CATHOLICISM - FAMOUS FOR JUDGING

Many Christians say we must not judge other people’s motives.  The idea is that we speak for God by saying that certain actions are wrong but this does not mean we are judging the person for that is God's job.  All we are doing is passing on what God says about certain actions. 

 

Few buy that.

 

Against those who say that judging a person is not necessarily hating them, the Church seems to disagree.  Why else is there so much effort made to look like the person is never rejected but only behaviours are identified as being unacceptable before God.

 

The Bible gives an example in the Book of Job where Satan judges Job's motives. He thought Job was only serving God for what benefits he could get out of it. God alone knows man’s secret motives. “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God” (I Cor. 4:5).

 

The problem with that view is that it means our love for others is not real. Its just provisional. "I love and trust you not because I really know you for I cannot. I love and trust you because I have to assume the best until I get further light."

 

Many Catholics lie that Jesus said in the Matthew gospel not to judge.  They do not tell you the rest of it.  He said look at yourself first and then you will be able to judge clearly.  It is alarming that faith in Jesus so easily leads to people abandoning the moral compass like that.  Jesus in the John gospel summarises this by saying you must judge others fairly.

 

Catholicism teaches that sin is an offence against the moral law of God. It is entitled to intolerance in the form of disapproval and condemnation and punishment. The Christian may tolerate sin only in the sense that he is not in a position to judge exactly how intolerable it is. But if the Christian knew, the threat of punishment would be used to stop sin. A law that does not punish breaches adequately is only a half-law. Calling somebody a sinner means, "I know you should be hurt for your sin - breaking a law demands that punishment be administered to you whether you like it or not." That proves the utter hypocrisy of saying that one must love the sinner and hate the sin. If a person is a sinner then it is your will that they be hurt.

 

The teaching that we must hate the bad behaviour of people and hate the contempt with which they view the ways of God but love them is a strange one. People always say, "Free yourself from those who hurt you by forgiving them so that you may enjoy peace." That attitude contradicts the alleged obligation to hate evil and disobedience to God. How? It urges us to be free from hating others and holding grudges but urges us to suffer a great stress and dislike over our sins and those of others.

 

If you do wrong but without knowing it or against your will that is not sin.  If you hate evil, it will upset you gravely to see somebody doing wrong. If you love the evildoer, you will have the added burden of detesting the suffering they bring on themselves. They could be in danger of going to the Catholic hell which burns for all eternity. It is a mistake to think the Church teaches that we should enjoy seeing somebody punished. God does it but only because it is right and he does not like doing it.

 

To judge means to wish punishment on someone or to determine that they deserve it. It involves imputing guilt to them. Even if you don’t like to see them punished you have to approve of it if it happens and disapprove if it doesn’t. Approval and liking are different things. Approval is a mind thing. Liking is a heart thing.

 

You receive somebody's gospel. You make that message your own message.  It becomes all yours then.  You might have got it from somebody else but now that you have made the message your own you might as well have created it yourself. There is no difference in what it is like - how you got the message makes no difference. It does not matter any more if it was invented by you or the other person.

 

With that in mind, we cannot believe Christians who go, "You feel we judge your sin. It is not us but the Bible that judges." They are covering up their true attitude.

 

Most of us admit we identify ourselves with our sins. We say we are sinners. Those who do not admit it do know that sin if it exists shows what kind of person you are. So the sin and the person are one and the same. A sinner strictly speaking is a person with at least partly ungodly character not a person who commits sin.

 

Gay people do not believe Christian opponents of homosexuality when they say they love the gay people but hate their sin. To say you love the sinner and hate the sin is only a source of offence to people who identify themselves with their sin or so-called sin. And we all do that for we know that to love the sinner is to love the sins they commit as well.

 

Church moral teaching does judge people. Here is an example. The Church says that you do not treat somebody you love in a lustful way. Lust is empty of love and seeks only pleasure. It doesn’t care about the person but the pleasure. The Church sees sexual union outside of marriage as lust. This is judging.

 

To say that only God can judge is to say, “I would judge you if I knew and judge you as fit for Hell.” It sounds like, "I love you but..." Yet Christians who claim that saying God judges not them use this claim as proof that they actually love sinners! Keep your barbed love thanks very much guys!

 

To say, “The word of God given in the Bible and the declarations of the Church judge you as bad news and fit for everlasting torture in Hell”, is worse than saying, “I judge you as bad news and fit for everlasting torture in Hell.” At least if you judge you know you are fallible. You are doing it on your own frail and fallible authority. But to invoke an infallible God and to do it on his authority is horrendous. Its a stronger judgement.

 

Catholicism both as a people and as a religion harshly condemns many actions that are incorrect. It severely says that robbing a bank is a sin that will take you to Hell forever if you fail to repent. It condemns a little sexual act between members of the same sex as deserving this punishment. Here we see an example of how it condemns something harmless so viciously.

 

Suppose you wish to influence somebody or guide them to a better way of life. If you put God first, you will naturally have to tell them how you feel they are defying his will. But people don’t want to hear about how their lives offend God or are against his law. They will get angry if you try to tell them. But if you appeal to their self-love and try to inspire them to do better and show how it is better for them they will grant you a respectful hearing. All that is a violation of the teaching that God's rights matter and man's doesn't in comparison.

 

The Catholics who teach that we must judge the sin and not the sinner are stating something so hypocritical that it is unworthy of refutation.

The sinner is the sin. Therefore to hate the sin and love the sinner cannot mean the same thing. You either do one or the other.
 

We know by instinct that anybody who say they judge the sin you commit but not you is lying. We know by instinct that anybody who says they are against your sin but are not against you at all is lying.

 

The Church teaches that certain sins such as masturbation are mortal sins meaning they kill your relationship with God. Even if there is no God and we can freely do wrong, mortal sin is possible in so far as we intend to commit it. The Church corrupts the human heart.

The Church says that if a person is really trying to avoid mortal sin God gives him enough grace to succeed. So the person has no excuse for failing. This teaching contradicts the fact that you need proof before you can accuse people. There is no proof that God exists and no proof that he really gives us grace -grace means he changes our hearts in ways we cannot do by ourselves. If he can do that then why didn't he make us good in the first place?

 

Mortal sin severs you from God completely. You become your sin. Then there is no room for love the sinner and hate the sin. If love the sin and hate the sin is possible it can only be possible for venial sin.
 

To accuse a mortal sinner of having completely removed themselves from God is an act of hate. For the sinner to do that to himself is an act of self-hate and if you can do that to yourself what would you do to others?

 

If you say you love the sinner for the sinner is not all bad and hate the sin, that implies that if you met a person who has hardly any good qualities at all you would have to hate that person. It is saying you condone and encourage that. Even if you think no such person exists, the fact remains you hold hate in your heart. You would hate them if they did exist.

 

It may be wrong to respond in a hateful way to a person who hates you. But to be vindictive against a system is different. If religion has hateful attitudes to certain wrongs then it has to admit that secularists have the right to hate its masses, its holy statues, its Bible, its teachings and to try and turn people against them.

 

Therapists claim, "Telling a person they are responsible is about helping them. Blame is about wanting to hurt the person by at least making them feel bad and guilty."

 

Blame involves assuming a person meant to do something hateful and bad. We need to blame things too. If the car won't start we may kick it and blame it for ruining our day. We don't know the cause so we assume personal intent. The less we know of the person we blame the more we are assuming their blameworthiness.

 

Suppose a woman without compulsion stays with a husband that beats her up. Therapists say that she is responsible for her life but add that this is not the same as blaming (judging) her. They allege that taking responsibility for what happens to you when you can walk away does not mean taking the blame or part of the blame. Again this is more hypocritical tripe. Catholic theologians know that but they try to distinguish between blame and responsibility to fool those who see that you cannot love the sinner and hate the sin.


The Church blames us for sinning all the time for it says we are all sinners.  Blaming people all the time would be seen as egotism. The egotist who robs a bank will say that the banks are not secure enough or honest enough so they deserved to be robbed. Christian morality implies we should blame all the time for nobody's life is perfect. And if there is a perfect God to please it gets worse! Nobody will ever love him enough or pray enough or serve him well enough!

 

Society has a perception of the Catholic Church as being judgemental. That is a huge part of the reason for the rancour towards the Church that the media has.  That perception is correct.