According to Catholic theologians, is tempting another person always a sin? It would seem to be a sin, because tempting someone is to lead him into sin, which is the sin of scandal . It would seem not a sin, because of >Sirach 6:7 : If thou wouldst get a friend, try [or tempt] him before thou takest him (*in tentatione posside eum*), and do not credit him easily. and how we sometimes need to test others in order to avoid rash judgment or being deceived (cf. II-II q. 60 a. 4 ad 1); thus, >without rashly judging a person who is somewhat suspect, one may take precautions to avoid being deceived by him in a case in which he would have a bad intention. Thus, without rashly judging his servants, a householder keeps certain precious articles under lock and key; and at times he intentionally leaves money on a table to see if it will be taken.
—Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., *Three Ages of the Interior Life* pt. 3 ch. 20 § "How to Make Progress in Fraternal Charity", fn. 1666 (EPUB ref:150.172)

One New Testament exhortation is "judge not, lest you be judged." On the other hand, Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." Is there any Christian sect, or school of thought believes the converse of the first line, something like "Judge and let yourself be judged?" The core belief here would be something like, "You are a wicked, evil, sinful (wo)man--and so am I." (That's per the Romans passage.) Put another way, is it possible to pass judgment on e.g. Adolf Hitler, knowing that "in his shoes, you or I might have done the same or similar things?" Some commenters below believe that a Christian can, and should judge the actions of others, while refraining from judging the "righteousness" of the person. Another opined that the admonition is against "hypocrisy," that the "converse" is OK, if you realize that "as you deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal." Are either of these ideas in line with what the Scripture says?

I'm really struggling with this chapter in Corinthians. Chapter 4 and the beginning of chapter 5 impart how God is the one who judges. But then Paul adds at the end of chapter 5: > (5:11) I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or with the covetous or idolaters or > a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a > person. > > (5:13) Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." This seems to be against two core messages of Christianity. Namely, mutual helpfulness in encouraging the sinner towards repentance, as opposed to avoidance and ostracism; and the avenue of redemption is open to all (the righteous). Nobody is without hope for recovery of one's soul if they are able to come into communion with Jesus Christ. It's true we can pick our friends as well as part paths with a friend even if we forgive. However, Paul's stance appears to be remarkably closed-minded. __Am I missing Paul's point? Am I misinterpreting the passage, or is Paul being judgmental?__ Imigine a situation such as *"Hi I'm Stu, and I'm an alcoholic."* *"OK, Stu, thanks for telling us, but now get lost."* *"Really? I've been sober a week, and I've used the power of prayer and my faith in the Lord to overcome my struggles" [in the days before the act of Reconciliation].* *"Yeah? What about all the people you hurt?"* *"Well, okay, but it's only been a week. I'm doing my best here."* *"Be that as it may, get lost. Your sins are far worse than mine."* I am speaking both to the veracity of the message and it's intent. I am requesting answers from the Catholic perspective.

I hear so much about "Do not judge others, lest you be judged." I know that there's more scripture out there that gives us a better insight into our responsibilities. Can you please answer this question. Are we allowed to judge others? Are we called to Judge others? Are there certain groups of people that we can and cannot judge? Are there prerequisites to judging others? Please start off with a simple Yes or No to the title question and then follow up by explaining the ins and outs of this confusing topic.

Some time back a public figure was arrested for pedophilia. On Youtube, I observed many very hateful comments directed at this individual. Are the people who were passing judgement on the public figure and even myself were any better than him? For example, I used to copy in examinations even though I knew it wasn't right. I acted selfishly and in this singer's case he acted selfishly as well. The only difference I see between his sin and mine is that his sin harmed another and has had serious repercussions while mine affected only myself. Some may say comparing sexual impurity and copying is ridiculous but is it really? We both broke the law. Why do people consider some sins horrific while routinely committing simple ones? Isn't it hypocrisy? Is there any magnitude attached to each and every sin? Is there a magnitude to sin?

[John 8:2-11](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:2-11&version=NIV) tells us the story of the woman caught in adultery: > 2At dawn [Jesus] appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. > > But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. > > 9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” > > 11“No one, sir,” she said. > > “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” It's a wonderful story of Christ's compassion on an obvious sinner... as well as a story of Christ's cleverness when dealing with the Pharisees. But **what is the practical application of this story?**

There is a famous, often (ab)used phrase, "judge not, lest you be judged" , which implies (to me at least) that people on the whole, and Christians in particular, should defer from judging other people. The only person/power/entity (whatever you call it) that can pass judgement is God. This is a belief upheld by most monotheistic religions that I know of. I attended a Catholic school, and remember that one of my teachers was a former deacon. When he was asked to be a jury member in a big court case, he said he had to decline as he took a vow, which prevented him from passing judgement, especially in matters that concerned life and death. I wonder, though, how this affects Christians that did not take the same vows. I mean: "the judge not" bit seems applicable to everyone who adheres to the Christian faith, does it not? Does being a judge or member of a jury have a whiff of sin about it, as a result? So my questions are: - Can Christians be judges? - If so, can they ever sentence someone to death? - If not, can they judge in any matter, or are they allowed to settle domestic disputes or rule in material matters? - Is sentencing or being on a jury a sin?

It's approaching two years since this happened, but it seems relevant in light of recent events concerning homosexuality. Speaking to reporters on his plane who had asked him about a "gay lobby" in the Vatican, Francis said, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? " Clearly the *church* judges their actions (whenever there _are_ actions accompanying the desires). What exactly did he mean by "who am I to judge"?

>James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. How is judging a brother equal to judging the Law? What does this mean? Then again if 'A' judges 'B' as wrong (this I understand as based on the Law) and speaks evil of 'B', how is 'A' speaking evil of Law? Is there a logic behind this reasoning?