Judgment: An Act of Justice or Suspicion?

Is it within the purview of men to form judgments? And, if so, what conditions must be met, that these judgments be deemed just?

St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the inner workings of judgment within the Summa Theologica, Question 60, Article 2:

Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (A. 1, ad 1, 3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. First, when it is contrary to the rectitude of justice, and then it is called perverted or unjust: secondly, when a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority, and this is called judgment by usurpation: thirdly, when the reason lacks certainty, as when a man, without any solid motive, forms a judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, and then it is called judgment by suspicion or rash judgment.[1]

Three conditions are required that a judgment be deemed an act of justice. That, the judgment rendered proceeds from the inclination of justice, that is, it is not opposed to Divine Justice: “For in reference to such matters as can be done with a good and single and noble intention, although they may also be done with an intention the reverse of good, those parties wished, although they were [mere] men, to pronounce judgment upon the secrets of the heart, of which God alone is Judge.”[2] Second, that the proper authority is the one declaring the judgment, in matters over which he has received delegated authority. And, third, that the judgment made be in accord with the right ruling of prudence, that is, there is certainty – and not – doubt when considering the matters to be judged. If any of these three conditions are lacking, the judgment is faulty and unlawful, it is unjust, and the authority who declared it, quite possibly guilty of usurpation – considering affairs outside of his authority – or of rendering his judgment according to suspicion or rash judgment.

Thus, the cardinal virtue of prudence is integral in the process of forming a judgment:

Prudence is right reason applied to action, as stated above (A. 2). Hence that which is the chief act of reason in regard to action must needs be the chief act of prudence. Now there are three such acts. The first is to take counsel, which belongs to discovery, for counsel is an act of inquiry, as stated above (I-II, Q. 14, A. 1). The second act is to judge of what one has discovered, and this is an act of the speculative reason. But the practical reason, which is directed to action, goes further, and its third act is to command, which act consists in applying to action the things counselled and judged. And since this act approaches nearer to the end of the practical reason, it follows that it is the chief act of the practical reason, and consequently of prudence.[3]

If the virtue of prudence is right reason applied to action, and this may be viewed as practical wisdom, it seems evident that those who already possess a greater degree of this virtue, and who continue to grow in it, be selected to govern or rule.

Therefore, he who has been chosen to govern, must engage the cardinal virtue of prudence and discover the truth – in matters to be considered, determining what is just for all concerned. This is accomplished in three acts: first, to take counsel with all involved, discover, or uncover evidence which would justify or substantiate the judgment deliberated upon. Second, to weigh and pronounce what one has discovered, through conducting a thorough investigation. And, third, to command – offer counsel and act upon the judgment determined – with these words of St. Augustine and the commandment to love in mind: “prudence is love discerning aright that which helps from that which hinders us in tending to God.”[4]

The opposite of prudence is rash judgment:

Unquestioning conviction about another person’s bad conduct without adequate grounds for the judgment. The sinfulness of rash judgment lies in the hasty imprudence with which the critical appraisal is made and in the loss of reputation that a person suffers in the eyes of the one who judges adversely.[5]

Here unquestioning conviction is central – the unwavering belief that a person cannot or will not ever change their errant behavior. That, they are, what the authority declaring judgment rashly deems them to be – now and forever. This is, for all intents and purposes condemnation and only God possesses the sovereign right over final judgment, and condemnation, as concerns all of mankind. As, St. Augustine affirms:

There are two things, moreover, in which we ought to beware of rash judgment; when it is uncertain with what intention anything is done; or when it is uncertain what sort of a person he is going to be, who at present is manifestly either good or bad. If, therefore, anyone, for example, complaining of his stomach, would not fast, and you, not believing this, were to attribute it to the vice of gluttony, you would judge rashly. Likewise, if you were to come to know the gluttony and drunkenness as being manifest, and were so to administer reproof as if the man could never be amended and changed, you would nevertheless judge rashly. Let us not therefore reprove those things about which we do not know with what intention they are done; nor let us so reprove those things which are manifest, as that we should despair of a return to a right state of mind; and thus we shall avoid the judgment of which in the present instance it is said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.[6]

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 thoughts (cf. Cogitationes; Vulgate, consilia.) of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God” (cf. 1 Cor 4:5). There are therefore certain ambiguous actions, respecting which we are ignorant with what intention they are performed, because they may be done both with a good or with an evil one, of which it is rash to judge, especially for the purpose of condemning. Now the time will come for these to be judged, when the Lord “will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.[7]

Does this mean that men who are not selected to govern or rule, are somehow devoid of the capacity to judge between what is good and evil, or between the greatest good and a lesser good? No, every man who is in right relationship with God, who renounces sin, and receives the sacrament of reconciliation, possesses the capacity to judge (in accord with right reason) between good and evil, or right and wrong. And, through repeated acts of choosing the greatest good and making proper judgments – is able to develop virtue:

Judgment properly denotes the act of a judge as such. Now a judge (judex) is so called because he asserts the right (jus dicens) and right is the object of justice, as stated above (Q. 57, A.1). Consequently the original meaning of the word judgment is a statement or decision of the just or right. Now to decide rightly about virtuous deeds proceeds, properly speaking, from the virtuous habit; thus a chaste person decides rightly about matters relating to chastity. Therefore judgment, which denotes a right decision about what is just, belongs properly to justice. For this reason the Philosopher says (Ethic. V. 4) that men have recourse to a judge as to one who is the personification of justice.[8]

Judgment denotes a right decision about what is just, therefore: “justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will”[9], and men should ensure that they have recourse to a judge (he who has received delegated authority) – as all men must have recourse to the One Who is the Personification of Justice, God Himself.

Thus, proper judgments and true justice are fully realized when they conform to Divine Justice:

The constant and unchanging will of God to give everyone what is due him or her. Every possible form of justice is possessed by God. He practices legal justice in that through the natural and moral law he co-ordinates creatures to the common good; distributive justice because he gives to his creatures everything they need to fulfill the purpose of their existence; remunerative justice because he rewards the good; and vindictive justice because he punishes the wicked.[10]

God possesses every possible form of justice:

Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you.”[11] “The LORD within her is righteous, he does no wrong; every morning he shows forth his justice, each dawn he does not fail; but the unjust knows no shame.[12]

God is the Pure Perfection of Justice. Therefore:

In all the communities which the LORD, your God, is giving you, you shall appoint judges and officials throughout your tribes to administer true justice for the people. You must not distort justice: you shall not show partiality; you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes even of the wise and twists the words even of the just. Justice, justice alone shall you pursue, so that you may live and possess the land the LORD, your God, is giving you.[13]

[1] Thomas, and Dominican Province. 1947. Summa Theologica: first complete american edition in three volumes. New York: Benziger., vol. II, ST II-II, Q. 60, a. 2, (hereafter cited as Thomas).

[2] Augustine, and S. D. F. Salmond. 1873. The Sermon on the Mount Expounded : And the Harmony of the Evangelists. Translated by William Findlay. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark., pg. 111.

[3] Thomas, vol. II, ST II-II, q. 47, a. 8.

[4] Ibid, vol. II, ST II-II, q. 47, a. 1, ad. 1, as quoting St. Augustine.

[5] Hardon, John A. 1980. Modern Catholic Dictionary. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday., pg. 456., (Hereafter cited as Hardon).

[6] Augustine, and John Chrysostom. 1956. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church : Volume VI, Saint Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans., pg. 54., para. 61.

[7] Ibid, pg. 54., para. 60.

[8] Thomas, vol. II, ST II-II, q.60, a. 1.

[9] Thomas, vol. II, ST II-II, q. 58, a. 1.

[10] Hardon, pg. 164.

[11] Catholic Biblical Association (Great Britain). The Holy Bible : Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, Translated from the Original Tongues, Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Old and New Testaments Revised A.D. 1881-1885 and A.D. 1901 (Apocrypha Revised A.D. 1894), Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised A.D. 1952 (Apocrypha Revised A.D. 1957). Catholic ed. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994., Psa 89:14.

[12] Ibid, Zep 3:5.

[13] Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Church, Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible (Washington, D.C. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Co. 2011)., Deu 16:18-20.