Judge not...

What does the Bible mean when it says that we should “Judge not”. This can mean one of two things:

  1. It means not to say whether or not a person is heaven or hell bound.

  2. It means not to say a person is objectively “wrong” in their practices.

I tend to think it is the first meaning, because I see problems with the second meaning. If one holds to the second meaning, it would imply that we cannot objectively say if a homosexual person is wrong for practicing homosexuality.

In fact, I have come across this problem before. I once stated that a homosexual person was wrong for practicing homosexuality and homosexuality is disordered. Another Catholic told me, “you cannot judge people like that.” I responded, “Yes I can, what I can’t do is tell you they are going to hell for their actions… only God knows that. I do know what they are doing is objectively wrong… but I don’t know the state of their heart and mind… are they truly ignorant? do they not know any better? are they a little whacky upstairs? i don’t know any of that so I don’t know how culpable they are.”

The person really didn’t buy my argument, but he also went on to say I couldn’t say Protestant theology was wrong cause then I’d be judging them. I couldn’t believe it!

I also see a problem with definitin #2 listed above because when the Bible says, “By your fruits you shall know them” the Bible implies that we must judge based on people’s “fruits”.

It is an act of Spiritual Charity to admonish sinners and instruct the ignorant. To tell someone that objectively their lifestyle e.g. Praticing homosexual or fornication will if un-repented take them to Hell is not judging, it is stating fact. All Sodomy is Mortal sin, it goes against the natural Law in everones hearts. See what St Paul says about this in Romans chapter 1. Sodomy is so wicked, Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed as a result of this sin.

If you read Ezekiel 3.16, you must warn but not Judge (Be Judgemental)

*Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me. *
*18 **If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. **19 **If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life. **20 **If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sin, and his virtuous deeds shall not be remembered; but I will hold you responsible for his death if you did not warn him. **21 **When, on the other hand, you have warned a virtuous man not to sin, and he has in fact not sinned, he shall surely live because of the warning, and you shall save your own life. ***
**CCC 1878 **Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

  • by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

  • by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

  • **by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; **- by protecting evil-doers

It is important to witness and not to affirm people in their sins, otherwise you are culpable yourself.

while you should be conscious of whether what others have done is right or wrong, you shouldn’t spend most of your day publicly criticizing them.

Mat 7:3 “Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when the beam is in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

One who willfully performs an abortion is performing an objectively sinful act and the same logic applies to murder, theft etc… Thus, it is not being judgmental when we say people who commit such actions are simply wrong. We are simply being honest and truthful when we do so! Why should we even apologize for being honest, for being bold enough to call a spade a spade?

We do not defeat evil by pretending it is good, or at least tolerable. We only defeat it by first recognizing it for what it truly is !

Gerry :slight_smile:

“Judge not” means we are not to judge subjectively, but we must always judge objectively. That is why the Bible tells us to “judge just judgements”

For example, if we see someone steal, or kill another person, we must say that the act of stealing, or killing, is wrong - that is an objective judgment. However, we are not allowed to subjectively judge the person by say the person is evil for doing it. The person may very well be evil, but God does not want us to condemned or “judge” them on that level. We are only to make objective judgments, never subjective judgments. God Himself will judge all of us subjectively one day. If we want to judge someone subjectively, let us judge ourselves for our past sins.

One of the errors of our day is the confusing between objective and subjective judging. You will often hear it said that one who says homosexuality is sinful is being “judgemental”, but we are supposed to judge that way - objectively. What we are not supposed to do is judge the individual’s guilt in that sin, just the objective sin itself. The confusing between objective and subjective judging is leading may people to believe that we are not allowed to call sin… sin.

Regarding false religions and heresies. We must declare that these things are very grave sins. In fact, heresy and false religions, since they are contrary to the “first and greatest commandment”, are the worst kinds of sin - even worse than murder (abortion). That is what the Church has always taught. Therefore, we can, and must, say that heresy (Protestantism) is extremely sinful. However, we are not to claim that the particular heretic is “bad” because that is not our place. Maybe they are unaware of the truth. In that case we should feel a little sorry for them, for being intangled in a false religion without knowing it. If we are truly charitable, we will seek to draw them out of their error, and into the true Church “outside of which there is no salvation”. If they are the kind of heretic that fights against the truth, we should fight back against them by refuting their heresies, and defending the truth.
Again, we see confusion in this area: People confuse the objective with the subjective. In not wanting to “judge” the heretic, they fail to judge the heresy. But we must judge heresy for what it is: a very serious evil. Protestantism, for example, is probably the worst heresy in the history of the Church. It has lasted for nearly 500 years and is probably responsible for more lost souls than any other heresy in the history of the Church. Therefore, in our love of God and man, we MUST stand up against, and fight this terrible evil.

[quote=abcdefg]while you should be conscious of whether what others have done is right or wrong, you shouldn’t spend most of your day publicly criticizing them.

Mat 7:3 “Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when the beam is in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
[/quote]

While those passages are certainly correct, yet it is also true that those are among the most abused and misinterpreted passages from the Bible. People who simply don’t want to correct their morally questionable behaviour often “hide” behind the motto “judge not”, in order to justify their actions against possible opposition from the community and society.

An objectively sinful act is a sinful act. It cannot become non-sinful by pretending that it is in a sense good, or by ignoring it, as though it didn’t exist. It is that objective act that is in fact judged, for what it truly is. This is precisely why we say that we should hate the sin and not the sinner.

Gerry :slight_smile:

James_2:24What does the Bible mean when it says that we should “Judge not”. This can mean one of two things:

  1. It means not to say whether or not a person is heaven or hell bound.

  2. It means not to say a person is objectively “wrong” in their practices.

**I agree with James_2:24. He said #1 was what he will go with!

This recent blog from the Politically Correct and the Extreme Leftists is that no human should diagree with anything another human does.
THIS IS PURE BUNKO! It isn’t correct now, nor has it ever been!

We as a society make millions of judgements every day. Just driving to work requires dozens of judgements. Did Jesus make a judgement at the end of the Sermon on the Mount? He had said to the crowd that they had to eat his flesh to have life. Most of the crowd walked away…what did Jesus do? Did he change his words? Did he say he was sorry? No, he told the disciples to let them go. Jesus judged and he stood firm with what he had said even thought the crowd walked away!

I ask the brighter ones who read this how did and when did this “nonjudgemental” attitude start? I believe it started about 1967 when the “hippy” movement was at its peak.

Exporter,

I ask the brighter ones who read this how did and when did this “nonjudgemental” attitude start? I believe it started about 1967 when the “hippy” movement was at its peak.

Yes. About the same time the world got the PILL!

John

[quote=john654]Exporter,

Yes. About the same time the world got the PILL!

John
[/quote]

About the time of the close of Vatican II. Think its just a coincidence? Or an effect of the cause?

RSiscoeQuote:
Originally Posted by john654
*Exporter,

Yes. About the same time the world got the PILL!

John*

About the time of the close of Vatican II. Think its just a coincidence? Or an effect of the cause?

I don’t know. i was 17 years old in 1967. I know that the pii was like a atomic bomb going off in the sanctuary of the Church. I think the Clergy used Contraception to bargan for their own sexual “freedom”. It was like the clergy said, "we won’t say anything about your sex life if you don’t say anything about ours.

I HATE POPULATION CONTROL!!!

John

RSiscoe,

About the time of the close of Vatican II. Think its just a coincidence? Or an effect of the cause?

If your asking do i think vatican II caused the troubles in the Church my answer would be no. I’m sure it didn’t. i lived through all of this, and know that the Clergy and Laity were in trouble long before that. The Clergy used Vatican II to cover up what they were doing. they lied and still do lie about Vatican II. those liberal clergy and Laity are not as bad as what is happening now with the SSPX. The SSPX are the worst that I have seen. It’s all about Obedience to Jesus and His Church. The devil is SOOO sly!

John

[quote=john654]RSiscoe,

If your asking do i think vatican II caused the troubles in the Church my answer would be no. I’m sure it didn’t. i lived through all of this, and know that the Clergy and Laity were in trouble long before that. The Clergy used Vatican II to cover up what they were doing. they lied and still do lie about Vatican II. those liberal clergy and Laity are not as bad as what is happening now with the SSPX. The SSPX are the worst that I have seen. It’s all about Obedience to Jesus and His Church. The devil is SOOO sly!

John
[/quote]

John,

I’ve seen the same things in other Christian bodies, especially the Episcopal Church that I left, so I’m sure you can’t plame it on Vatican II, but you can balme it on a few things. I’ll only deal with one here, because it also answers the question.

We are required to judge actions but not souls! Judging SOULS is to be left to Our Lord and to those to who He gave the terrible power of declaring “BOUND” and “LOOSED”.

In other words, we are sometimes required to say that some acts ARE EVIL and that others ARE GOOD, not because of who the people involved are and their relative status, but because of the intrinsic nature of the acts themselves. At the same time, we may have to declare to people that their actions are leading them to perdition, and encourage others whose actions seem to be leading them to God. But, we may never tell someone that they are definitely going to hell, and that there is nothing they can do about that. It is not for us to thut the door of salvation against someone, because, “We know they have done evil in the sight of God.”

It is the inability to do those thise things and to discern the difference between the sin and the sinner, that has led to much of the confusion of 20th (and 21st) Century Liberal Moral and Ethical Theology. Combined with Political Correctness and the fear of offending even bad people, this has produced much of what I’ve seen described in this thread.

Of course, I could go into detail about all the other causes as well, but I understand that others have already done this, and have done a far better job than I could ever hope to do.

In Him, Michael

PS: The Devil is VERY sly, and many decent people have fallen for his trickery under the labels of “Compassion” and “Tolerance”.

Michael,

Very good post. Thank you.

John654,

Regarding the SSPX: I see them, in some ways, similar to St. Athanasuis and his followers during the Arian crisis. The paralells are pretty similar. The church was engulfed in heresy (Arianism). It is said that about 90% of the clergy were infected by this heresy, which denied the Divinity of Our Lord.

Athanasius was banned from his diocese and an Arian heretic was established in his place. Athanasius was also ex-communicated and spent a total of 17 years in exile. It is now said that the Pope who signed the excommunication was forced to do so, and maybe that is true, but certainly it was unknown to the exiled Anathasius and his “schismatic” followers at the time. St. Athanasius was objectively in schism.

Athanasius went throughout the region and ordained priests and Bishops (without a Papal mandate). The errors of the Arians had already been officially condemned at the council of Nicea, yet they flourished.

The faithful who were not Arians were disgusted by this foul plague. I think it was St. Basil who said that the faithful “went out into the desert to worship” away from their local diocese, because “they would have no part of the wicken Arian leven”.

In our day we are surrounded by liberalism. This too has already been concemned by our Popes - not once, but many times. The way the liberals get around the many condemnations is by claiming that “the faith has changed” or “evolved”, which has also been explicitly condemned (by St. Pope Pius X). They use the term “developement of doctrine” (which is legitimate) to justify the “evolution of doctrine” (which is false). The Arians probably did the same: “Sure what we believe was condemned, but that was back then. In our day the Church has a “new” understanding of the Divinity of Jesus” was probably what the Arians said.

Once again today, the liberals are attempting to change the faith “once delivered to the saints” into something else that is incompatible with what has always been taught.

Just as it was in the days of Arianism, today many flee to the deserts (spiritually) because they will “have no part of the wicked liberal leven”, which is found, to one degree or another, at almost every American Church.

I do not agree with everything the SSPX does, but one thing is that the sacraments and the Mass are valid. In your average American parish, you are never sure the sacraments are. Let me back up that statement, since it is sure to draw fire. In 1979 Rome issued a letter to the American Bishops because they were using invalid “matter” for communion. This, of course, caused the Mass to be no Mass at all (an invalid Mass). The problem with the invalid matter was not corrected, but has even become worse. I remember one day listening to Mr. Angelica. Someone called in and said “today our priest consecrated a cake at Mass: was this valid”. With disgust in her voice Mr. Angelica said “honey, you got nothin”. It was totally invalid and a sacrilidge as well.

In addition, many of these heretical priest (who are allowed to remain by negligent Rome) are now baptizing “in the name of the creator, redeemer, and sanctifier”, which is invalid. The person leaves the way they arrived - unbaptized. Rome does virtually nothing and the problem only gets worse. Rome is not doing its job, therefore the faithful have to be very careful to protect themselves.

You do not have these problems at an SSPX Church. Also the Sermons are usually very good. I sometime go to a local indult Mass. Our new novus ordo Pastor now says the sermon once in a while. Last week he gave a heretical sermon about “universal salvation”. I was so angry I couldn’t even go to communion.

I will not be going back to that Church when that heretic gives the sermon. Instead I will go to the SSPX down the road. This is totally justified by both canon law and common sense.
Faith is greater than obedience. And we have an obligation to protect our families from these wolves in sheeps clothing. The faith is solid at the SSPX, Therefore, I will go there through necessity. “In the case of necessity, there is no law” (St. Thomas).

I would like to go on, but my post will probably be getting too long, so I’ll send it now.

RSiscoe,

I will not be going back to that Church when that heretic gives the sermon. Instead I will go to the SSPX down the road. This is totally justified by both canon law and common sense.
Faith is greater than obedience. And we have an obligation to protect our families from these wolves in sheeps clothing. The faith is solid at the SSPX, Therefore, I will go there through necessity. “In the case of necessity, there is no law” (St. Thomas).

I thought you were a Protestant, and now I know that you are. If I were the moderator, I would ban you from this board. The SSPX is full of lies, and hate for Mother Church. There is virtually nothing in your post that is the truth. I don’t debate or argue with SSPX members. It’s easy to flush you out.

I don’t know if, even Carl at Catholic Answers has the spiritual guts to throw you out of here, but I hope he does.

John

[quote=john654]RSiscoe,

I thought you were a Protestant, and now I know that you are. If I were the moderator, I would ban you from this board. The SSPX is full of lies, and hate for Mother Church. There is virtually nothing in your post that is the truth. I don’t debate or argue with SSPX members. It’s easy to flush you out.

I don’t know if, even Carl at Catholic Answers has the spiritual guts to throw you out of here, but I hope he does.

John
[/quote]

Protestant are allowed on this board; you don’t have a problem with them. It is Catholicism that you hate, not Protestantism. Your “catholicism” has been so Protestantized that you now HATE the truth. Just like the Protestants, you are a “protester” against the Catholic Faith. You would have HATED the Catholicism of your grandparents - and that of all Catholics up to 1960.

A Protestant rejects the Catholic Faith: I accept everything the Church teaches. The Church has been in a liberal crisis for 40 years (only the blind will deny that). Quote any Catechism produced before the year 1960 and that is EXACTLY what I believe. Quote the new Catechism and I believe it as well, as long as what it says can be reconciled with what has always taught. Do you still believe what has always been taught? Such as the infallible dogma that “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”?

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside of the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’, unless before death, they are joined with Her;… no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence, 1442, Bull Cantante Domino).

Do you still believe that infallible and unchangeable dogma? Or are you one of those who Pope Pius XII spoke of, when he wrote "* “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.” (Pius XII, On certain false opinions, 1950)

Notice how you “reacted” to my last post. You wanted me kicked off the board. Did you have a problem with my mentioning the letter from Rome to the U.S Bishops, telling them to begin to use the proper matter? Were you upset that I told the truth - that some Priests are now baptizing invalidly? Was your anger addressed towards these sacrileges? Did you become angry because I said Rome does virtually NOTHING to correct the abuses in most parishes? OR was it in my saying that, since Rome is not protecting the flock from the wolves, that the flock needs to be more cautious and protect itself from the wolves? Is that what you had a problem with? Then your problem is with the truth, not with me.
Let’s review something that YOU wrote: “Most of the so called Catholics in the Church I attende in Gorden Grove Ca. are Protestants, and they don’t even know it…” (John654). Now, how did this happen? How can they attend a Catholic Church each week, yet be Protestants? ANSWER: The wolves in sheeps clothing did it? Q: What is Rome doing about it? Answer: Virtually nothing? Q: What are we to do? Answer: Protect ourselves from these wolves! About 100 years ago, Pope Pius X warned us about these “modernists” who were within:

*“These partisans of errors are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church.”(Pascendi)

continue…
*

Reading through some of your posts, I see that you speak a lot about contraception. I have found that many liberalized Catholics are conservative on moral issues (contraception, abortion, etc.), but liberal when it comes to faith. Are you one of those? Are you only conservative morally, but not in the area of faith? Do you believe (as does the USCCB and Crdnl. Ratzinger) that the Jewish law is still valid “for them”. OR do you believe what the Catholic Church teaches – that the Jewish law was nullified by Christ’s death (Council of Florence), and that all Jews will go to hell if they do not convert? (see above excathedra statement).

Are you only willing to stand up for moral issues? Are you scared to stand up against the truths of the faith? Or has you faith become so watered down that you do not recognize the liberal errors? Do you believe that the Catholic Faith is the only true faith and that outside the Church there is no salvation? That is probably the most politically incorrect dogma of the faith; therefore, very few are willing to proclaim it without watering it down into a “meaningless formula”. Do you believe what Pius XI wrote in “Mortalium Animos” (On Fostering True Religious Unity, 1929) – “that the only way for their to be true Christian unity is for the dissidents to convert to the Catholic Church”.

OR do you believe what Cardinal Kasper wrote: “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’… each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.”

This is a complete contradiction: which do you believe? Beware, if you still believe the truth as taught by Pius XI (and all his predecessors), you will be considered an “extremist”; and it will be said of you that you are unloyal to the Holy Father who gives every indication of believing as Cardinal Kasper, whom he appointed as “President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity”. The most charitable thing we can do is assume the Pope does not believe this heresy of Kasper; but then we have to ask why he promoted him and allows him to remain in that high office? It was under this Pope that Fr. Kasper became Cardinal Kasper. Who is to blame for this?

I do not know who is to blame, nor do I need to blame anyone. All I know is that the Church seems to be falling apart nothing is being done about it. We must accept this as God’s consequent will, but we do not have to put our own faith in harms way. We must protect ourselves from these wolves since Rome is not. Not only are we not being protected from these heretics (Kasper, etc.) but they are being promoted to high offices, and we are constantly being told that we are in a “new springtime”. This is not springtime: It is apostacy. Therefore, as in the days of the Arian crisis, we must “have nothing to do with the wicked [liberal] leaven”. Is that being unfaithful to God, or faithful to God? Since Athanasius is now a saint and the Arians are in hell, the answer is obvious.

Very often it seems that people will accuse us of “judging” when we simply offer them a dose of apologetic truth in pointing out their errors. Yet they are simply “witnessing” to us when the shoe is on the other foot. I guess that’s just a human failing that kicks in as a defense mechanism when we get called on something and really don’t want to admit that the other person has a good point.

It’s a cryin’ shame…but as Nietche said: It’s “human all too human”. :rolleyes:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.