Correcting Sinners is ‘Judgmental’ Only If You Are ‘Post-Modern’

ethics, things that last, judgmental. judging, mercy and justice, Canon Law

LGBTQ activists love to throw Jesus’ words about not being judgmental in the face of any Christian who says sexual relations between two men or two women is a sin.  Likely as not they’ll also throw out their favorite invective as well.  They’ll say anyone who ‘judges’ homosexual behavior as disordered is a homophobe – a ‘hater’ of homosexuals.

The ‘homophobe’ invective is itself judgmental, but dwelling on that is just more finger pointing.  The real crux of the matter is the semantics of what being judgmental means.

Don’t Judge

In Mathew 7:1-5 Jesus says,

“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.

Jesus’ words seem to give credibility to the LGBTQ stance.  And those words are repeated even more forcefully in Luke 6:37: “Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.”

Even in the Letter of James (James 4:12) we are told: “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?”

Recognize Sin

But recognizing the sinfulness of an act is not the same as passing judgement on a person.  It is not judgmental.  We see stupid, dumb, and bad behavior all the time, often on a daily basis.  Usually we do not hesitate to chastise bad behavior.

Have you driven behind someone texting while driving lately?  Did you happen to comment on the stupidity of the driver’s action, even if only to yourself?

Recognizing and calling out stupid, bad, or immoral behavior is not passing judgement on the person doing the something stupid, bad, or immoral.

Say you know a man and woman who decide to cohabitate instead of getting married and you call their attention to the sinfulness of their arrangement.  This does not mean that you are judging them.  It only means that you are calling their attention to the sinfulness of their decision.  Living as husband and wife is a sin if the man and woman are not married.

Or let’s say you have a friend or coworker who is constantly boasting about his her latest ‘amorous’ affair.  You point out to the individual that fornication is a sin in the eyes of God. It does not mean that you are being judgmental or passing judgment on the person. It only means exactly what you said.

Correcting the Sinner

In fact, we are told in the New Testament that we should correct sinners:

“My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins” (James 5:19).

And St. Paul tells us in Galatians:

“Brothers, even if a person is caught in some transgression, you who are spiritual should correct that one in a gentle spirit, looking to yourself, so that you also may not be tempted.  Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:1).

While in Colossians he says:

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another . . .” (Col 3:16).

And in John 8:3-11, Jesus admonished the scribes and Pharisees for condemning woman caught in adultery; He did not chastise them for recognizing the sinfulness of the woman’s act.  He also told the woman to go and sin no more.

Unfortunately, many Catholics and other Christians these days are being deceived.  They are buying into the idea that correcting a sinner is being judgmental.  But those who espouse such nonsense are only attempting to shame Christians into remaining silent.  This is the devil’s handiwork.  The devil is trying to make sure sin continues to flourish by attempting to prevent us from correcting one another.

Promoting Sin

And sin is flourishing these days.  It’s also getting a lot of help from both un-elected and elected government representatives and officials.  The SCOTUS decisions on abortion and legalizing same sex ‘marriage’ are two prime examples of government promoting sin.  And the Biden administration blatantly endorses both abortion and same sex ‘marriage.’

But cardinals, bishops, and priests also condone sin by refusing to call out sinfulness when it is standing in front of them.  As any judge will tell you, silence implies consent.

And when some clerics do speak up, they deny or ignore Church teaching.  Washington D.C. Archbishop Cardinal Gregory refusing to deny Communion to abortion promoter and same sex ‘marriage’ advocate Joe Biden certainly sends the wrong message.  And in Belgium, Johan Bonny, Bishop of Antwerp, has openly rejected the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Responsum stating that it is illicit to bless same-sex unions.

As CS writer Dennis Dillon noted very recently, the mixed messages get confusing.

Chastise Sinners . . . and Stupidity

Catholicism is a religion of faith and reason.  Too many people today, however, do not seem to have the ability to reason and think logically.  Perhaps such stupidity is why we now have a society that is drifting into paganism.

In the Catholic high school I attended a required course for all freshmen was a course in Logic.  I wonder how many government-run (i.e., public) schools have the same requirement.  (My bet is none of them.)

Stupidity is all around us today.  It is not judgmental to recognize it.  And it’s not judgmental to call it out.

I laughed out loud while reading an article at Crisis recently.  Writer Casey Chalk was commenting on an op-ed in The Washington Post, written by Lynne Stahl, a humanities librarian at West Virginia University, and “a self-described “cisgender lesbian”.”

Chalk wrote:

“Stahl’s op-ed is overflowing with contrived, self-indulgent nonsense demonstrative of how absurd and unserious the secular academy has truly become in its adoption of pseudoscience and spurious jargon.”

One would think the once prestigious Washington Post would at least still have a solid grasp of good writing and not allow nonsense to fill its pages.  One would also think a “humanities librarian” would have at least some understanding of logic and reason.  But it seems one would be wrong on both counts.

Near the end of his article, Chalk sums up the problem in Stahl’s article:  “Woke sexuality, as Stahl’s article so patently proves, descends into incomprehensible jibber jabber.”

He hit the nail squarely on the head.  We are living in an age of jibber jabber.  And what’s scary is that this jibber jabber nonsense is being treated as profound thinking!

Pope St. Pius X saw this coming over 100 years ago.

From Modernism to Post-Modernism

Dr. Jeffrey Mirus once described Modernism very succinctly:  “Modernism is essentially a secularizing of Catholicism in accordance with the prevailing ideas in the larger culture.”

Pope St. Pius X first warned the faithful about the evils of modernist thinking in 1907, in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.  Years’ later modernism was still on the ascent.  One of the primary goals of Vatican II was to renew the Church in the face of the rising tide of modernism.  Many think it failed to achieve this goal.

But today many say we are now in the age of Post-Modernism.

Clifford Staples, in an article at Crises a few years ago, described how post-modern man views life.  He concluded the article thusly:

“Post-modern man is authentic when he is true to himself, not to reality. To live authentically means living in accord with what you feel/believe, whether or not what you feel/believe is true by any objective standard. Everyone is entitled to his own truth, even when everyone’s truth can’t possibly be true. When contradictory truths collide, as they must, the outcome is determined by power, not by reason. Truth is not discovered; it is imposed. By his willingness to ignore reality post-modern man shows himself to be foolish … and dangerous.”

(It’s worth taking time to read the entire article.)

This describes the post-modern world we live in today.  Reason has to give way to power.   But the power is stupid, foolish, and sinful.

Don’t Be Deceived

Hans Christian Andersen’s the “Emperor’s New Clothes” story has come to life.  The “swindlers” have are trying to deceive everyone.  We need to be like the little child at the end of the story.

As Catholics we should stand up for truth and reason.  We should always recognize sin and not hesitate to “admonish one another.”

So don’t buy into the ‘don’t be judgmental’ trap.  Calling out sinful acts and actions is part and parcel of being a good Christian.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

19 thoughts on “Correcting Sinners is ‘Judgmental’ Only If You Are ‘Post-Modern’”

  1. Pingback: Bring ‘Em Back! Part 3 - Catholic Stand

  2. Pingback: Hey, Let’s All Be Zebras From Now On! - Catholic Stand

  3. Pingback: Parents Shouldn’t Love Their Same-Sex Afflicted Kids More Than God - Catholic Stand

  4. No, that would be calumny. Pseudoscience is not merely “anything that is not science”. Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science but in fact blatantly contradicts known scientific evidence.
    The fact that Adam and Eve were historical figures is not a statement claiming to be science and it certainly doesn’t contradict any known scientific evidence. And the vast majority of the millions who believe this fact are not “conservative”.

    1. an ordinary papist

      I guess it took a long time for Zeus and Medusa to fall under the mythological bus too; yet, astrology persists. And those romantic contemporaries who comfort themselves in the young earth fable would never have cradled a cell phone had science followed their lead.

  5. Great and important article. Unfortunately in illustrating your point you fall into a common but serious error in interpreting the story in John 8.
    Read it again. Jesus did NOT admonish the scribes and Pharisees for condemning the adulteress. Certainly not for condemning her to Hell (which they did not do, though you imply they did). Nor even for condemning her to the punishment of stoning which God prescribed through Moses for those found guilty of this sin (which they didn’t do either). They merely asked Jesus a question in order to trap Him: if He answered, no, it is wrong to stone her, they would proclaims that He can’t be a true prophet of God since He blatantly contradicts God’s law; if He answered yes, it’s correct, they would denounce Him to the Roman rulers who had made capital punishment illegal unless authorised by the Roman governor. Jesus avoided answering the question and so avoided their trap, because they didn’t seriously want to know His theological opinion on the matter, they just wanted an excuse to cut Him down.

    1. Peter, thanks for the “thumbs up” but I don’t think I’ve erred in any way. I fully understand that the Pharisees were attempting to trap Jesus. Jesus did admonish the Pharisees, however, in the very way He responded to them. The Pharisees’ trap is more nuanced than what you suggest. Jesus could have responded that the woman must be taken to the Roman court to stand trial. But such a response would also have played into the Pharisees hands. The Pharisees had already condemned the woman to death under Mosaic law and no doubt a Roman trial would have been a mere formality. Under the New Covenant, the sin of adultery is still recognized as a sin but it is forgiven in Confession.

  6. an ordinary papist

    The Washington Post doesn’t agree with him as well as countless others, that’s the folly of
    our collective subjectivism. If someone calls out a conservative theologian for claiming that Adam and Eve were historical figures “… adoption of pseudoscience ” this is no different than “writing something that is false” in lieu of known science. It’s jibber-jabber. But we could go around on this all day and I’m sure there’s more we agree upon than not. Peace.

    1. Once upon a time the Washington Post was highly respected. Now it is little more than a mouthpiece for the DNC and a promoter of post-modernism. Sad. Peace to you as well.

  7. an ordinary papist

    That would be kind; planting the seed. Thank you, and by the way, laughing at Casey Chalks
    slandering of Lynne Stahl’s ( she doesn’t even know her ) character and ability as a writer is a
    bit confessable too.

    1. I think you may be jumping to a conclusion again. Casey Chalk (a man) did not slander Ms. Stahl. He did not write anything about her that is false. He pointed out the absurdity of her arguments. How is laughing at a well written sentence pointing out the absurd sinful?

  8. Pingback: SATVRDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  9. an ordinary papist

    So, if these say, hypothetical friends of yours are living in sin, how do you or would you stay friends ? I imagine you don’t go into a ‘living in sin’ spiel when you see them, say a dozen times a year or more or they would start to pull back from you. How do you reconcile their
    behavior with your response ?

    1. Jesus ate with sinners and did not push them away. I try to follow His example – WWJD. And I recognize that I too, am a sinner. I think the old adage, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar is appropriate. At the same time, if an appropriate opportunity (one on one, in private) presented itself, and the conversation also offered the appropriate opening, I might gently remind them that their living arrangement is sinful by asking if they have given any thought to getting married.

    1. Apology accepted but I think you should read the article again. You did not judge me. You did, however, publicly offer a slanderous opinion about my character without even knowing me. You might want to remember that the next time you go to Confession.

  10. an ordinary papist

    ” Say you know a man and woman ( read: friends) who decide to cohabitate …

    Say no more – because it follows that your next act (judgement) will be to shun them, which makes you no better than a Jehovah Witness.

    1. On what information are you basing the conclusion at which you’ve arrived? I would not shun them nor would any of the Catholics I know.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.