Preface • Did Jesus preach well and harvest poorly?
In the Gospels, Jesus says “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Mt 7:1; also Lk 6:37).

And what about John the Baptist, who, when the Pharisees and Sadducees come to him for baptism, bursts out:
“Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”
(Mt 3:7)
…how about a chamomile?
The funny thing, though, is that Jesus in the Gospel has the audacity to say:
“Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
(Mt 11:11)

…
… Why all this inconsistency? (Is it inconsistency?)
What does “not to judge” mean?
Does it mean that nothing can be judged?
Did Jesus want to erase the concepts of “good” and “evil” with the call not to judge?
1 • Hating Sin
The Jewish tradition (which Christians inherited in the Old Testament) is full of very strong statements when it comes to the attitude to adopt towards evil and sin:
You who love the Lord, hate evil!
He preserves the souls of His saints;
He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked.
(Psalm 97:10)
Hate evil, love good;
Establish justice in the gate.
(Amos 5:15)
A righteous man hates lying,
But a wicked man is loathsome and comes to shame.
(Proverbs 13:5)
[There is] A time to love, And a time to hate.
(Ecclesiastes 3:8)
With the advent of Christianity, hatred for sin does not decrease by a millimeter.
Sin is an evil, a wound in the heart of man that Jesus Christ desires to heal (as I tried to explain here a few months ago).
And just as a doctor must know the disease to follow the correct treatment, it is necessary for sin to be called by its name so that God can heal it.
The tradition of the Church has always been very clear on this point, from thirty-three years after Christ until today…

2 • Loving the Sinner
I wrote that with the advent of Christianity, hatred for sin does not decrease by a millimeter.
However, there is one thing that changes radically…
…the gaze on the sinner:
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
(John 8:1-11)
Jesus does not legitimize what the woman has done.

Jesus knows well that what the woman has done (and, of course, also what the man, who committed adultery with her, has done) is very serious.
So much so that, at the end of the brief dialogue, he says to her:
Go and sin no more.
(John 8:11)
The woman has sinned…
…
… but Jesus is of a fatherly sweetness: while others point accusing fingers at her, he is full of consideration and gentleness towards her.
He doesn’t say a word; he doesn’t stare at her. He is full of modesty, keeping his gaze on the ground. He doesn’t want to embarrass her more than the scribes and Pharisees have already done.
Only when everyone else has gone, Jesus speaks to her: he doesn’t add his voice to the clamor of the others but seeks a personal dialogue with her.
In Jesus Christ, it is God himself who goes in search of the “stray sheep”, a suffering and lost humanity.
(BENEDICT XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est, 12)
3 • Hating Sin and Loving the Sinner? Absurd?
Most Christians have learned, parrot-like, in catechism that one should:
“Hate the sin and love the sinner.”
But is it possible to do so?
Or is it a distinction on the verge of a surgical operation with a laser scalpel?

Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963), in the 1950s, said the following:
For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows afer all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man’s actions, but not hate the bad man: or as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.
For a long time I used to this a silly, straw spilling distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man?
But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life – namely myself.
However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man.
Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.
Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possibile, that somehow, sometime, somewhere he can be cured and made human again.
(CLIVE STAPLES LEWIS, Mere Christianity, Harper Collins, 2012, p. 117)
4 • So what does “do not judge” mean?
A few years ago, I was reading a book by Franco Nembrini (born in 1955) on the theme of education, focusing on the various risks associated with the educational challenge.
When addressing the issue of school judgment (high grades, low grades, promotion, failure), he wrote these lines:
It cannot escape our minds when facing a topic like this, the words of Jesus, ‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged’ (Luke 6:37): evaluation would seem the opposite, evaluation is judging. In what sense did Jesus invite not to judge?
[…]
Let’s try to understand better.
Judging is the most human act there is: animals do not judge, but humans do. So, we are called to judge, and evaluation is the name given in schools to an act of judgment: the assertion of a value through tools. I was wondering why Jesus says in the Gospel that we should not judge—especially since, in other instances, he says that we should judge, and St. Paul says, “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Do not judge so that you will not be judged. It’s like saying: be careful because God will do the math.
Your task—in your relationships with each other—is to judge, but not in the sense of condemning. Be careful that judgment is never a closure, a drawing of a line, a departure from hope. Never allow yourself to say, “It’s over, there’s nothing to be done with this.” But we shouldn’t be confused: it doesn’t mean that, in the end, one doesn’t fail or give a grade of four; it means that even if we fail or give a four, we do it truly to accompany the other. Even the four can contain an opening, and in fact, if I give a four, it pushes me to do everything to understand how the other can take a step.
(FRANCO NEMBRINI, Di padre in figlio. Conversazioni sul rischio di educare, Ares, Milano, 2011, p.180-181)
“To judge” is human.
“To judge” is necessary.
“To judge” is healthy.
On the contrary, the lack of references to formulate secure judgments about good and evil is a real disease of the soul…
…which has very concrete consequences:

Conclusion
If someone is selfish, Jesus invites me to love them, despite their selfishness (and not “because” they are selfish).
If someone steals, Jesus invites me to love them, despite being a thief (and not “because” they are a thief).
If someone betrays their spouse, Jesus invites me to love them, despite being unfaithful (and not “because” they are unfaithful).
If someone has committed murder, Jesus invites me to love them, despite committing a crime for which they are rightfully in prison.
You can continue the discourse as you like, replacing it with a randomly chosen sin (be it lies, envy, sloth, jealousy, “everything-related-to-the-sixth-commandment,” closed hearts, slander, ingratitude, blasphemies, etc.).
The sinner is always “to be loved.”
But sin always remains an evil.
…
As reported in a document from the Second Vatican Council, published in 1965:
Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.
This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions.
(Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 28)
In other words, to put it in the words of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (1877-1964), a French Dominican theologian:
The Church is uncompromising on principles because it believes; it is tolerant in practice because it loves. The enemies of the Church, on the other hand, are tolerant on principles because they do not believe, but uncompromising in practice because they do not love. The Church absolves sinners; the enemies of the Church absolve sins.
(RÉGINALD GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, Dieu, son existence et sa nature, Paris, 1923, p. 725)
sale
(Fall 2020)
- FRANCO NEMBRINI, Di padre in figlio: conversazioni sul rischio di educare, Ares, Milano 2011
- CLIVE STAPLES LEWIS, Il cristianesimo così com'è, Adelphi, Milano 1997
- GIOVANNI PAOLO II, «Dives in Misericordia» (enciclica sulla misericordia divina)