Why do people judge others so harshly?

[TheRealJuliane]

I have seen people decide they hate somone just because they believe something the other does not. It is shocking sometimes and hard to read.

I have never seen any such thing here on CAF. People have disagreements, people debate topics, but I have never seen anyone declare hatred for another forum member. Can you please link to any post that states “I hate you because you believe something I do not?” Are you sure you are not interpreting strong debate of beliefs as hatred? Disagreeing with someone is not hatred, you know.

 

[Lujack]

There is very often a kind of a nastiness on these forums that is very depressing. Part of it is the fact that it is only an internet forum-I can argue with a friend at college and we can go for pizza and talk sports, but here the only encounters people have are their upfront disagreements.

However, part of it is also this attitude of “Either you practice Catholicism exactly the way I practice it or you are a heretic, a communist, an atheist!”

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Harshness is always uncalled for. Jesus says a ton of stuff about love. You should always respond with love no matter what.

Being brutal, harsh, and mean spirited has no place in Christianity. Although I admit it must be hard for you to realize that because you’ve got the better part of 2.000 years of history where Christians screwed a lot of stuff up. So don’t worry I don’t blame you for being harsh.

Thank you for the excellent reminder.

While not Evangelical, I certainly appreciate the presence of persons such as yourself here. This forum could stand for a little more patience and love and a little less anger and ignorance. Myself included.

 

[sw85]

The saints don’t matter to me! I’m an Evangelical! My faith in Jesus and his message of universal love is all I need. Doctrine, tradition, saints, liturgy, communion, history its all irrelevant to me!

Now of course to Catholics and Orthodox Christians such as yourself its the opposite. All of that is important.

Martin Luther is irrelevant. The whole protestant reformation is irrelevant to me SW.

All I need is Jesus.

And I do apologize for lashing out at you. It was uncalled for.

So you concede that there are circumstances where such might not be “uncalled for”?

Look, you don’t owe me an apology for being harsh. If anything, you owe me an apology for being harsh unfairly, because nothing I said was objectionable (but I don’t expect an apology because I don’t really care). That’s not the sin of “harshness” (which isn’t a sin); at worst, it’s just the sin of imprudence. I would appreciate also the tacit admission that harshness is in fact frequently required and has been frequently employed validly throughout history.

I don’t care to engage your soteriological errors. But you owe the saints more reverence than that. They are in Heaven (which makes them, by definition, better than you) and they are praying for you, and they’ve almost certainly done much more good in this world than you’ve managed.

There is very often a kind of a nastiness on these forums that is very depressing. Part of it is the fact that it is only an internet forum-I can argue with a friend at college and we can go for pizza and talk sports, but here the only encounters people have are their upfront disagreements.

However, part of it is also this attitude of “Either you practice Catholicism exactly the way I practice it or you are a heretic, a communist, an atheist!”

I don’t think that’s a fair expression of the attitude of orthodox Catholics, though. We don’t want people to practice Catholicism the way we practice it because it’s not about us. It’s about God (and, indirectly, the Church). We want them to practice Catholicism the way the Church tells them they must. If they do, they’ll be practicing it the way we do, but that’s not what’s important here.

Is it wrong to call someone who denies the dogmas and doctrines of the Church a heretic? That’s what heresy is, by definition. It’s not wrong to be concerned about heresy – for one thing, it damns souls; for another, it’s kind of contagious. (I dunno about “communist” or “atheist,” though I have certainly pointed out that many Catholics’ true religion is just run-of-the-mill liberalism. I would say, in fact, the majority of American Catholics are run-of-the-mill liberals, what I sometimes call rah-rah-Americanists. Faced with a conflict between the teachings of the Church and the demands of liberalism, most American Catholics will happily side with liberalism. We see it all the time).

Re: nastiness, well, yes, that’s real, and I’ve done my share of it. Part of it is understandable frustration with heretics, and there are a good number of them on these forums: people who harden their hearts against the Church’s teachings and refuse to listen to reason, but who insist that the Church has gotten everything wrong and they alone are right. This is sinful: the sin of disobedience, the sin of pride, and the sin, worse, of scandal, given that other posters might be seduced by this error. Part of it is frustration with the moderators who tolerate this evil nonsense so long as it doesn’t offend against “charity” (by which they inevitably mean what mitex means, i.e., mere cow-eyed, round-the-clock niceness – a conception of charity that does not, to my knowledge, have any root in anything the Church has taught, now or historically), and who punish the faithful and orthodox Catholics, often with bannings, for speaking out harshly against those evils. Part of it is the nuisance of having to deal with people who are unrepentantly ignorant of what the Church teaches and why it teaches it, and the willingness to subscribe to obviously meritless philosophical nonsense to justify their rebellions. And part of it is the feeling of being trapped here at CAF: the knowledge that we cannot walk away, though it would probably make us happier in the long run, because by doing so we would be surrendering to the evils presently scourging the Church.

 

[Lujack]

I don’t think that’s a fair expression of the attitude of orthodox Catholics, though. We don’t want people to practice Catholicism the way we practice it because it’s not about us. It’s about God (and, indirectly, the Church). We want them to practice Catholicism the way the Church tells them they must. If they do, they’ll be practicing it the way we do, but that’s not what’s important here.

And there you go again (to quote one of my least favorite politicians of the 20th century. You are Orthodox, and others are not. It is one thing to take that position on issues where the Church has absolutely been clear; it is another thing to adopt this position (as people frequently do) in areas where it has not.

Is it wrong to call someone who denies the dogmas and doctrines of the Church a heretic?

Yes, actually. The Church has been quite clear on who has the authority to determine who is in heresy and who is not. It doesn’t lie with you or me.

That’s what heresy is, by definition. It’s not wrong to be concerned about heresy – for one thing, it damns souls; for another, it’s kind of contagious. (I dunno about “communist” or “atheist,” though I have certainly pointed out that many Catholics’ true religion is just run-of-the-mill liberalism. I would say, in fact, the majority of American Catholics are run-of-the-mill liberals, what I sometimes call rah-rah-Americanists. Faced with a conflict between the teachings of the Church and the demands of liberalism, most American Catholics will happily side with liberalism. We see it all the time).

Its certainly very bold to declare that what the “true religion” of many people is.

Re: nastiness, well, yes, that’s real, and I’ve done my share of it. Part of it is understandable frustration with heretics,

Again, you don’t have the authority to determine who is a heretic and who is not. The Church has been very clear for a good long time about that.

and there are a good number of them on these forums: people who harden their hearts against the Church’s teachings and refuse to listen to reason, but who insist that the Church has gotten everything wrong and they alone are right. This is sinful: the sin of disobedience, the sin of pride, and the sin, worse, of scandal, given that other posters might be seduced by this error.

One could easily make the case that people who claim authority not granted to them are guilty of the sin of pride. Non-Catholics are certainly not guilty of the sin of disobedience, either-the Church has long held that non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic disciplines (for example, it is not a sin for a Protestant to eat meat on a Friday during Lent). They are bound by moral laws and Natural Law.

Part of it is frustration with the moderators who tolerate this evil nonsense so long as it doesn’t offend against “charity” (by which they inevitably mean what mitex means, i.e., mere cow-eyed, round-the-clock niceness – a conception of charity that does not, to my knowledge, have any root in anything the Church has taught, now or historically), and who punish the faithful and orthodox Catholics, often with bannings, for speaking out harshly against those evils. Part of it is the nuisance of having to deal with people who are unrepentantly ignorant of what the Church teaches and why it teaches it, and the willingness to subscribe to obviously meritless philosophical nonsense to justify their rebellions. And part of it is the feeling of being trapped here at CAF: the knowledge that we cannot walk away, though it would probably make us happier in the long run, because by doing so we would be surrendering to the evils presently scourging the Church.

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by howling in rage at the presence of non-Catholics? Is it really a hope of converting people, or just a desire to be in an arena where it is socially acceptable to thunder away that the beliefs of others are “evil nonsense”?

 

[SilverLight]

I have never seen any such thing here on CAF. People have disagreements, people debate topics, but I have never seen anyone declare hatred for another forum member. Can you please link to any post that states “I hate you because you believe something I do not?” Are you sure you are not interpreting strong debate of beliefs as hatred? Disagreeing with someone is not hatred, you know.

im not talking about it being directed at somone just on the forum and I have not seen that either.

 

[SilverLight]

Thank you for the excellent reminder.

While not Evangelical, I certainly appreciate the presence of persons such as yourself here. This forum could stand for a little more patience and love and a little less anger and ignorance. Myself included.

I agree

 

[SilverLight]

There is very often a kind of a nastiness on these forums that is very depressing. Part of it is the fact that it is only an internet forum-I can argue with a friend at college and we can go for pizza and talk sports, but here the only encounters people have are their upfront disagreements.

However, part of it is also this attitude of “Either you practice Catholicism exactly the way I practice it or you are a heretic, a communist, an atheist!”

and thats what I mean and I do not like communists…they force others to do things against there will. I was raised to respect people and I also went to a friends school and learned about quakers and there ways and I feel that also has made me a nicer person today.

 

[sw85]

And there you go again (to quote one of my least favorite politicians of the 20th century. You are Orthodox, and others are not. It is one thing to take that position on issues where the Church has absolutely been clear; it is another thing to adopt this position (as people frequently do) in areas where it has not.

OK, but I’m talking about people who openly defy the Church’s teaching where it is settled and definitive (which is what I meant when I said “the way the Church tells them they must [practice Catholicism]”). We’re not talking about people who genuinely and in good faith disagree over how best to apply the Church’s teachings that we should care for the poor; I’m talking about people who openly declare that the Church’s teachings on, for instance, contraception are in error and therefore not binding. This is heresy: it is a denial of the Church’s teaching authority and denial of its protection from error by the Holy Spirit.

Those people are not orthodox (small “o”, not capital “O”). Orthodox means, literally “right-thinking,” i.e., adhering the intellect to those truths revealed by reason and revelation. To deny the dogmas and doctrines of the Church is, by definition, to be heterodox, i.e., to commit heresy.

Yes, actually. The Church has been quite clear on who has the authority to determine who is in heresy and who is not. It doesn’t lie with you or me.

You are conflating canonical status with the sin itself. The Church alone determines canonical status, but the sin is an obvious and objective fact from which the determination merely follows. Catechism defines it simply as the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truth of the Catholic faith. Where the truth is clear and settled, denial of it is obviously heresy by this definition. (The analogy is similar to the sin of murder and the crime of murder. A person need not be found guilty of murder in a court of law for it to be known that the person is in fact guilty of the sin of murder. Because the sin exists prior to and independent of the determination of liability).

I am accusing Catholics who deny these truths of the sin of heresy; I am not presuming to assign them the canonical status of heresy. So I don’t see what your objection is.

Its certainly very bold to declare that what the “true religion” of many people is.

It’s hyperbole. Obviously. Also, it’s substantially less bold than what you’re claiming, which is a particularly rank form of epistemic weakness.

One could easily make the case that people who claim authority not granted to them are guilty of the sin of pride. Non-Catholics are certainly not guilty of the sin of disobedience, either-the Church has long held that non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic disciplines (for example, it is not a sin for a Protestant to eat meat on a Friday during Lent). They are bound by moral laws and Natural Law.

I don’t care about Protestants. I’m talking about Catholics here. I thought the context was clear.

It’s very interesting that you are so eager to rush to the defense of Catholics who openly attack the Church, deny its authority, and insult its shepherds (almost always with respect to its teachings on sex – I wonder why?), on the grounds that you think (wrongly) that I’ve misunderstood an obscure canonical technicality. People don’t get angry about obscure canonical technicalities. So, really, what’s the deal?

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by howling in rage at the presence of non-Catholics? Is it really a hope of converting people, or just a desire to be in an arena where it is socially acceptable to thunder away that the beliefs of others are “evil nonsense”?

My hope is that “Catholic Answers” would take seriously its name and stop tolerating people who try to seduce others away from Catholicism, whether in the form of apostasy (i.e., the atheists), schism (i.e., the Protestants), or error (i.e., the heretical cafeteria Catholics who deny the Church’s teaching authority).

The funny thing is that you’re clearly doing what mitex was doing earlier. He insisted that harshness is unequivocally evil, then reacted harshly when called out on this error. You insist that dogmatism is a bad thing, then react with, surprise, dogmatism when called out on this error.

So clearly the attitude that there is one correct and objective truth from which deviation is unacceptable is not, itself, unacceptable, because you’re affecting it right now in your dealings with me. Clearly you think there is one correct and objective truth (a kind of dogmatic nonjudgmentalism) and any deviation from it is unacceptable. So perhaps you should clarify and qualify the position you stated earlier.

 

[SilverLight]

OK, but I’m talking about people who openly defy the Church’s teaching where it is settled and definitive (which is what I meant when I said “the way the Church tells them they must [practice Catholicism]”). We’re not talking about people who genuinely and in good faith disagree over how best to apply the Church’s teachings that we should care for the poor; I’m talking about people who openly declare that the Church’s teachings on, for instance, contraception are in error and therefore not binding. This is heresy: it is a denial of the Church’s teaching authority and denial of its protection from error by the Holy Spirit.

Those people are not orthodox (small “o”, not capital “O”). Orthodox means, literally “right-thinking,” i.e., adhering the intellect to those truths revealed by reason and revelation. To deny the dogmas and doctrines of the Church is, by definition, to be heterodox, i.e., to commit heresy.

You are conflating canonical status with the sin itself. The Church alone determines canonical status, but the sin is an obvious and objective fact from which the determination merely follows. Catechism defines it simply as the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truth of the Catholic faith. Where the truth is clear and settled, denial of it is obviously heresy by this definition. (The analogy is similar to the sin of murder and the crime of murder. A person need not be found guilty of murder in a court of law for it to be known that the person is in fact guilty of the sin of murder. Because the sin exists prior to and independent of the determination of liability).

I am accusing Catholics who deny these truths of the sin of heresy; I am not presuming to assign them the canonical status of heresy. So I don’t see what your objection is.

It’s hyperbole. Obviously. Also, it’s substantially less bold than what you’re claiming, which is a particularly rank form of epistemic weakness.

I don’t care about Protestants. I’m talking about Catholics here. I thought the context was clear.

It’s very interesting that you are so eager to rush to the defense of Catholics who openly attack the Church, deny its authority, and insult its shepherds (almost always with respect to its teachings on sex – I wonder why?), on the grounds that you think (wrongly) that I’ve misunderstood an obscure canonical technicality. People don’t get angry about obscure canonical technicalities. So, really, what’s the deal?

My hope is that “Catholic Answers” would take seriously its name and stop tolerating people who try to seduce others away from Catholicism, whether in the form of apostasy (i.e., the atheists), schism (i.e., the Protestants), or error (i.e., the heretical cafeteria Catholics who deny the Church’s teaching authority).

The funny thing is that you’re clearly doing what mitex was doing earlier. He insisted that harshness is unequivocally evil, then reacted harshly when called out on this error. You insist that dogmatism is a bad thing, then react with, surprise, dogmatism when called out on this error.

So clearly the attitude that there is one correct and objective truth from which deviation is unacceptable is not, itself, unacceptable, because you’re affecting it right now in your dealings with me. Clearly you think there is one correct and objective truth (a kind of dogmatic nonjudgmentalism) and any deviation from it is unacceptable. So perhaps you should clarify and qualify the position you stated earlier.

see I just want to get along with people

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

As Mother Teresa said, “If you judge other people you have no time to love them.”

 

[SilverLight]

As Mother Teresa said, “If you judge other people you have no time to love them.”

agreed

 

[Bookcat]

““Being concerned for each other” also entails being concerned for their spiritual well-being. Here I would like to mention an aspect of the Christian life, which I believe has been quite forgotten: fraternal correction in view of eternal salvation. Today, in general, we are very sensitive to the idea of charity and caring about the physical and material well-being of others, but almost completely silent about our spiritual responsibility towards our brothers and sisters. This was not the case in the early Church or in those communities that are truly mature in faith, those which are concerned not only for the physical health of their brothers and sisters, but also for their spiritual health and ultimate destiny. The Scriptures tell us: “Rebuke the wise and he will love you for it. Be open with the wise, he grows wiser still, teach the upright, he will gain yet more” (Prov 9:8ff). Christ himself commands us to admonish a brother who is committing a sin (cf. Mt 18:15). The verb used to express fraternal correction - elenchein – is the same used to indicate the prophetic mission of Christians to speak out against a generation indulging in evil (cf. Eph 5:11). The Church’s tradition has included “admonishing sinners” among the spiritual works of mercy. It is important to recover this dimension of Christian charity. We must not remain silent before evil. I am thinking of all those Christians who, out of human regard or purely personal convenience, adapt to the prevailing mentality, rather than warning their brothers and sisters against ways of thinking and acting that are contrary to the truth and that do not follow the path of goodness. Christian admonishment, for its part, is never motivated by a spirit of accusation or recrimination. It is always moved by love and mercy, and springs from genuine concern for the good of the other. As the Apostle Paul says: “If one of you is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should set that person right in a spirit of gentleness; and watch yourselves that you are not put to the test in the same way” (Gal 6:1). In a world pervaded by individualism, it is essential to rediscover the importance of fraternal correction, so that together we may journey towards holiness. Scripture tells us that even “the upright falls seven times” (Prov 24:16); all of us are weak and imperfect (cf. 1 Jn 1:8). It is a great service, then, to help others and allow them to help us, so that we can be open to the whole truth about ourselves, improve our lives and walk more uprightly in the Lord’s ways. There will always be a need for a gaze which loves and admonishes, which knows and understands, which discerns and forgives (cf. Lk 22:61), as God has done and continues to do with each of us.”

–From: Pope Benedict XVI from message for Lent 2012

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/lent/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20111103_lent-2012_en.html

It is important to note that Fraternal correction is not “judging”.

Important articles:

blog.adw.org/2010/06/correcting-the-sinner-is-not-being-judgmental-it-is-an-essential-work-of-charity/

blog.adw.org/2009/11/fraternal-correction-the-forgotten-virtue/

(I will note though that some here struggle with scruples and thus have difficulty distinguishing between what is sin and what is not etc…in which case they may need to seek the direction of their regular confessor…for they may not yet be in a good spot to be giving many such “fraternal corrections”)

 

[Lujack]

OK, but I’m talking about people who openly defy the Church’s teaching where it is settled and definitive (which is what I meant when I said “the way the Church tells them they must [practice Catholicism]”). We’re not talking about people who genuinely and in good faith disagree over how best to apply the Church’s teachings that we should care for the poor; I’m talking about people who openly declare that the Church’s teachings on, for instance, contraception are in error and therefore not binding. This is heresy: it is a denial of the Church’s teaching authority and denial of its protection from error by the Holy Spirit.

Those people are not orthodox (small “o”, not capital “O”). Orthodox means, literally “right-thinking,” i.e., adhering the intellect to those truths revealed by reason and revelation. To deny the dogmas and doctrines of the Church is, by definition, to be heterodox, i.e., to commit heresy.

No, its more complicated than that. One has to know and understand the Church’s position entirely, and then one has to knowingly take a position that denies that authority, and then one has to be told to cease taking the position they are taking. You can be heterodox without being a heretic and the Church

You are conflating canonical status with the sin itself. The Church alone determines canonical status, but the sin is an obvious and objective fact from which the determination merely follows. Catechism defines it simply as the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truth of the Catholic faith. Where the truth is clear and settled, denial of it is obviously heresy by this definition. (The analogy is similar to the sin of murder and the crime of murder. A person need not be found guilty of murder in a court of law for it to be known that the person is in fact guilty of the sin of murder. Because the sin exists prior to and independent of the determination of liability).

Except in this case, the Church has quite clearly reserved for itself the right to say who is and who is not in heresy, something that it has the right to do. Unlike the government, which does not have the right to say that you cannot call someone a murderer.

I am accusing Catholics who deny these truths of the sin of heresy; I am not presuming to assign them the canonical status of heresy. So I don’t see what your objection is.

My objection is that the sort of people who enter into discussions in order to confidently bellow “I am right and you are wrong. [Insert snarky sarcastic comment about “typical dumb liberal”] ” do not make for an enjoyable discussion.

It’s hyperbole. Obviously. Also, it’s substantially less bold than what you’re claiming, which is a particularly rank form of epistemic weakness.

It was obviously hyperbole? In a post where you called the beliefs of a great many people to be evil nonsense?

I don’t care about Protestants. I’m talking about Catholics here. I thought the context was clear.

It wasn’t.

It’s very interesting that you are so eager to rush to the defense of Catholics who openly attack the Church, deny its authority, and insult its shepherds (almost always with respect to its teachings on sex – I wonder why?), on the grounds that you think (wrongly) that I’ve misunderstood an obscure canonical technicality. People don’t get angry about obscure canonical technicalities. So, really, what’s the deal?

Ah, the old “You must have an evil motive for disagreeing with me” argument.

My hope is that “Catholic Answers” would take seriously its name and stop tolerating people who try to seduce others away from Catholicism, whether in the form of apostasy (i.e., the atheists), schism (i.e., the Protestants), or error (i.e., the heretical cafeteria Catholics who deny the Church’s teaching authority).

So what, then, is the point of a forum? For a bunch of people to sit around talking about how happy they are that they don’t have to be around people who think differently than they do?

The funny thing is that you’re clearly doing what mitex was doing earlier. He insisted that harshness is unequivocally evil, then reacted harshly when called out on this error. You insist that dogmatism is a bad thing, then react with, surprise, dogmatism when called out on this error.

No, I didn’t react with dogmatism. And I haven’t insisted that dogmatism is a bad thing; I’ve insisted that arrogance and nastiness are bad things. And I believe that you are intentionally taking an arrogant and nasty tone (something that you’ve acknowledged).

So clearly the attitude that there is one correct and objective truth from which deviation is unacceptable is not, itself, unacceptable, because you’re affecting it right now in your dealings with me. Clearly you think there is one correct and objective truth (a kind of dogmatic nonjudgmentalism) and any deviation from it is unacceptable. So perhaps you should clarify and qualify the position you stated earlier.

My position is quite clear, and dogmatism has nothing to do with it. Nastiness and arrogance do.

 

[Bookcat]

It is important to distinguish between “judging” and “fraternal correction”

A quote from Pope Benedict:

““Being concerned for each other” also entails being concerned for their spiritual well-being. Here I would like to mention an aspect of the Christian life, which I believe has been quite forgotten: fraternal correction in view of eternal salvation. Today, in general, we are very sensitive to the idea of charity and caring about the physical and material well-being of others, but almost completely silent about our spiritual responsibility towards our brothers and sisters. This was not the case in the early Church or in those communities that are truly mature in faith, those which are concerned not only for the physical health of their brothers and sisters, but also for their spiritual health and ultimate destiny. The Scriptures tell us: “Rebuke the wise and he will love you for it. Be open with the wise, he grows wiser still, teach the upright, he will gain yet more” (Prov 9:8ff). Christ himself commands us to admonish a brother who is committing a sin (cf. Mt 18:15). The verb used to express fraternal correction - elenchein – is the same used to indicate the prophetic mission of Christians to speak out against a generation indulging in evil (cf. Eph 5:11). The Church’s tradition has included “admonishing sinners” among the spiritual works of mercy. It is important to recover this dimension of Christian charity. We must not remain silent before evil. I am thinking of all those Christians who, out of human regard or purely personal convenience, adapt to the prevailing mentality, rather than warning their brothers and sisters against ways of thinking and acting that are contrary to the truth and that do not follow the path of goodness. Christian admonishment, for its part, is never motivated by a spirit of accusation or recrimination. It is always moved by love and mercy, and springs from genuine concern for the good of the other. As the Apostle Paul says: “If one of you is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should set that person right in a spirit of gentleness; and watch yourselves that you are not put to the test in the same way” (Gal 6:1). In a world pervaded by individualism, it is essential to rediscover the importance of fraternal correction, so that together we may journey towards holiness. Scripture tells us that even “the upright falls seven times” (Prov 24:16); all of us are weak and imperfect (cf. 1 Jn 1:8). It is a great service, then, to help others and allow them to help us, so that we can be open to the whole truth about ourselves, improve our lives and walk more uprightly in the Lord’s ways. There will always be a need for a gaze which loves and admonishes, which knows and understands, which discerns and forgives (cf. Lk 22:61), as God has done and continues to do with each of us.”

–From: Pope Benedict XVI from message for Lent 2012

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/lent/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20111103_lent-2012_en.html

It is important to note that Fraternal correction is not “judging”.

Important articles:

blog.adw.org/2010/06/correcting-the-sinner-is-not-being-judgmental-it-is-an-essential-work-of-charity/

blog.adw.org/2009/11/fraternal-correction-the-forgotten-virtue/

(I will note though that some here struggle with scruples and thus have difficulty distinguishing between what is sin and what is not etc…in which case they may need to seek the direction of their regular confessor…for they may not yet be in a good spot to be giving many such “fraternal corrections”)

 

[Cristiano]

As Mother Teresa said, “If you judge other people you have no time to love them.”

Wasn’t Mother Theresa the one judging the USA of being arrogant because they consider themselves that greatest and richest nation while they kept killing their own children in the womb?

 

[AlltheRoses]

I have seen people decide they hate somone just because they believe something the other does not. It is shocking sometimes and hard to read.

People, whether atheists or followers of any religion, are prone to judging others harshly because it is a symptom of our fallen human nature. By sin, we are all separated from the perfection that is God, and, on some level, I think that we all whether consciously or unconsciously, yearn for perfection because of our separation from the perfection that is God.

I know that, when I’m most critical of myself, I’m inclined to reflect on every single foolish or wrong thing I’ve ever done in my life, and, completely ignoring every smart or right thing I ever did in my life, conclude that I’m a terrible, stupid person, which is actually a pretty hateful way of regarding myself.

Although I sincerely try to be less critical of others than I am of myself, I admit that when I’m being critical of others, I tend to focus only on their shortcomings, not upon their positive attributes, and sometimes that same venom that I feel toward myself comes out as gossip/criticism about other people. Normally I criticize people for shortcomings that I’m afraid that I have within myself (i.e., if I’m afraid that I won’t be a good teacher, I’m more likely to criticize my professor’s instructional abilities) or for faults that I’ve never struggled with (and it is always easy to resist another person’s temptations). All the time I do this, I’m seeking some sort of perfection whether in myself or someone else, but I’m forgetting that the true perfection we should all be concerned about is God’s perfect love. God’s perfection is His love, and His desire is for us to imitate that love.

That love may entail telling someone (in as charitable manner as possible) that you disagree with his or her belief(s) or action (s), but we should not ever hate anyone based on his or her belief(s) or action(s). Despite their beliefs or actions, Christ loved them enough to die for them so that their sins might be forgiven. That can be hard to accept, sometimes, and even more difficult to put into practice, but I think that is what we are all called to do. Perhaps we can embrace the challenge of being loving and charitable even toward those whose beliefs differ greatly from ours as a wonderful test of our Christian love.

On a side note, I think that someone who hates others just because those people have different beliefs may not be confident in his/her own beliefs. If you are confident in your faith, you don’t need to respond with hostility toward those who have different beliefs.

 

[Bookcat]

Wasn’t Mother Theresa the one judging the USA of being arrogant because they consider themselves that greatest and richest nation while they kept killing their own children in the womb?

See above – fraternal correction not judging.

 

[Cristiano]

See above – fraternal correction not judging.

The quote from Ratzinger talks about fraternal correction but it does not say anything about judging. Fraternal correction can only come after an appropriate judgement. I think that a lot of people are looking at the J… word as politically incorrect and that it is the reason why it is now considered derogatory. What about prudential judgement? Is that wrong? I think that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with judgment but what matters is what we judge, why we judge it, and how we judge it. Something harsh is something that is not intrinsically wrong either, it is just unpleasant. When we seek pleasure in the wrong things then we perceive the truth as harsh even when it is brought to us with love.

John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance: but judge just judgment”

We must also remember that often appearance is really the speck in our eyes.

 

[Bookcat]

The quote from Ratzinger talks about fraternal correction but it does not say anything about judging. Fraternal correction can only come after an appropriate judgement. I think that a lot of people are looking at the J… word as politically incorrect and that it is the reason why it is now considered derogatory. What about prudential judgement? Is that wrong? I think that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with judgment but what matters is what we judge, why we judge it, and how we judge it. Something harsh is something that is not intrinsically wrong either, it is just unpleasant. When we seek pleasure in the wrong things then we perceive the truth as harsh even when it is brought to us with love.

John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance: but judge just judgment”

We must also remember that often appearance is really the speck in our eyes.

The quote was actually from Pope Benedict XVI -it was from the Lenten message from this year. (I note this to differentiate between what he wrote prior to being Pope).

But the articles noted below address the whole question of judging. (from Msgr Pope)

The term “judging” here (the quote and the articles) refers to what Jesus refers to as “judge not”. Not other uses of the term.

Other uses would yes be involved in fraternal correction -of the kind Pope Benedict XVI refers too.