Understanding rash judgment within Christian teaching
Rash judgment is a concept discussed in Christian teaching that involves making negative assumptions about others without sufficient evidence. In a recent column, the issue was addressed in response to a question about how to recognize rash judgment in oneself.
The article notes that the phrase “Don’t judge me” is often misunderstood in modern culture. The original biblical passage, “Judge not that you be not judged” (Matthew 7:1-3), is explained as a reminder to consider one’s own faults before criticizing others. The writer states, “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 harmful actions can be an act of mercy and sometimes a moral obligation, depending on one’s relationship with the person involved. The article emphasizes, “This necessarily includes making a judgement that what is being done is harmful, i.e. wrong, and therefore should be corrected.”
The Church distinguishes between judging actions and judging people. According to the article, “A simple adage I’ve heard (and repeated) many times is the Church judges actions, not people.” The writer adds that correction should always be done with charity so it can be received well: “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.”
Rash judgment occurs when someone assumes wrongdoing by another without adequate basis. Citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2477), it says: “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.”
An example given involves reacting negatively when cut off by another driver without knowing their reasons: “Do we assume that they have some kind of emergency… Or do we assume that they are acting out of selfishness…? Now maybe they are, but there is not sufficient information to demonstrate that…they have done wrong.”
The article concludes by encouraging readers to give others the benefit of the doubt rather than presuming bad intentions: “Giving people the benefit of the doubt seems to have gone out the window in our society… 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.”
