duty for **us to condemn **others especially in the way this concept is being used in our discussion of judging and condemning others.

It is refuting the ‘idle opinion’ of “an inborn sexual tendency which cannot be satisfied within the narrow limits of monogamous marriage” (basically promoting adultery as natural/inborn/instinctual and therefore trying to abolish penal laws passed by the State for the preserving of conjugal faith). The Holy Father refutes this by saying that the “noble instinct in every chaste husband and wife” is what condemns these unworthy opinions. It is the noble instinct, the “act” of chastity, the testimony of nature, that condemns. Not an individual.
Here’s the paragraph in it’s context:

1. It follows therefore that they are destroying mutual fidelity, who think that the ideas and morality of our present time concerning a certain harmful and false friendship with a third party can be countenanced, and who teach that a greater freedom of feeling and action in such external relations should be allowed to man and wife, particularly as many (so they consider) are possessed of an inborn sexual tendency which cannot be satisfied within the narrow limits of monogamous marriage. That rigid attitude which condemns all sensual affections and actions with a third party they imagine to be a narrowing of mind and heart, something obsolete, or an abject form of jealousy, and as a result they look upon whatever penal laws are passed by the State for the preserving of conjugal faith as void or to be abolished. Such unworthy and idle opinions are condemned by that noble instinct which is found in every chaste husband and wife, and even by the light of the testimony of nature alone, - a testimony that is sanctioned and confirmed by the command of God: “Thou shalt not commit adultry,”[55] and the words of Christ: “Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” [56] (CASTI CONNUBII
   ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
   ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE; p73.)

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)

Again. He’s not telling us, the faithful, those who hold no position of authority to condemn.

Again, the paragraph in context:

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. But if, besides these reprehensible discrepancies be between faith and life, acts and words, exterior conduct and interior feelings, however numerous they be, anyone overlooks the overwhelming sum of authentic virtues, of spirit of sacrifice, fraternal love, heroic efforts of sanctity, he gives evidence of deplorable blindness and injustice. If later he forgets to apply the standard of severity, by which he measures the Church he hates, to other organizations in which he happens to be interested, then his appeal to an offended sense of purity identifies him with those who, for seeing the mote in their brother’s eye, according to the Savior’s incisive words, cannot see the beam in their own. But however suspicious the intention of those who make it their task, nay their vile profession,** to scrutinize what is human in the Church**, and although the priestly powers conferred by God are independent of the priest’s human value, it yet remains true that at no moment of history, no individual, in no organization can dispense himself from the duty of loyally examining his conscience, of mercilessly purifying himself, and energetically renewing himself in spirit and in action. In Our Encyclical on the priesthood We have urged attention to the sacred duty of all those who belong to the Church, chiefly the members of the priestly and religious profession and of the lay apostolate, to square their faith and their conduct with the claims of the law of God and of the Church.

Not only that, but the sons of which Pius XI is speaking are the VENERABLE BRETHREN
THE ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS OF GERMANY.

No authority, No ability to Condemn.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

You misunderstand this point: Aquinas is speaking specifically about judges, that is, a person who is charged with the duties of a magistrate; he is not speaking about individuals.

I think you misunderstand the point. You claim not only a right but a directive from the Church to judge and condemn (minus any valid evidence of this claim). You also claim that Aquinas says we as individuals, as opposed to magistrates, are to **judge others **justly (in spite of evidence to the contrary). I have given you the criteria Aquinas has laid out for judging justly and one of these criteria is authority.

Here’s what Aquinas has to say on whether judgment belongs only to judges (magistrates) or in every just man:

Objection 4. Further, judgment would seem to belong only to judges. But the act of justice is to be found in every just man. Since then judges are not the only just men, it seems that judgment is not the proper act of justice.
Reply to Objection 4. Justice is in the sovereign as a master-virtue [Cf, 58, 6, commanding and prescribing what is just; while it is in the subjects as an executive and administrative virtue. Hence **judgment, which denotes a decision of what is just, belongs to justice,considered as existing chiefly in one who has authority

.

He is not really addressing an individuals rights and responsibilities as regards correcting his neighbor. I also think Aquinas is more precise with his words than we tend to be; that is, he uses “judging” when it is done by a judge and “reprove” and “correct” when it is done by an individual…No one argues that individuals have the right to punish sinners; the argument is over whether they (we) have the right to reprove, correct, and admonish.

The OP is over whether “We are not to judge others”, not about whether we are to reprove and correct others. Later it became an argument over whether we have the authority to judge & condemn others. I would not have a problem if you were to change your position to say you are only to reprove and correct as opposed to claiming you are to judge and condemn.

This is really the question: whether we may find fault with others for committing sin. Whether it is called judging, reproving, correcting or some other synonym it is not just our right but our duty to do so.

We’ve already discussed the differences between fraternal correction and judging others earlier in this thread. Here you are transplanting one word with the meaning of another and vice versa. Words have meanings. There is a word correction which means something, and there is another word judge which means something different and there is another word condemn which means something different. There is even a difference in meaning between the words convicting and condemning. Words are not interchangeable in meaning. Judge and Condemn are not synonymous with Reprove and Correct. For example, the synonym for judge is magistrate, justice, justice of the peace. The synonyms for reproving are admonish, reprove, rebuke, reprimand, reproach.

I haven’t disagreed with the concept of fraternal correction. Although as you noted earlier Aquinas does place conditions on this correction. For the full reading of these conditions as laid out by Aquinas I suggest reading

Whether a sinner ought to reprove a wrongdoer?
…Nevertheless a previous sin proves somewhat of a hindrance to this correction, for three reasons: First because this previous sin renders a man unworthy to rebuke another; and especially is he unworthy to correct another for a lesser sin, if he himself has committed a greater…
Secondly, such like correction becomes unseemly, on account of the scandal which ensues therefrom, if the corrector’s sin be well known, because it would seem that he corrects, not out of charity, but more for the sake of ostentation…
Thirdly, on account of the rebuker’s pride; when, for instance, a man thinks lightly of his own sins, and, in his own heart, sets himself above his neighbor, judging the latter’s sins with harsh severity, as though he himself were just man.

(btw:This is what Pius XI was speaking of in an earlier quote on Mit Brennender Sorge in post #122)

As an example, let’s say Jimmy sees his brother Johnny taking a $5 bill out of mommy’s purse. Jimmy thinks he’s just witnessed an act of theft. Jimmy can respond by:

• asking Johnny, “Why are you taking $5 out of mom’s wallet?” ( there is no accusation whatsoever of wrongdoing, but questioning him). Johnny could be innocent saying, “No, Mom told me to get $5 out of her purse for lunch money this week”. This is the presumption of innocence the Church asks of us
• asking his brother Johnny “Are you stealing money from Mom”? (notice the hidden accusation at wrongdoing) this is judging his brother in concupiscience, but is not a direct accusation although it presumes guilt.
• or accusing his brother “You’re stealing!” The accusation of stealing involves judging his brother as guilty. This is the presumption of guilt and judgment the Church forbids of us.

In either case, the authority of whether Johnny is stealing or isn’t stealing lies with an authority, Johnny’s mother and not with Jimmy, his brother.

Now fraternal correction comes into play afterJimmy discovers that Johnny is guilty of stealing either through Johnny’s own admission of guilt or through the authority of his mother. Fraternal correction is the step following judgment or discernment.