"Who are you to judge...?"

[rpp]

I have always heard “judgmental” as a pejoriative term, somebody who judges harshly or makes moral judgment based on one’s own opinion. I have not heard of anyone being complimented with the term “judgmental”.

Furthermore, when I think of a person who is judgmental, it is usually someone whose judgment is neither solicited or welcome-- one who has no interest in the matter being judged, and one who has not been injured by the person being judged. An interloper, a buttinsky, meddler, kibitzer, etc.

Okay. A secular definition is what you are using. One which may come into conflict in places with what the Church teaches about such things. I am referring

The Church teaches that Christ’s admonition against judging is in regard with juding the person’s soul. It is not being judgmental to judge someone’s actions. When this is combined with a Catholic’s **obligation **to admonish the sinner and correct error, among others, using your definition can cause a problem.

In order to admonish the sinner and correct error, a Catholic is frequently called on to make a moral judgment of someone’s actions. We also may need to do this without being invited to. The purpose is to lead someone away from sin and to the Church, therefore this needs to be done in a charitable fashion.

People caught up in “attractive” sins, such as sexual sins or greed, can become very defensive when someone – correctly – points out the evil of their actions. So they defend themselves by calling the other person “judgmental”.But if we do not correct them, and they die in their sin, as the Lord told Ezekiel, their blood will be on our hands.

Just because someone likes to do bad things does not mean they get a free pass.

 

[rpp]

Romans 14,1:

“Welcome those who are weak in faith,but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions.”

Romans 14,13:

“Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another,but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another.”

Romans 15,1:

“We who are stong ought to put up with the failings of those who are weak,and not to please ourselves.”

These passages were referring to those who still chose to follow the Mosaic Code (the Law) and those who did not. It certainly has nothing to do with judging someone’s moral actions. More along the lines of juding the spirituality of one person.

Here is the commentary from the USCCB on these verses.

14:1-15:6] Since Christ spells termination of the law, which included observance of specific days and festivals as well as dietary instruction, the jettisoning of long-practiced customs was traumatic for many Christians brought up under the Mosaic code. Although Paul acknowledges that in principle no food is a source of moral contamination (Romans 14:14), he recommends that the consciences of Christians who are scrupulous in this regard be respected by other Christians (Romans 14:21). On the other hand, those who have scruples are not to sit in judgment on those who know that the gospel has liberated them from such ordinances (Romans 14:10). See 1 Cor 8; 10.
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/romans/romans14.htm

 

[anthony022071]

The devil likes to quote scripture for self-justification.

James 4,11-12:

Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another,speaks evil
against the law and judges the law;but if you judge the law,you are not a doer of the law but a judge.There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and destroy.So who,then,are you to judge your neighbor?

 

[rpp]

The devil likes to quote scripture for self-justification.

James 4,11-12:

Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another,speaks evil
against the law and judges the law;but if you judge the law,you are not a doer of the law but a judge.There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and destroy.So who,then,are you to judge your neighbor?

Of course we are not to judge a person. No one here has suggested that. Judging actions is entirely different. If we cannot judge actions, well for goodness sake, we would not even be able to prosecute a murder or thief.

 

[ACHAIA]

Oh my goodness, yes, Catholics are pounded and bashed in this society. Know why? Because we profess Universal Truth, a Truth that cannot be re-defined or changed from person to person, a solid Truth that is grounded in Christ. And people find that to be bigoted and intolerant. Tough cookies.

A great many in this world have embraced a strange, selfish, fanciful spirituality of the new millennium… It’s a shadowy “spirituality” of moral relativism. On the outside, moral relativism appears all-accepting. But really, to be blunt, it’s just stupidity. It’s basically a reality of the mind at best, where whatever one believes “is true for them”… and it differs from person to person. So according to that nonsense, what one believes will happen in the afterlife, will happen to them, and to them, it isn’t any truer or better than what the next person believes. Same goes with their definition of god, God, or goddess. Oh, or “Spirit”. Or faeries. Seriously.

Keeping in mind there’s a difference between being polite as opposed to having actual respect for other religions, the thing that’s really annoying, is how people say we have to* respect* one another’s beliefs. I have a problem with that statement, and I’ll tell you why: First, I think and hope it’s a slip of the tongue and people don’t really understand what they’re saying. Instead of saying, “You must respect other people’s beliefs/gods”, they should really say “You must respect the free will (or right) of people to believe fill in the blank”. Because, I don’t think any Christian should be forced to respect a religion that denounces Christ, that practices magic, or that worships some god that doesn’t exist or some evil spirit parading as a “god”. But I do respect everyone’s free will, and I hope they use it wisely.

Satan is a sly creature, and he seems to like to twist things around. If you speak the truth that something is a sin, people don’t acknowledge that you were speaking the truth, they instead will turn it around and say “Judge not least yeeee” (which is a very convenient verse that they have memorized there). Or “Throw not the first stone”. Okay, so if I told someone “maybe you shouldn’t play with fire”, it’s just like them lashing back: “How dare you judge me because I am a pyromaniac! Throw not the first stone, etc, etc”. We’re not throwing stones, we’re trying to throw a lifeline that might save others from perishing.

I think it’s a trick of satan that he fools people (or urges them) into believing that when a Christian speaks the truth, he judges. That is disordered. It may also be a security tactic for those who are in sin to stay in their sinful comfort zone and push anyone away who tries to pull them out of their pit.

But don’t stop.

Because it is good to speak the truth, always kindly, sometimes firmly (but always with love). Even if they don’t take it that way. Even if they say you’re judging. Even if they call you all sorts of names, like “bigot” or anything else because you believe in One way and One truth. Keep professing the truth, because you just might help save someone’s life for all eternity.

And remember Jesus said: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” :hug1:

Thank you. I appreciated your well thought out and truthful comments.

 

[mistfall]

Please tell me you aren’t judging those who are divorced are you? That’s the kind of attitude that makes me feel unwelcome at church, even though I was the daily Massgoer in my marriage. No one who has actually been through it can possibly be in favor of it! And unless you have been, you can’t comment. (And that attitude is NOT why I’m divorced!)

Is it better to stay till someone drives you insane, or beats you to a pulp, or till your kids run away? Or put up with serial adultery from a spouse?

But we can’t comment on being driven insane, beaten to a pulp, or had our kids run away unless we’ve been through it, can we?

Sorry if that sounds snarky, but that’s where the “you have no right to comment unless you’ve been through it” thinking leads to. Not had an abortion? Well, then you have no right to comment on it. Not had your heart broken by casual sex? Then you have no right to comment on it. Etc.

 

[Sarabande]

Sorry if that sounds snarky, but that’s where the “you have no right to comment unless you’ve been through it” thinking leads to. Not had an abortion? Well, then you have no right to comment on it. Not had your heart broken by casual sex? Then you have no right to comment on it. Etc.

I don’t know… I don’t think it’s the same thing. What you bring up is much different than someone being continuously beat by her spouse and then seeing her children also being beaten every day by their father. The mother has the right to protect her children’s lives by leaving that person, especially if he refuses to change. Of course the difference is if this woman remarries without getting the previous marriage annulled. I don’t know many people who would judge a woman for leaving her husband for that, although I have known some ultra-conservatives who believed a wife should stay even if she and their children were being beaten.

Casual sex - I believe you reap what you sow when it comes to that, although, I’ve known people who acted like this because they were sexually abused continuously from the time they were children. If they never found the help or guidance or proper love from their family, they would still be doing that. We can judge the act as wrong, but we must also see where that person was coming from and approach them with that kind of sympathy.

Abortion - Definitely the same view. It’s wrong and murder. To someone who uses it as a casual form of birth control, I’d probably be more harsh towards that person, especially if I knew her. For someone who made the wrong decision based on bad advice or just because she was scared, etc. I would also approach her differently, letting her know that what she did was wrong, but not with finger wagging. My husband was friends with a girl who was continuously raped and beat by her father from the age of 5 till she went to college. When she would come home from college he would rape her. Needless-to-say, she was pretty screwed up in the head. Her mother knew, but was very submissive and never did anything about this. This woman was impregnated by her father and, not knowing any better and because she was scared, she got an abortion. At the insistance of her friends, she finally got up the courage to put her father in jail. My husband and the other friends had to testify at the bruises they saw every time she’d come home from break. At the fragile state this woman was in, you can’t be harsh towards her. She’d have to be approached in a way so that she didn’t feel that she was being attacked or judged. I truly believe you can get that across. It has worked for me and for my husband when we are asked our opinions on the morality of certain actions or decisions. She probably would have never brought charges against her father if she was not treated with sympathy and hopefully, she realized that an abortion was sinful. I don’t think she was Catholic though. But, a few years later, she did get pregnant (not by her father) and chose to keep the child who ended up have lukemia and almost died.

Anyway, I think that is what the above poster meant in terms of not commenting unless you walk in their shoes. It’s having a sympathic and understanding view of it before commenting so that you can wisely choose the way you will say something.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Do not jurists make judgments based on evidence/facts/motives ?
Doesn’t the Gospel speak of having at least TWO witnesses to consider a person culpable?

Didn’t Jesus tell us, “…by their deeds shall you know them…” ?

The judgment you are wary of is committing someone to Hell because he/she does not deserve Heaven. Not nearly the same as above.