"To Judge or Not to Judge"
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; because the judgements you give are the judgements you will get, and the amount you measure out is the amount you will be given. Why do you observe the splinter in your brother’s eye and never notice the plank in your own? How dare you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the splinter out of your eye’, when all the time there is a plank in your own? Hypocrite! Take the plank out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)How do we understand the common practice of making a judgment about someone? What about justice and rights? What is the meaning of Justice as a virtue? What do Our Lord’s words in the Holy Gospel’s teach us? What does it mean to "judge" your neighbour? These are some of the questions that come to mind for many souls today troubled by the difficulty of living virtuously with other human beings. We shall see that there are two things that undermine human judgments: these are "Suspicion" and "Rash Judgment". They are contrary to the virtue of Justice. Suspicion and rash judgment can have consequences which are by far more serious than most people realise. This is especially the case if the matter itself is grave (i.e., very serious) because with a bad will this is a mortal sin! Consequently, it can be the cause of scandal also. However, we will see in this article that there is an easy prevention for this kind of injustice. This article is based upon the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica Part II-II, Question 60, Articles 1 through 6.
The Nature of Judgment
Saint Thomas explains the original meaning of the word judgment: (cf. Article 1) It belongs properly to a judge - one who determines what is right (cf. Article 5) and just. Sometimes a person might appoint himself to this title of "judge" over his neighbour. However, humans can only declare what is just or right according to the provisions of Law: whether Eternal Law, Natural Law or human law; they do not define what is morally right or wrong. A judgment has an objective value because the one who is just must make judgments according to the truth. The truth is embodied within the universal principles of the Moral Law (cf. DV, article 36). The human "judge" does not create the truth, he only discovers it and must judge according to the truth. The particular evil of "suspicion" lies in the fact that it falsifies the truth about God and the truth about man (cf. DV, article 37). The purpose of law is to safeguard the truth and human right. For Catholics, this is particularly the case for the Code of Canon Law. Now we are ready to understand the grave seriousness of judging another based upon a suspicion. Saint Thomas explains that a true Judgment is an act of the virtue of Justice (cf. Article 1, Reply Obj. 1). Thus not only is it imprudent to judge wrongly, it is also unjust. In other words:
 | The Act of Judgment is a statement or decision of what is right resulting from a desire for justice. However, it is necessary that a man’s reason must be certain in the act of judgment. Furthermore, certainty cannot come from only a slight indication - e.g., Suspicion. |
| The Act of Judgment must proceed from a right motive: e.g., from a desire for justice and not from motives of envy, anger or simply dislike for a person. |
For a lawful judgment, Saint Thomas explains that it must be an act of Justice with the following conditions (cf. Article 2):
| A Judgment must proceed from the desire of Justice; if otherwise, it is called perverted or unjust. |
| A Judgment must come from one who is in Authority; if otherwise, it is called judgment by usurpation. |
| A Judgment must be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence; if otherwise, it is called judgment by suspicionor rash judgment. |
If any of the above are missing then a judgment will be faulty and unlawful. Such judgments are called perverted and rash coming from one who has no authority and who usurps this authority to himself. What about Our Lord’s words quoted above: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; because the judgements you give are the judgements you will get ..."? There are those who would say that Our Lord’s words forbid all judgments! However, this idea is not correct. Saint Thomas explains that Our Lord refers in this text (Matt. 7:1) to Rash Judgment (cf. Article 2, Reply Obj. 1) It is rash judgment that is forbidden by Our Lord. Rash judgments are based upon Suspicions. Let us look deeper into this matter because this is usually the point where human relations break down. Saint Thomas will be our Guide:
Suspicion and Rash Judgment
Suspicion is defined as "evil thinking based upon slight indications" (cf. Article 3) Suspicion becomes Rash Judgment when the person makes a judgment based upon these evil thoughts. There are three degrees:
| The first degree is to doubt another man’s goodness from a slight indication. According to Saint Thomas this is generally a venial sin. |
| The second degree is to go one step further in suspicion by forming a judgment without certainty (because there is only slight indication) about another person. This is immoral and unjust. The specific evil comes from declaring that this person’s wickedness is grave and certain! In making such a judgment with only slight indication, a man commits a mortal sin! Saint Thomas maintains the reason it is a mortal sin is because this type of judgment is based only upon a slight indication (e.g., it lacks certainty) yet he judges a person as gravely wicked! Saint Thomas says that this type of judgment cannot be made without contempt of one’s neighbour! It is a rash judgment that labels a person as gravely wicked. It is extremely unjust! Consequently, Saint Thomas maintains that if a person cannot avoid certain suspicions he ought to refrain from definitive judgment when it is based only upon slight indications. Thus he ought to refrain from acting upon such a rash judgment. To do otherwise may also be a cause of scandal. |
| The third degree is when a Judge condemns a person based upon suspicion. This is gravely unjust in the extreme and is mortally sinful. This is also a publicly rash judgment and a cause of scandal. |
Here is the rationale for why Saint Thomas maintains we should always judge our neighbour favourably when there is a doubt. Let us look at what Saint Thomas says about this:
"I answer that, as stated above (A.3, Reply Obj. 2), from the very fact that a man thinks ill of another without sufficient cause, he injures and despises him. Now no man ought to despise or in any way injure another man without urgent cause: and consequently, unless we have evident indications of a person’s wickedness, we ought to deem him good, by interpreting for the best whatever is doubtful about him." (Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q.60, article 4)
This is a very important conclusion and good remedy for dealing with temptations to be suspicious. We must not consent to a suspicion about our neighbour because a suspicion is always a falsification of the truth. However, some people might object to this solution by asserting that for the most part we live in a wicked world where you can expect that evil is done most of the time and by most people! Therefore, these people conclude that a doubt about a person should be interpreted for the worse rather than for the best. This is not the answer. Saint Thomas answers this objection specifically:
"He who interprets doubtful matters for the best, may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former."(Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 60, article 4, Reply Obj. 1)
Saint Thomas upholds the virtue of Justice in its highest expression; namely in order to give to another that which is his due by right - we ought to judge from a desire for justice and not from a perverted desire to penalise another without certainty of the facts. Secondly, we ought to question ourselves as to whether we have the mandate or authority to judge a person under the circumstances. Otherwise we usurp this judgment without jurisdiction to do so. In Canon Law this is referred to as non competent to judge the matter. And thirdly, we ought to refrain from forming a definitive judgment based upon suspicion; because such a judgment would be rash and is always a falsification of the truth. The Code of Canon Law penalises offenders of such matters as a defect of natural justice. This is because the right to the protection of one’s good name and reputation is a fundamental right. Canons 14, 50, 128, 220, 221, 1572 set out some of the requirements for sound judgments that uphold the rights of the faithful. Especially Canon 1572 which requires the certainty about the alleged facts be corroborated and confirmation of evidence be certain. This is so that opinion, rumour, hearsay and suspicion (with only slight indication), can be distinguished from the true facts.
On Judging your Neighbour
From all that has been said above the reader should now be able to see the solution to the difficulties of temptation to suspicion and doubt. To put the everything into perspective, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. writes on this subject with great precision and will help us understand something about a basic human right - your good name:
"Rash judgment, properly so called, is a sin against justice, especially when it is outwardly expressed by words or acts. [cf. Article 3] Our neighbour has, in fact, a right to his reputation; next to the right which he has to do his duty, he has the right to uphold his good name more than to defend the right to property. We should respect this right of others to their reputation if we wish our own to be respected. Moreover, rash judgment is often false. How can we judge with certainty of the interior intentions of a person whose doubts, errors, difficulties, temptations, good desires, or repentance, we do not know? How can we claim to know better than he what he says to God in prayer? How can we judge justly if we do not have the details of the case? Even if a rash judgment is true, it is a sin against justice because, in judging thus, a man arrogates to himself a jurisdiction which is not his to exercise. God alone is capable of judging with certainty the secret intentions of hearts, or those that are not sufficiently manifested. Hence even the Church does not judge them. Rash judgment is likewise a sin against charity. What is most serious in the eyes of God, is not that this hasty judgment is often false and always unjust, but that it proceeds from malevolence, though often expressed with the mask of benevolence, which is only a grimace of charity. Anyone judging rashly is not only a judge who arrogates to himself jurisdiction over the souls of his brothers which he does not possess, but a judge sold by his egoism and his pride, at times a pitiless judge, who knows only how to condemn, and who, though unaware of it, presumes to impose laws on the Holy Ghost, admitting no other way than his own. Instead of seeing in his neighbour a brother, a son of God, called to the same beatitude as he is, he sees in him only a stranger, perhaps a rival to supplant and humiliate. This defect withdraws many from the contemplation of divine things; it is a veil over the eyes of the spirit." (cf. TA, page 209)
On Judging the ‘Little Pebble’
From what Saint Thomas says above, it is easy to see that Suspicion and Rash Judgment are serious offences against Justice. Over the years there have been many examples of this kind of rash judgment made by various persons regarding the many accusations brought against the ‘Little Pebble’. Since the matter of judging him is already a grave matter (because he is God’s Ambassador), the following points should be addressed:
| From what Saint Thomas says above, the suspicions and rash judgments (over the years) against the Little Pebble with evil intent fit the classification for mortal sin for those who have acted in this way. This is so because he is appointed to act in God’s Name on behalf of God’s Will for His people. Thus the Little Pebble is made into an object of suspicion because of what God has asked of him. This suspicion directly attacks God’s Holiness and Honour and is a grave injustice against the ‘Little Pebble’! Those souls who were tempted to suspicion should have suspended their rash judgment and preferred to think well of him and to give him the benefit of any doubt in their mind. This would have been the virtuous thing to do. On the contrary, many preferred: |
|
| to consent to their suspicions about the ‘Little Pebble’ as a false Seer; |
| to consent to their suspicions that he is the leader of a sect or cult; |
| to consent to their suspicions about the ‘Mystical Marriage’; |
| to consent to their suspicions about the Royal House (Queens, Princesses, etc.); |
| to consent to their suspicions about the messages of the Mother of God; |
| to consent to their suspicions about the Order of Saint Charbel; |
| to consent to the suspicions of members of the Church Hierarchy; |
| The lack of natural justice along with a failure to investigate the facts; added to a ready acceptance of suspicion. The hearsay, rumour, and opinions weighted against the person of the ‘Little Pebble’ leant the slight indication suitable for suspicion. The Media fuelled this speculation about suspicions at every possible turn. Recently, the 60 Minutes program added further fuel to the fire. Thus some gave into the temptations to consent to suspicions which led to rash judgments which were printed in Newspapers and TV News. These are all grave violations of the virtue of Justice which is owed to the ‘Little Pebble’ as a person. These injustices require reparation under a grave obligation! In fact it is easy to see that such rash judgments have been perverted by the evils of human pride, jealousy, envy and the desire to destroy the ‘Little Pebble’s’ name and reputation. This is all documented! When the ecclesiastical investigation is finally opened the truth will shine to vindicate this fact! |
I hope that this attempt to explain the teaching of Saint Thomas on judgment is helpful to the reader. I do not claim to be the interpreter of Saint Thomas. However, this teaching on judgment is fairly straight forward and common sense. Personally, I have found a lot of understanding about the nature of suspicion. I never realised that it is based only upon a slight indication and thus it is a falsification of the truth. It is from this that rash judgment occurs. Rash judgment is like poison. The particular evil lies in the labelling of a person with a grave wickedness without the necessary certainty for such a judgment. As Saint Thomas points out clearly: along with the consent to this evil of suspicion comes contempt for the person. This causes an injury to the person. Saint Thomas says that such an injury is grave of itself. Thus the injustice which can also become a scandal.
The enemy of our souls, the devil "the old bag" works overtime to plant the seeds of suspicion in members of the Communities. It is so important and so necessary that souls of good-will refrain from forming a judgment about a person when all they have to go on is a suspicion. Your neighbour because of his dignity has a right to be treated with respect and that in case of doubt, he ought to be deemed good by interpreting for the best anything which is doubtful about him.
The life of Mary, the Mother of God is our example. In countless books and writings Her virtues are extolled. Her purity of judgment shines from one end of Revelation to the other especially in the Annunciation when She accepted the Mystery of the Incarnation into Her Womb. Her first great trial was when she could not disclose this secret to Saint Joseph because God had willed it this way. Unlike Eve, Our Lady did not consent to think badly of God or become suspicious of God’s motives. Mary obeyed God and thought the best of God and His Heavenly ways. Eve, succumbed to the insinuations of slight indication proposed to her by the serpent in the Garden of Eden: that God cannot be trusted because He does not have your true interest at heart! This insinuation of a suspicion is truly diabolic. We can see from this how she formed the rash judgment to judge God and His requirement of obedience for her!! There are many other examples in Sacred Scripture and the lives of the Saints. Perhaps the best example of judgment and trial by suspicion is the life and trial of Saint Joan of Arc.
I hope that the reader is enlightened through the happy discovery of the holy men and women who practiced the virtue of Justice in its highest perfection: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for what is right: they shall be satisfied ... Blessed are those who are persecuted in the cause of right: theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven ... Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in Heaven" (Matthew 5:6,10,12). I would like to close with one final reference to the Mother of God and Her beautiful soul:
"Mary was never subject to error or illusion. Her judgment was always enlightened and correct. If She did not understand a thing fully She suspended Her judgment upon it, and thus avoided precipitation which might have been the cause of error" (The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life, by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Tan Books and Publishers, Illinios, p. 57)
Works cited
Aquinas, O.P., Thomas. (1981). Summa Theologica (Vols. 1-5). (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans.) (Original in 1911; Revised in 1920 by Benziger Brothers, Inc.) (Reprinted in 1981) Westminster: Christian Classics.
The references on "Judgment" in Volume 3, Part II-II, Question 60, Articles 1 through 6. The definition of "suspicion" is especially enlightening in article 3. My whole article revolves around this concept. It is from suspicion that rash judgment is born.
Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Reginald. (1989). The Three Ages of the Interior Life (Vols. 1-2). (Sr. M. Timothea Doyle, O.P., trans.) (Original in 1947 by B. Herder Book Co.) (Reprinted in 1989) Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. (Abbreviation: TA).
The reference is to "Rash Judgment" in Volume 2, Chapter 20 which is titled Fraternal Charity. I have referred to page 209. I think his comments on rash judgments are very clear and easy to understand.
Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Reginald. (1989). The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life. (Sr. M. Timothea Doyle, O.P., trans.) (Original in 1947 by B. Herder Book Co.) (Reprinted in 1989) Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.
This is a wonderful book. The reference is to Mary the Mother of God. In this issue of the Apocalyptic Ark I have referred to page 57
John Paul II. Dominum et Vivificantem. (Encyclical Letter.) (Given in Rome, May 18, 1986.) (Australian edition printed in June 1986) Homebush: St. Paul Publications. (Abbreviation: DV)
The reference is to "Suspicion" in article 37 is a superb explanation of this evil in relation to the sin of Adam and Eve. The evil serpent brought about the insinuation of suspicion.
