Q. Can you explain rash judgement? Or at least how to recognize it in ourselves?
A. “Don’t judge me” has become so ubiquitous in our culture that it has basically lost all meaning. As commonly used today, the phrase boils down to “you cannot tell me what I am doing is wrong.” The sad part is, “don’t judge me” is likely a corruption of words our Lord Himself spoke: “Judge not that you be not judged” (Matthew 7:1-3). By saying this, He obviously did not mean “don’t tell anyone what they are doing is wrong and you won’t be told what you are doing is wrong.” In fact, he meant quite the opposite.
In the context of that statement, our Lord is simply reminding us to not look at the faults of others while ignoring our own. It is why He goes on to give the famous line about looking for the sliver in your neighbor’s eye while ignoring the plank in your own.
Correcting another’s actions that are harmful is not only an act of mercy, but at times can be a moral obligation, depending on our relationship to the person. This necessarily includes making a judgement that what is being done is harmful, i.e. wrong, and therefore should be corrected.
A simple adage I’ve heard (and repeated) many times is the Church judges actions, not people. The Church (and those of us in it) has been entrusted by God with the great gift of knowing what is right and what is wrong. Having been formed by the Church, we then are called to name right as right and wrong as wrong. It must always be done in charity and in a way that the one being corrected can receive (anger hardens hearts, love softens them), but that does not mean it does not need to be done. We do it not because we are right (even though we are) but because we care about those who have gone astray. Correction is an act of love, not condemnation.
Even when we do judge actions though, we need to be careful about how. A rash judgement is when one “even tacitly assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor” (CCC 2477). Basically, it is assuming the worst of someone based on limited information.
For example, imagine someone cuts you off while driving and is speeding. Do we assume that they have some kind of emergency, and that is why they are driving somewhat recklessly? Or do we assume that they are acting out of selfishness and a disregard for the people around them? Now maybe they are, but there is not sufficient information to demonstrate that the actions they have taken (cutting us off while speeding) means that they have done wrong. We should assume the best, not the worst.
Giving people the benefit of the doubt seems to have gone out the window in our society. It is all too easy to ascribe nefarious motivations to the actions we see, but in doing so, we end up seeing evil all around us, even when it is not there. We cannot (and should not) pretend like the world is all sunshine and rainbows, but at the same time, we should not live our lives assuming the worst of our neighbors. That’s not what our Lord wants for us.
This question was answered by Father Caleb La Rue, chancellor of the Diocese of Lincoln. Write to Ask the Register using our online form, or write to 3700 Sheridan Blvd., Suite 10, Lincoln NE 68506-6100. All questions are subject to editing. Editors decide which questions to publish. Personal questions cannot be answered. People with such questions are urged to take them to their nearest Catholic priest.
