I read the comments of those who defend judgment, and I realize that perhaps I did not include enough of what was said to continue the point--or perhaps we overlook these statements out of convenience.
Here it is then:
Matthew 7:1-5 NAB
Jesus said to his disciples:
"Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
For as you judge, so will you be judged,
and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye,
but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother,
‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,'
while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first;
then you will see clearly
to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."
It seems to me that before I might say anything about the sin of another, I should mind my own sin. That is to say, my own is enough and more than enough to keep me occupied, what am I doing worrying about the sins or lack thereof of others.
It strikes me that those who defend the duty and necessity of judging the sin of others must address this great admonition. How can we begin to judge the state of others when there is so much remaining in our own lives that is so sinful.
I think one of the reasons Jesus calls us to tend to the beam in our own eye is that when one turns ones head with a beam protruding from one's eye, one is likely to smack one's brother upside the head with that beam to the detriment of both parties.
When one undergoes the process of purification, one is given a new perspective on all of these things--perhaps a discernment that is supernatural. One is also given the gifts and the grace to handle the sin of others in ways that do not demean and denigrate.
By this I mean to say that I know that I am not in the position to begin judging others as regards to sin. I cannot make that judgment for others, but I would suggest that the need to make these judgments might suggest something about our suitability for doing so.
To know that our brother has a splinter requires us to judge that fact. We are truly unable to help our brother until not only are our consciences formed but that we are acting in accordance with that formed consciences.
The ability to rebuke requires a judgment as to sin. While it is impossible for us to truly know if someone has met the three conditions of mortal sins, we can know if an apparent act was in itself grave sin.
Matthew 18:15 says.
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
To know that someone has a fault we must judge that they do and then charitably and with much prayer we must try to rebuke them so that they might repent of it.
Scripture also talks about the consequence of failing to rebuke someone or of the reward for saving your brother.
One of the spiritual works of mercy is "To admonish sinners." Of course the first sinner we have to admonish is the one in the mirror.
I can understand your reluctance on this issue. It is too easy for us to judge others hoarsely and excuse our own grievous faults. Or to judge motivations or a persons final end. It is much better for us to assign charitable reasons for other people's actions, but we must rebuke other's when it is necessary if our motives our truly love for them and wanting the good that will result from their turning away from an apparent sin.
"judge others hoarsely" oops I meant harshly.
The way I've always understood Matthew 18:15 - correctly or not - is that when someone sins directly against me, then I go approach them to discuss it and etc. If they have committed some sin that doesn't directly affect me, then I generally don't see it as my role to point it out to them. I have enough imperfection and impurity of my own to keep me busy.
Maybe Jesus is saying via Matthew 7:1-5 that instead of going around looking for others' sins the time is better spent focusing on our own; but if someone sins against you personally then handle it as in Matthew 18:15.
Dear Jeff,
Where have I written that you may not judge actions?
You say, "The ability to rebuke requires a judgment as to sin." I respond, the ability to rebuke requires a judgment as to sinfulness--you have no right to try to determine sin.
Every person who reserves the right to judge and uses that right must face certain terrifying realities. For example, if we go by Church teaching, all protestants that are divorced and remarried are in mortal sin and therefore on the hell-bound train. All people of whatever race or creed who for whatever reason use birth control are on the same hell-bound train. All persons who deny the infallibility of the Pope, etc., etc. etc. (I don't know if the last earns you a trip on the express freight).
My statement is clear and simple--you may judge actions as sinful--this is licit, permitted, and even required. You cannot and must not judge the state of the person who may have committed them. A woman who has a abortion has committed a terrible wrong, an awful sin, but she may not be in sin with respect to this crime--she may have been forced by her boyfriend--or as in Julie Garland's case by her ambitious mother. Is Ms. Garland to be judged to hell in the eyes of all who know of the crime?
This is what I say, pure and simple. You may not judge a person's state of sin. You may judge any action or outcome or idea or statement. You may say "Communism as articulated by Marx and Engel is sinful." You may not say Marx and Engel were in sin by defining the doctrine. You may say, "Pelagianism is a great error, perhaps even a great sin against God," you may not say that Pelagius was in sin for having developed in the doctrine. And so forth.
All things that are not human are open for judgement. But Jesus makes it explicitly clear--you may not judge people.
What I am completely mystified by is what people think "Judge not" means. Apparently it means, go ahead and judge in most cases. How does one read the simple imperative statement--Stop judging, Do not make judgments, judge not-- and arrive at the conclusion that judgment is just fine with Jesus? Not one person who has said that judgment against persons is licit has yet offered a reasonable explanation of what Jesus was talking about. So what are we not to judge? Dog shows, horse races? What was Jesus talking about when He said , "Do not judge?" We shouldn't decide whether a mathematical proof is true or false or a course of action could lead on to doom? I've heard at least three time now that we are not only allowed to , but we are required and expected to judge. So why didn't Jesus just tell us, "Judge all. They need rebuking"? Wouldn't that have been easier that to force our reason to torture out of the simple imperative the commandment to judge?
How do you rebuke a person? Don't you address an action? Do you say, "You're an idiot and a sinner." And consider that a rebuke? No, of course you don't. You say, "What you did was wrong, in fact, it was an offense against God. You should search your heart and seek forgiveness for the wrong you have done." Is that wrong a sin? I don't know--and I don't care. It is possible to do wrong that is not a sin--inadvertantly hurting someone's feelings (as I hope this does not). But a rebuke addresses a wrong, and only indirectly a person.
But please tell me your reasoning--how does one get from "judge not" to "feel free to judge." Actions, words, thoughts (as expressed) deeds, ideas, schema, paradigms, all manner of things may be judged. But no person on Earth has the standing before God to judge another in sin. That is God's domain alone. When we set ourselves up in that place, we take great chances with our eternal souls. The act of condemnation reaps in the spiritual world condemnation on the person who commits the act. Jesus has said it--it is clear.
We are not permitted to judge. That's how I see it, and that's how I'll preach it. The damage done by good people "judging" others is one of the great scandals of modern-day (and probably past) Christianity. We should not be in such a hurry to trust ourselves in meting out judgment. Those who feel the freedom to do so should, by all means listen to God. For the rest of us the better course of action is to refrain from such judgments.
shalom,
Steven
"For example, if we go by Church teaching, all protestants that are divorced and remarried are in mortal sin and therefore on the hell-bound train."
Well Church teaching would say that this is a grave sin but we can not judge whether that person has truly particpated in mortal sin.
If your whole point was that we can not judge interior dispositions than I am in one hundred percent aggreement with you. Many times we talk past each other in the way we use a word.
You asked "But please tell me your reasoning--how does one get from "judge not" to "feel free to judge." If that was the sense you got from my comment than my writing skills are even worse than I suspected. I had hoped I pointed out that when we do have to act on a judgement of action that it has to be prompted only by charity.
Your fist point.
'You say, "The ability to rebuke requires a judgment as to sin." I respond, the ability to rebuke requires a judgment as to sinfulness--you have no right to try to determine sin.'
I agree with your clarification, again my writing is not as precise as I would want.
Dear Jeff,
Well Church teaching would say that this is a grave sin but we can not judge whether that person has truly particpated in mortal sin.
Yes, that is my entire point. Thank you. All I mean to say by this is not that we are called to complete inaction in the face of not being permitted to judge and condemn people, but we cannot judge "interior dispostion" their state of sin with respect to God. We must judge actions. We must know whom to avoid (those whose actions would likewise capture us and send us into mortal sin), those whom we can help (actions that are sinful, but by the grace of God pose no immediate threat) and those, like yourself and Tom at Disputations whose company is more often edifying than it is destructive. (No one is perfect.)
I am sorry at the vehemence of my writing--no, you did not say, and neither did either of the other two commenters, that is is perfectly okay to judge--that was unjust hyperbole, said for effect, but certainly not an accurate characterization of anyone's true reaction--more an overreaction to the frustration I feel at not being able to express this very simple point. Perhaps it is simply over subtle and I end up sounding like I'm against far more than I am. Please pardon me for the mischaracterization. However, I did misread what you said originally and thought that you were more in favor of judging people's state of sin rather than the sinfulness of their actions. Thank you most of all for your kindness and patience as I try to make this clear. From this point I hope to move on tomrrow to delineate why I think this is so critical to the well-being of a spiritual life. But knowing how my brain works, I probably will have forgotten it.
Part of my difficulty is that I still haven't got the hang of mortal and venial sin yet. I find the distinctions uncertain and at times, it seems artificial. I regard this as one last stubborn vestige of my protestant heritage--and God willing, it will go away soon. That may be why so many are confused by what I write here. I say sin and I most probably mean mortal sin (if my understanding is accurate). Oh well, I need lot's of prayer, what can I tell you?
Thanks again,
shalom,
Steven
For example, if we go by Church teaching, all protestants that are divorced and remarried are in mortal sin and therefore on the hell-bound train. All people of whatever race or creed who for whatever reason use birth control are on the same hell-bound train. All persons who deny the infallibility of the Pope, etc., etc. etc. (I don't know if the last earns you a trip on the express freight).
Actually the church teaches that to catch that hell-bound fast track, one must be in a state of mortal sin. To be in mortal sin one must know that the sin they commit is gravely wrong, and they must choose to do it anyway with full cooperation. I'd say 90+% of the people in your scenarios don't meet those qualications. They are in error certainly, possibly even in various stages of sins of omission, but they are not in mortal sin.
Nonetheless, because we KNOW that divorce, contraception, etc are very offensive to the God we love, we should, in fact are obligated to share the truth on these matters, in love, in our lives, words and actions.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING as publically admonishing sinners who have definitely been instructed, many times personally by the bishop! And in that case the bishops most certainly have the role, the right, and indeed the responsibility to shepherd them as they see fit. We other sheep in the flock should support those bishops.
Dear Ell,
Agreed. Generally admonishing sinners (all of us) is a good thing to do. While admonishing those who are actually "in sin" the Bishops at the same time inform the consciences of those who are ignorant of the truth. This is a necessary function.
Believe me, you will find few more loyal and less likely to criticize our Bishops than me. And I owe this great good largely due to the generous spirit of Karen Marie Knapp, who in her inimitable way admonished me when I spoke ill of her local ordinary in a way that was unbefitting. Reflecting upon that experience, I have subsequently determined that it is presumptuous of me to gainsay the actions of the Bishops. Naturally, I would like to see more, and I would like certain things done. But I am not a Bishop nor would I wish to be, so I do not know all that they have to deal with. It is better to be patient and allow the Bishops and God to take care of the matter while observing all due diligence in matters that require it.
Thank you for that necessary and important reminder.
shalom,
Steven
Not one person who has said that judgment against persons is licit has yet offered a reasonable explanation of what Jesus was talking about.
I suppose I can't insist on the reasonableness of my own explanations, but I have repeatedly pointed out that the verb "to judge" has multiple meanings; that one of these meanings is "to sit in judgment, as in a trial"; that another of these meanings is "to make a decision based on evidence"; and that I understand that it was sitting in judgment, as in a trial, that Jesus was talking about, not making a decision based on evidence.
I have even (through the miracle of the Internet) indicated where else in the New Testament the Greek terms translated as "judge" and "judged" are used, and (ignorant of all Greek) suggested that they are in several places used with the undeniable connotation of sitting in judgment, as in a trial.
As I say, I can't make a decision based on evidence on whether my own arguments are reasonable. Nevertheless, I suggest they are.
Steven,
You seem to have missed my basic point, so I'll try to state it more clearly: the foundational assumption of Christianity is that we are all sinful. And so Jesus' main point is that we not judge as if we were in God's place -- NOT that we not judge at all.
I'm not making a judgment on people's sinfulness based on their heresy -- heresy is frequently intellectual, not of the will. (Here I reveal myself to favor the traditional Dominican view, instead of the traditional Franciscan view.)
I find it disconcerting that you appeal to Jesus' "direct prohibitions", when of course you disobey many of Jesus' "direct prohibitions" all the time, without incurring sin -- don't you call your confessor "Father"? Don't you recite long prayers in public, at least at Mass? Don't you accept ashes on your forehead when you beging the Lenten penance?
Anyone who spends even the smallest time studying Jesus' sayings realizes that if you take more than a very, very few of his "direct prohibitions" seriously, you won't be able to live your life. Jesus uses hyperbole and excessive prohibition to get his point across, not in order to debilitate completely all courses of action.
It seems to me that the Jerome Biblical Commentary agrees with me; it puts it thus: "In adult life we cannot escape the obligation to make some judgments even on the moral character of others. Parents, fiancés, employers, civil judges, church admininstrators, etc. all have this duty. Jesus' teaching warns against usurping the definitive judgment of God, who alone sees the heart. By contrast, our judging must be tentative, partial, and inadequate... But wherever possible, we should try to mind our own business and not meddle in others' ... [Verses 3-5] contain a warning against hypocritical judges, which, however, presupposes some judging of others as necessary."
jack
Dear Jack,
I agree with what you say, and I have essentially said what you say, and what I am saying is better articulated by Jerome Biblical Commentary when they say, "We may not usurp God's perogative in this matter." My specific point is that we cannot judge a person to be "in sin." I keep saying that over and over again. That is usurpation. We also may not judge persons--in the sense of passing sentence or condemning. I phrase that in a way that clearly separates the two--we may judges actions, ideas, emotions, expressions, anything extrinsic from the person, but we cannot say, "Because so and so thinks thus, he is an idiot." We can say, "such and such a notion is idiotic." (Although even there I would be careful with wording because we do tend to be too dismissive..)
Each of the arguments that addresses my supposed reservations never really gets at the heart of the matter--the one point where Tom and I really disagree and that amounts to the fact that I truly believe that there is no instance outside of outright confession in which we are privileged with the ability to state outright that so-and-so sinned in doing this action. Now, that is highly restrictive, and I do have some sympathy with Tom''s contention that it may be more obvious in some cases than in others; however, it would seem to me that judgment on this matter should be exclusively reserved to God; and that judgment should never be directed against the dignity of the person carrying in the image of Christ within, but against the ideas, actions, etc. that come from the person.
shalom,
Steven
This is a fascinating discussion. So a question: my sister-in-law is living with her boyfriend, can I not say she is personally committing sin?
My take has always been more along the lines that we cannot judge the state of a person's soul, but we can judge whether an action is sinful or not (e.g. my sister-in-law or an abortion doctor). I would not believe I am sitting in place of God by making this judgement, but rather voicing truth and offering a chance for the person (aka "sinner") to become penitent.
I am interested in your thoughts. And don't hold Steven, I can take it. ;-)
God bless,
Jay
(that should say "don't hold back, Steven")
Anyone who spends even the smallest time studying Jesus' sayings realizes that if you take more than a very, very few of his "direct prohibitions" seriously, you won't be able to live your life.
Um... can we change that "seriously" to "literally," or better "literalistically"?
My specific point is that we cannot judge a person to be "in sin." ... we cannot say, "Because so and so thinks thus, he is an idiot."
If you can define "in sin" and whatever other terms you use to distinguish "in sin" from whatever other states you distinguish, we might agree.
I, personally, try to use the word "idiot" to mean "someone who talks about something he doesn't understand, without realizing he doesn't understand it." By that definition, it most certainly is possible to say So-and-so is an idiot.
If you can sometimes know foolish actions when you see them, then don't you have to define the concept of "fool" independently of foolish actions if you want to insist you can't know someone is a fool?
On a related note, is someone who lies a liar?
Um... can we change that "seriously" to "literally," or better "literalistically"?
Um... yes :-)
Steven,
what I am saying is better articulated by Jerome Biblical Commentary when they say, "We may not usurp God's perogative in this matter."
In your original example about Tamar, you state unequivocally that we may not say that a person is bad. You can only say that a person "does bad things." For me, to say that a person is bad, or that a person is a hypocrite, is a statement about the person's moral character, not about that person's sinfulness. The JBC states explicitly that Jesus does not mean to exclude judgments of a person's moral character. So, you don't seem to be agreeing with them at all. Likewise, to call a person a "hypocrite" is to make a judgment on the person's moral character, not on his ultimate destiny.
Again, I cannot help but re-emphasize that St. Paul's injunction to judge people within the church -- an injunction which includes the labels "immoral, greedy, idolater, slanderer, drunkard, robber" -- flies in the face of your original posting. You simply cannot appeal here, as you did with Christ, let him without sin cast all the stones, because St. Paul isn't without sin. In fact, in another location he right out calls some people hypocrites; in another he calls the Galatians stupid and wishes that his opponents would castrate themselves.
It seems to me that Paul is the very image of judgmentalism that you wish to exclude from the Church. I realize that I probably misunderstand you, but it's really hard not to misunderstand you when you say you agree with one thing but appear to argue another.
You keep arguing that you agree we should judge people's actions, just not their character. But character determines actions, and our actions influence our character. There may be mitigating factors involved, and we may not know all the mitigating factors, but as far as I can tell, my position is that we can form tentative, HUMBLE judgments of another's character based on his actions, and decide (as St. Paul advises) whether to associate with that person, so long as we remain open to that person in love; while your position is that we can make no judgments at all as to a person's character, because no judgment of a person's character is ever completely correct.
Now, if I completely misunderstand you, fine, but I really can't see how I misunderstand you.
my sister-in-law is living with her boyfriend, can I not say she is personally committing sin?
Interesting question. If your SIL grew up in the secular society, with nonreligious parents, secular public school, MTV, Playboy in the house etc. etc., never stepped inside a church let alone a religiou class then IMO she is not in mortal sin. HOWEVER, she most certainly is still sinning, at the very least by sins of ommission (after all the culture isn't totally devoid of Christian influence, at least not yet.) The degree of culpability of course is God's to determine.
Nonetheless, to not admonish, instruct and encourage her through words, actions, example is certainly not doing her any favors. Jesus also instructed us to be perfect as the Father is perfect. If we truly are to love our neighbor as we love our selves, seems to me then that we would want to help your SIL on the road to perfection, and that certainly doesn't mean letting her continue living in ignorance or adultery.
Must my 0.02 cents.
Dear Jay,
You may absolutely say that your sister living with her boyfriend is a sin. No question. However, you cannot say, unless you know and thoroughly understand the makeup of her conscience and the ins-and-outs of invincible ignorance that she sins in this particular instance. You can say with absolute certainty that what she does is sinful, in fact is a sin, but because you cannot confirm that her knowledge here is such that she fully understands and accepts the sinfulness of what she is doing you cannot judge her state of sin.
shalom,
Steven
Dear Jack,
When I say that you cannot say Tamar is bad, I mean that in a very fundamental sense. God created her, God does not create "bad" things. When I use the word bad there, I use it to mean speaking of irredeemable. That is not to say that she isn't flawed or a sinner, but she is not bad.
I do not see labels as "objective," useful, or charitable judgments. When X calls Y a hypocrite, the parties involved are rarely talking about objective verifiable facts but about anger.
I maintain fundamentally that you cannot judge against the dignity of the person. Applying labels is simply a way of dismissing. So and so is a hypocrite. What constitutes a hypocrite--one who one time does not do what he says, three times? Twenty times? The label is simply a slander. You've taken an entire person and reduced him to so and so is a hypocrite. And he is nothing else--there is nothing noble or nothing for God to love here? This is my objection--because judgment comes out just this simple. Tamar is bad--therefore there is really no point in dealing with Tamar in any constructive way--we've judged her bad and that's the end of it, there's nothing we can do about it. There is nothing here requiring our engagement and our concern.
That is what judging does. When we call X a hypocrite, we may dismiss him--and very, very often we do. When we engage X and say, "What you are doing is hypocritical," we at once address the real concern--some action or word, and we address the dignity of a person who is beloved of God and the image of Christ.
Think about it personally, Jesus Christ may call me a hypocrite, and I humbly and duly accept that as the truth. Even what I write here I do not practice fully, I admit it; however, if you call me a hypocrite, all you have done is hurt me and pushed me to a point where I will lash out at you. Your judgment is harsh and unloving. If you don't tell me, but you tell others that I am a hypocrite, you have done even worse by slandering and spreading rumor.
When you judge character, you condemn with a label, and I do think however you view what Jesus has to say about judgment, he specifically wants to preclude that.
As to St. Paul. I was thinking about this on my way to work this morning with reference to today's Solemnity. And I realized that there may be some few who are called and empowered to do such judging--certainly St. John the Baptist was among them; but not everyone is a prophet--not everyone has the gift of this kind of knowledge, and far too many people suppose that they do.
So, Jack, my answer to you is, if you see yourself in the place of St. Paul of St. John the Baptist, then not only are you entitles to judge, you are responsible to do so ( and I don't mean this response personally); failing that, I would think very carefully about judging, and I would say that a judgment of moral character may be necessary when that character threatenes to drag you down with it; however, I think quick and hurtful labels are merely that and should be eschewed. I think judgment that offends the dignity of the person is uncharitable and directly countermanded. And I fail to see its necessity. Why call a person a liar when you can just as easily say that the statement is a lie? When you call a person a liar you are making a judgment about what that person does at all times and you haven't helped or served God in making the judgment.
shalom,
Steven
Dear Tom,
You are correct, these were the building blocks of your argument, but it was never quite so fully spelled out. I see more clearly your point, and while there are still areas of strong disagreement, I can, in general agree with the point. But I think I see a very fine line, to take Jack's example, between seeing and judging hypocrisy, and condemning a person by calling them a hypocrite.
That is perhaps an overly subtle point, but our larger judgments too often lapse into condemntation and I think we are particularly on shaky ground when we presume to pronounce on whether a particular individual in a particular case sinned (by all the conditions set for identifying and understanding mortal sin) , because this is the most greivous judgment of all. As such, I think it is best left in God's hands to judge.
shalom,
Steven
Dear Ell,
I see we are largely in agreement on the matter at least of mortal sin; and I have admitted elsewhere my weakness on the matter of venial sin. But in saying that someone sinned and judging that, I mean to confine most of what I say to mortal sin, because that indicates a severance of the relationship with God. But I see that you clearly understand the point I have been trying to make regarding sin, at least.
On other matters, I admit that my position is extreme, but I believe both justified by scripture and warranted by the common practice of judgment.
shalom,
Steven
So and so is a hypocrite. What constitutes a hypocrite--one who one time does not do what he says, three times? Twenty times? The label is simply a slander. You've taken an entire person and reduced him to so and so is a hypocrite.
I really couldn't disagree more.
I'm not talking about reducing a person to a hypocrite; if I say that someone is a hypocrite, I am judging a person's moral character, and even then, only part of a person's moral character. It is quite possible to believe that someone is a hypocrite on (say) adultery, and at the same time admiring that person very deeply for his devotion to the poor. I'm an adult, and adults have the ability to see different shades of a person's character, unlike (perhaps) children who see the world in very simple, strong shades of black and white. But I'm also careful not to pretend that I know whether the hypocritical adulterer who helps the poor will go to heaven or hell. I just don't know. Those are two entirely different sorts of judgment, and a third judgment (which I also think is wrong) would be to berate the hypocritical adulterer for his adultery, if at the same time I have a mistress that no one knows about -- and to me it's clear that it's this latter judgment that Jesus is condemning, and not either of the others (although I think the second is also incompatible with Christian love).
So, Jack, my answer to you is, if you see yourself in the place of St. Paul of St. John the Baptist, then not only are you entitles to judge, you are responsible to do so...
You're completely misunderstood what I (& St. Paul) wrote. It's not that St. Paul is qualified to do so, and therefore maybe I am too, if that's my vocation; it's that he tells us it's our business to judge others. Here's the passage:
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst."
-- 1 Cor 5.9-13, emphasis added (obviously)
As far as I can tell, what St. Paul writes stands in flat contradiction to what you write. Your rigoristic method of interpreting of Christ's "direct injunction" would, if applied to all of Christ's injunctions, require you to deny Catholicism. I absolutely cannot understand how you can feel comfortable with a less rigorous interpretation of calling no man "father", or of praying only in private, &c, and express discomfort with a less rigorous interpretation of judging others.
Why call a person a liar when you can just as easily say that the statement is a lie?
Because by calling him a liar, I emphasize the damage that his action does to his soul, and to his standing in the eyes of others.
This is starting to go in circles, and I'm sure you must find it as frustrating as I do, so: I'll stop arguing this matter. I welcome your reply, but I will keep silence on this topic, because this will probably become unproductive if I persist. :-)
Dear Jack,
You're correct, we couldn't possibly disagree more. There are several interwoven threads here. You say that you see the person as a whole even as you condemn him as a hypocrite.
My question amounts to, what good have you done? You have lost any chance of redeeming the hypocrisy by forcing the person into a corner to save face, and you have still not made your point. Moreover, as soon as you say it, Jesus indicates that you have judged yourself.
I'm sorry, but I see simple name-calling and labeling as ultimately condemnatory. It doesn't help if you say to a person, "You're a hypocrite, but I really admire your ability to parse Pascal." The person feels condemned. When I am condemned my reaction is defensive and reactive. Usually something along the lines of "Look who's talking."
I argue against judgment both on Jesus's words and on their ultimate effect and contribution to charity. What it seems that I cannot say is that by making the distinction between the person and the label you set on them, I can still arrive at all that Saint Paul says. I say that St. Paul may have used shorthand or may have had the "right" as prophet to say it so directly. But have you ever started trying to help someone out by saying, "You're a drunkard, you should do something about it." If the person isn't in the mode of change anyway, what it's likely to earn you is a fight. Whereas if you say, "It's possible you may have a drinking problem," you have, in charity, opened the way for change. Judgment will seem to the one judged as judgmental, regardless of how gently you say , "You liar. You hypocirte. You fool. You idiot." Somehow I don't see people responding. That judgment is precisely the sort of hurtful thing that I do believe is precluded.
Do you really think that Jesus wants us to go around and label people and then dismiss them as unredeemable. Or label people and lose our opportunity to help them out of the morass they are in.
It is very evident to me that you have not spent a lot of time around judgmental people. Let me tell you, I have had my "character" labelled as indicated in a post above. It is not helpful for someone to say to me "You are arrogant, aloof, and dismissive." Think about your direct experience of criticism. Which is more helpful to you, someone who comes to you and says, "This point in your proof (work) is incorrect and needs to be fixed according to this." or "How could you be so incompetent as to make such an error?" The former judges the work, the latter judges the person.
When we are talking the salvation of souls, calling a person a hypocrite, a liar, a drunkard to his face will not effect the change you desire. This is part of the reason Jesus tells us not even to judge.
I apply judgment only to things beyond people. But I still say, when you call a person a hypocrit, what is your criterion.
Take St. Blogs itself. How often have I seen the label "liberal" applied and then everything about the person afterwards dismissed? How often the opposite in other circles? How often do we take upon ourselves the act of judgment and dismiss the person? I don't exempt myself.
But I think if you really believe that judgments are made in some cool intellectual vaccuum and then delviered with aplomb to the immediate response of the one judged, you have not witnessed how judgment works in the real world. This is my concern--not the theory behind what should happen in the best of all possible worlds. We don't live there. When people judge us we hurt. And how often are the judgments they visit upon us unjust?
Do you think I can't avoid a person who is habitually drunk without labelling him a drunkard and thus dimissing him? Do you think that it is not possible to avoid the company of those often engaged in illegal and immoral actions without labelling them?
Am I somehow more clear when I say to someone, "You hypocrite adulterer," than when I say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
The reason I am so adamant about this point is not theory, but real execution in the real world. I and most of the people I know have been hurt by judgment, both correct and incorrect. And alternatively I have been helped enormously when some eshewed judgment in favor of charity and said something like, "The fact that you wear ties gives some people the impression you are distant." That person didn't label me as distant, but did provide for me a way to improve, should I choose to do so.
This is so much more critical when what is on the line is the eternal soul of the person. I believe that eventually you may get to "tough love." But love does not judge ("keeps no record of wrongs.").
Again, I admit to being merely a weak person, and if you are capable of telling a person that you have judged them a hypocrite in love, so much the better. For myself, my silence and my lack of availability will speak. If the person is so moved they will eventually ask about the problem and I say, " I observe that in this instance you said X but you did Y in contradiction to X. It disturbs me when action does not accompany words but runs counter to them.
Judgment often slams the door in the face of further engagement and I will continue to stand by the fact that Jesus in this admonition articulated a spiritual law which is fundamentally different in scope and meaning than many of the ones you site. "Do not call any man Father," articulates a spiritual truth, but not a spiritual law. "Do not pray as the Pharisees," articulates a spiritual truth, but obviously not a fundamental law. But this is of a different type and kind and it is reinforced--the woman caught in adultery, You cannot read the entire Bible in exactly the same way and through careful study of this passage with my limited grasp of Greek and through commenters, I have come to the conclusion that this particular statement is one that requires a careful hearing because in it Jesus is telling us a law that cannot be broken. As you judge, you are judged. When you use a label, you may as well get a bottle of glue and stick the label to yourself.
I will simply say that a label condemns without reprieve. So and so is a fool is more often than not shorthand for saying, "I shall speak with so and so no more." A label is very simply codified prejudice.
So we will continue to disagree. Just as you cannot see how I hold the matter the way I do, I cannot begin to grasp what gives you the odd notion that we should feel free to label a person's character on the basis of our limited knowledge of it.
shalom,
Steven
Dear Jack,
Here's a much shorter response after a little thought. One of the major fundamental differences between our views is that I view all labels as fundamentally dismissive and condemnatory (at least those labels that can commonly be considered pejorative). As such they are the kinds of judgments I believe to be specifically precluded by Jesus's statement. We may not condemn, certainly not to hell, and not to being beyond the reach of charity.
On this matter, I'm pretty inflexible, I will admit. Most labels I see are condemnations. If we start at this point, we can see the natural fallout of our two viewpoints.
I don't know if you view the label hypocrite as condemnatory or not; but if not then it would seem that you believe that in all charity you are capable of calling a person a hypocrite and not feeling differently about them. I admire that, but I readily admit is beyond my capacity. Were I to label someone the label would affect how I related to the person. That is my psychological reality.
Perhaps that helps to see why I would espouse never labelling a person, and certainly never having the presumption to say that a given person is in mortal sin in a particular instance. If you follow the syllogism that I espouse--Jesus says "Do not judge." Read judge as "condemn." All potential pejorative labels are a form of condemnation even if they are never spoke aloud and especially if they cause you to think about the person in a substaintially different way (before I said relate to and that would preclude cutting off communication which is perfectly acceptable so long as one does not think negatively about the person.). Thus, applying a label to a person is an action that is specifically forbidden under this exclusion.
In a nutshell that has been what I've had to say about judgment outside of sin. With regard to sin it usurps the perogative of God.
shalom,
Steven
My question amounts to, what good have you done? You have lost any chance of redeeming the hypocrisy by forcing the person into a corner to save face, and you have still not made your point.
Speaking as a former hypocrite, you're right. He probably at first would have ticked the person off and had them shut down. That was my reaction. BUT those words were still in my head and as I simmered down and pondered them they eventually helped to bring about my conversion. Not everyone responds to the gentle touch. Some of us (I feel a real affinity for St. Paul on this one) need the divine kick in the butt. Sometimes that kick comes through when folks aren't afraid to "admonish the sinner." I'm sure glad someone admonished me!!!
Steven, the part about your stand that worries me is this - if every Man took this point of view, who would be there to be in the church militant? To stand up and lead? Leadership doesn't focus inward. It can't. It must focus outward.
Greetings!
I'm late to this conversion, and here's my own thoughts.
We can judge an act in the abstract. For example, we can say abortion is a gravely immoral act.
However, we cannot say to another person, "You have sinned, because you had an abortion."
We can say, "It would be a mortal sin for me to vote for John Kerry."
However, we cannot say, "You would be in sin if you vote for John Kerry."
We can ask, "How do you reconcile your thinking with the teaching of the Church?"
But we cannot say, "You are a heretic." (A Bishop can say this, but not a layperson)
We can ask, "How do you see your actions as consistent withthe golden rule?"
But we cannot say, "You broke the golden rule, and therefore you are in sin."
We can (and even should) confront one who hurts us by saying, "When you did this, I was hurt because,..."
But we cannot say, "You sinned against me"
We can say, "I believe progressive taxation supports the common good because,...."
But we cannot say, "If you don't believe in progressive taxation, you simply don't believe in the common good...."
Peace!
However, we cannot say to another person, "You have sinned, because you had an abortion."
and see I believe that is absolutely false. Because they have sinned. Mortally or venially, sin of omission or comission- doesn't matter. If we truly are supposed to be perfect as our Father is perfect, if we truly are to love our brother as we love ourselves, if we truly are to treat others as we oureselves want to be treated, then we are absolutely supposed to help each other see sin, recognize it, and avoid it.
Dear JCecil3,
Thank you, that aptly sums up how I view the matter at least viz. mortal sin. As to venial--as I've said before, I don't really understand the distinction and I don't know if the rubric for analysis is quite so clearly spelled out. I will leave that to finer minds than my own to figure out.
shalom,
Steven