'Who am I to judge?': The pope's most powerful phrase in 2013

[epan]

What could be more ironic than a spiritual institution which is sex obsessed, as the church hierarchy and its more reactionary membership appears to have been for the past couple of decades?

My interpretation of the aggregate of Francis’ statements is that there are more important issues to expend our limited energy and resources on, like poverty. He comes from a part of the world where the suffering due to poverty can be extreme.

Let’s worry about the poor, who in some case eat dirt, and don’t even have clean water. Let’s worry about the people in poor health with no medical care.
Let’s worry about the unborn, and their lack of protection under the law.

As for the other sinners of the world, of which I am one, they are exercising free will. If two men want to marry, who am I to judge? I have my own problems to worry about. And I would much rather spend my time making a positive difference in people’s lives than ranting about other people’s sexual activities.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Christ had teachings precluding homosexuality?

searches Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Where, exactly?

Read this short and sweet explanation.

 

[NiceanParadox]

Read this short and sweet explanation.

Wow, people can use scripture to justify just about anything. There are all sorts of Old Testament doctrines that we no longer practice, that Jesus also didn’t mention, yet we don’t ex post facto attribute them to Jesus.

And Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus, the Pharisee) was alot of things, and chief among those would be “person most often mistakenly quoted as Christ to justify prejudicial or sanctimonious action”. Evangelicals walk around with “Christian” quotebooks containing almost only quotes from Paul so that they can wield the ‘word of God’ as a tool to chastise and castigate others.

I think we as Catholics should aspire to better than that. Just because the Council of Nicea decided to stack the New Testament with the words of someone other than Christ doesn’t mean we have to create the false equivalence that those words somehow supersede the ACTUAL words of Christ…

 

[NiceanParadox]

Everyone is missing the point here…of course the pope is asking all good Christians to judge, just not whether their going to heaven or hell, only God can have that judgement. Here on earth the gospel calls us to judge others actions not the person.

See Catholic Answers on judging others.

Jesus then explains how to judge rightly: “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Much to the point of this article, there can be no doubt that those final words—“take the speck out of your brother’s eye”—are, indeed, permission to judge so long as it is done rightly.

Other Bible passages which seem on the surface to indicate a condemnation of judging others’ behavior may be treated similarly in their full context. The idea of rightly judging the behavior of others can be found throughout the New Testament.

Jesus told the Jews, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (John 7:24).
catholic.com/magazine/articles/judge-not

That is a fascinating way to justify judging others. I’m pretty sure that was the exact opposite of what Jesus meant by that statement… he was addressing the hypocrisy of the pharisees, not proscribing a means for self correction for the purpose of being able to cast the first stone…

 

[clem456]

Wow, people can use scripture to justify just about anything. There are all sorts of Old Testament doctrines that we no longer practice, that Jesus also didn’t mention, yet we don’t ex post facto attribute them to Jesus.

And Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus, the Pharisee) was alot of things, and chief among those would be “person most often mistakenly quoted as Christ to justify prejudicial or sanctimonious action”. Evangelicals walk around with “Christian” quotebooks containing almost only quotes from Paul so that they can wield the ‘word of God’ as a tool to chastise and castigate others.

I think we as Catholics should aspire to better than that. Just because the Council of Nicea decided to stack the New Testament with the words of someone other than Christ doesn’t mean we have to create the false equivalence that those words somehow supersede the ACTUAL words of Christ…

Because Jesus did not mention homosexuality in Scripture, you believe we can’t make moral judgments about the issue? (I’m not referring to judgment of souls, but moral judgments about an issue.)

That is an equally narrow and literalist reading of Scripture.
Is it possible that natural law reflects on this issue in an obvious way? And that the culture Jesus lived in would have understood this, making pronouncements about it redundant?

14And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. 15Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

I grabbed this scripture quote not cause it mentions Sodom and Gomorrha but because Jesus himself points us to the apostles, who represent the Church’s authority. These are strong words, used by Jesus, exhorting us to listen to the Church…

 

[novusCatholic]

The Church has spoken (again and again).

The behavior is disordered and is not consistent with moral law.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Wow, people can use scripture to justify just about anything. There are all sorts of Old Testament doctrines that we no longer practice, that Jesus also didn’t mention, yet we don’t ex post facto attribute them to Jesus.

And Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus, the Pharisee) was alot of things, and chief among those would be “person most often mistakenly quoted as Christ to justify prejudicial or sanctimonious action”. Evangelicals walk around with “Christian” quotebooks containing almost only quotes from Paul so that they can wield the ‘word of God’ as a tool to chastise and castigate others.

I think we as Catholics should aspire to better than that. Just because the Council of Nicea decided to stack the New Testament with the words of someone other than Christ doesn’t mean we have to create the false equivalence that those words somehow supersede the ACTUAL words of Christ…

You overlooked the part of the quoted piece that said that defenders of homosexuality commit a logical fallacy known as argumentum a silentio (Latin for “argument from silence”). “Jesus is not on record against it so he must be for it.” Such an argument bases its conclusion on a supposed lack of evidence to the contrary rather than on the existence of any evidence one way or the other. In reality, lack of evidence does not prove anything.

Further, there were indeed Old Testament proscriptions for ceremonies and dietary restrictions, as well as harsh penalties for transgression. They were not doctrines and were done away with under the new covenant and the New Testament. However, wrongs committed by humans that have to do with morality such as adultery, abortion, and homosexual acts have not been changed or excused. The Church holds mentioned acts as immoral then and immoral now.

As far as Saul of Tarsus is concerned, Mr. Blackburn’s articulation has clearly explained the authority by which said Apostle as Paul wrote of virtues to keep and vices to avoid. With an openness to God’s grace and mercy, we can repent for our sins and find the way back to Him.

Incidentally, you identify as a lapsed Catholic, yet, you used the phrase “We as Catholics” to remind us to be better in chastising others.

I don’t think it is fair or deserved that Catholics who look to sound and unchanged doctrines on morals are generalized with bible thumping evangelicals wielding Scripture as a weapon.

Pope Francis, notwithstanding the misread and manipulation of his words “who am I to judge” in the current culture, in the same breath spoke of mercy and cooperation with God’s grace and will.
,

 

[estesbob]

You overlooked the part of the quoted piece that said that defenders of homosexuality commit a logical fallacy known as argumentum a silentio (Latin for “argument from silence”). “Jesus is not on record against it so he must be for it.” Such an argument bases its conclusion on a supposed lack of evidence to the contrary rather than on the existence of any evidence one way or the other. In reality, lack of evidence does not prove anything.

Further, there were indeed Old Testament proscriptions for ceremonies and dietary restrictions, as well as harsh penalties for transgression. They were not doctrines and were done away with under the new covenant and the New Testament. However, wrongs committed by humans that have to do with morality such as adultery, abortion, and homosexual acts have not been changed or excused. The Church holds mentioned acts as immoral then and immoral now.

As far as Saul of Tarsus is concerned, Mr. Blackburn’s articulation has clearly explained the authority by which said Apostle as Paul wrote of virtues to keep and vices to avoid. With an openness to God’s grace and mercy, we can repent for our sins and find the way back to Him.

Incidentally, you identify as a lapsed Catholic, yet, you used the phrase “We as Catholics” to remind us to be better in chastising others.

I don’t think it is fair or deserved that Catholics who look to sound and unchanged doctrines on morals are generalized with bible thumping evangelicals wielding Scripture as a weapon.

Pope Francis, notwithstanding the misread and manipulation of his words “who am I to judge” in the current culture, in the same breath spoke of mercy and cooperation with God’s grace and will.
,

 

[One_point]

My reading of that phrase in the context in which the pope used it, I cannot see at all what people are saying, either that he was using it to mean that the sins themselvesvcould not be judged or that the person could go to heaven/not but that he was speaking of something else entirely: that he could not judge a person on the basis of his past forgiven sins. In other words, the pope was saying, if God has forgiven him, who am I to judge him for his past mistakes?

And that is true. If Jesus has forgiven the thief on the cross, who are you to insist on his past theft? They asked the pope on that plane from Brazil about a recent scandal at the Vatican involving a priest who had lived the homosexual lifestyle at some point in his youth and had long since amended his life and is currently a good priest. They were bringing up all these revelations about something the priest had done decades ago. This is what the pope lamented. You can see it clearly if you read the whole story of the interview when the pope made this remark. He was talking about those who like digging up the past to embarrass people for their past mistakes and he said clearly, if someone loves Jesus and has repented in confession, Jesus forgives “AND FORGETS”, the Pope emphasized that part: Jesus no longer remembers those sins! With that in mind, WHO is anybody else, pope or lay man, to judge this person whom Jesus has forgiven? That is what “Who am I to judge” clearly means if you read the interview: the pope is saying, God has forgiven and so should you! “Who am I” is said in relation to Jesus. He was talking to people within the church carrying stones to punish someone for sins of his past. What is a more orthodox Christian message than that?

It’s such a shame that some journalist seated at the back somewhere where they could not fully appreciate the message (my assumption) ripped that phrase from its context and thoroughly misreported the pope throughout the globe. He took a Christian message and made it a liberal/secular humanist mantra when if you watch the video, the Christian message is so beautiful. How very sad.

 

[JourneyForTruth]

With that in mind, WHO is anybody else, pope or lay man, to judge this person whom Jesus has forgiven? That is what “Who am I to judge” clearly means if you read the interview: the pope is saying, God has forgiven and so should you! .

How does Pope Francis know if God forgave a person for past sins? We only know what we see and compare to the teaching of the church. If a person is engaging and proselytizing gay lifestyles the church can judge those behaviors. Whether they repent, change their ways is for God to judge in the end.

If you see someone stealing a apple off the cart do you judge them to be sinning? If you see a man kill two women do you judge that person as having done wrong or do you say instead 'who am I to judge this behavior"?

Did you know that the pope did in fact excommunicate a gay priest at the same time he was saying not to judge on the plane? READ ON:

---

If Pope Francis is for gay lifestyles then why did he do this?

Dissident priest Greg Reynolds has been both defrocked and excommunicated over his support for women priests and gays - the first person ever excommunicated in Melbourne, he believes.

The order comes direct from the Vatican, not at the request of Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart, and apparently follows a secret denunciation in the best traditions of the inquisition, according to Father Reynolds.

The excommunication document - written in Latin and giving no reason - was dated May 31, meaning it comes under the authority of Pope Francis who made headlines on Thursday calling for a less rule-obsessed church.

Read more: theage.com.au/victoria/church-dumps-rebel-priest-20130920-2u5jp.html#ixzz2oov2QLvs​

Pope Francis’ interview with Jesuit publications was a hopeful sign for many that the Catholic Church was moving towards an era where it is less obsessed with rules and more in a posture of mercy and dialogue. Fr. Reynolds claims that interview makes his excommunication “outdated” as the two men are working for similar ends of renewal and reform. Still the excommunication formally remains. Does this mean that Pope Francis’ positive words on LGBT issues won’t be translated into equally positive acts from the Catholic hierarchy? Or was this decision made too early in his papacy to be a real indicator of his attitude?
As Tim Stanley notes in The Telegraph: “Actually what the Pope was saying was that he wants the Church to talk more about what it’s for than what it’s against. But that doesn’t mean it won’t still be against those things that contradict its teachings and traditions.”

Exactly. Why is that so hard to figure out? For one reason, many of those who openly reject the Catholic Church will not rest until the Church is either silenced or neutralized, and a simple way to accomplish such neutralization is to continually misrepresent what the Pope actually says.
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2595/dissident_aussie_priest_excommunicatedby_pope_francis.aspx#.Ur9ywPRDvmc​

Meanwhile, when Pope Francis calls for those with same-sex attraction to be “integrated into society” rather than judged and marginalized, he is seen as a herald of change to Catholic doctrine, when in fact he is merely pointing out what his predecessors, and the Church, have been saying all along.

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible,” reads the passage of the catechism of the Catholic Church referenced by Pope Francis during the press briefing.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=126315​

 

[Usagi]

I think we as Catholics should aspire to better than that. Just because the Council of Nicea decided to stack the New Testament with the words of someone other than Christ doesn’t mean we have to create the false equivalence that those words somehow supersede the ACTUAL words of Christ…

Just to clarify, the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with establishing the canon of Scripture. That is a common misconception among people who seem to have just learned that there are such things as ecumenical councils and that the canon was indeed settled by Christians rather than supplied directly by God.

Even discounting that misconception, the letters of Paul are the oldest Christian writings we have. Arguments over the New Testament canon, when they did occur, were over books of later vintage and questionable authorship, like Hebrews, the letters of Peter, and Revelation. The quotations attributed to Jesus Himself in the Gospels didn’t reach that form for another couple decades at least; the majority opinion that the four Gospels all postdate the fall of Jerusalem would mean they weren’t written until after Paul was dead. (Mind, I do believe that the Gospels preserve actual words and actions of Jesus, but you have to be careful if you’re going to insist on pitting Jesus against Paul using the Gospels as your source for the former’s “real” teachings. The communities to which the Gospels were circulated most likely had already been reading and treasuring Paul’s stuff for years.)

Usagi

 

[Darryl1958]

Christ had teachings precluding homosexuality?

searches Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Where, exactly?

Matthew 5:
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…

It seems to me Jesus held onto and taught a much stricter version of the law than what Paul and eventually the Church settled on.

This was a real controversy in the earliest years of the Church, and especially with Paul and the arrival of vast numbers of Gentiles. As far as Jesus though, he was pretty clear that he was very much a Law kind of person. When it came to divorce in fact, he even went beyond what the law taught to tighten up the definition even more.

As far as what the Jewish law included, what Paul settled on was more or less just the basic stuff when it came to sex at least. Jewish law, as Jesus would have known it, tended to be stricter than what Paul considered to be the minimal standard for everybody to follow.

 

[globaljim]

who am I to judge?. I hope that in the end this discussion will encourage folks to read the wonderful Encyclical The Joy of the Gospel where the Holy Father shows very clearly that he is well aware of the difference between judging good from evil and
not judging others in the way only God can judge. That distinction is critical. WE have the assured help of the Church in making the moral judgment cf the Catechism] and the assured judgment of Scripture that we are all sinners in need of mercy. So Judge not and you will not be judged. I don’t know about anyone else but I sure want all the mercy I can get. So I bite my tongue whenever I am tempted to judge others.

p.s. The Vatican has excellent publications - You can get the Encyclical faster than on
Amazon.

 

[Cojuanco]

Wow, people can use scripture to justify just about anything. There are all sorts of Old Testament doctrines that we no longer practice, that Jesus also didn’t mention, yet we don’t ex post facto attribute them to Jesus.

And Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus, the Pharisee) was alot of things, and chief among those would be “person most often mistakenly quoted as Christ to justify prejudicial or sanctimonious action”. Evangelicals walk around with “Christian” quotebooks containing almost only quotes from Paul so that they can wield the ‘word of God’ as a tool to chastise and castigate others.

I think we as Catholics should aspire to better than that. Just because the Council of Nicea decided to stack the New Testament with the words of someone other than Christ doesn’t mean we have to create the false equivalence that those words somehow supersede the ACTUAL words of Christ…

So we should reject Paul, now, should we? And pretty much a major chunk of Christian theology with it? And if your assertion, that Jesus was silent on the issue, is true, that does not mean Paul is not authoritative.

 

[Lormar]

Maybe but I can’t see rules (Canon Law) and regulations (GIRM, Missale Romanum, etc) being thrown out altogether, can you? I mean even if he does throw all the rules out, who’s to say the next Pope won’t reinstate still harsher rules? Then what? Everyone cries foul and leaves the Church?

 

[HB11]

My reading of that phrase in the context in which the pope used it, I cannot see at all what people are saying, either that he was using it to mean that the sins themselvesvcould not be judged or that the person could go to heaven/not but that he was speaking of something else entirely: that he could not judge a person on the basis of his past forgiven sins. In other words, the pope was saying, if God has forgiven him, who am I to judge him for his past mistakes?

And that is true. If Jesus has forgiven the thief on the cross, who are you to insist on his past theft? They asked the pope on that plane from Brazil about a recent scandal at the Vatican involving a priest who had lived the homosexual lifestyle at some point in his youth and had long since amended his life and is currently a good priest. They were bringing up all these revelations about something the priest had done decades ago. This is what the pope lamented. You can see it clearly if you read the whole story of the interview when the pope made this remark. He was talking about those who like digging up the past to embarrass people for their past mistakes and he said clearly, if someone loves Jesus and has repented in confession, Jesus forgives “AND FORGETS”, the Pope emphasized that part: Jesus no longer remembers those sins! With that in mind, WHO is anybody else, pope or lay man, to judge this person whom Jesus has forgiven? That is what “Who am I to judge” clearly means if you read the interview: the pope is saying, God has forgiven and so should you! “Who am I” is said in relation to Jesus. He was talking to people within the church carrying stones to punish someone for sins of his past. What is a more orthodox Christian message than that?

It’s such a shame that some journalist seated at the back somewhere where they could not fully appreciate the message (my assumption) ripped that phrase from its context and thoroughly misreported the pope throughout the globe. He took a Christian message and made it a liberal/secular humanist mantra when if you watch the video, the Christian message is so beautiful. How very sad.

 

[JourneyForTruth]

They asked the pope on that plane from Brazil about a recent scandal at the Vatican involving a priest who had lived the homosexual lifestyle at some point in his youth and had long since amended his life and is currently a good priest.

Really? How do you know the priest was forgiven? Just because you receive absolution after confession from a priest does not mean you are forgiven. If your heart is not sorry the priest absolution will not work and God will judge you to hell.

We as Christians are called to judge sin as we have learned from the Gospel. Also the old testament is still morally relevant unless Jesus spoke about it different, “Moses granted divorces because your hearts were hardened but I say a man…”. Too many are cherry picking what parts of the bible seem relevant today and tossing out what they don’t like.

 

[J_Peterson]

Really? How do you know the priest was forgiven? Just because you receive absolution after confession from a priest does not mean you are forgiven. If your heart is not sorry the priest absolution will not work and God will judge you to hell.

We as Christians are called to judge sin as we have learned from the Gospel. Also the old testament is still morally relevant unless Jesus spoke about it different, “Moses granted divorces because your hearts were hardened but I say a man…”. Too many are cherry picking what parts of the bible seem relevant today and tossing out what they don’t like.

I see both sides doing that. The real problem is reading scripture to find out what our neighbors are doing wrong while ignoring all that speaks against our own actions.

Why is your assumption that he isn’t forgiven? My assumption is that if someone goes to confession they are forgiven. I can’t think of any reason to assume otherwise, it wouldn’t even cross my mind.

 

[ProVobis]

I see both sides doing that. The real problem is reading scripture to find out what our neighbors are doing wrong while ignoring all that speaks against our own actions.

Why is your assumption that he isn’t forgiven? My assumption is that if someone goes to confession they are forgiven. I can’t think of any reason to assume otherwise, it wouldn’t even cross my mind.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you but your argument sort of reminds me of a placard I once saw inside a university chapel that read:

“We all assume the one thief went to heaven.
Can we presume the other one didn’t?”

Just saying.

 

[JourneyForTruth]

Why is your assumption that he isn’t forgiven? My assumption is that if someone goes to confession they are forgiven. I can’t think of any reason to assume otherwise, it wouldn’t even cross my mind.

If a confessor is not truly sorry even though a priest gives absolution he is not forgiven by God. Priest can forgive sins but only God knows a persons heart.

We know the theif on the cross was forgiven because Jesus said so on the cross, “you will be with me in heaven TODAY…” so we know one was but the other Jesus did not say.