1. Objection: It seems to be unlawful to judge. For nothing is punished except what is unlawful. But those who judge are threatened with punishment, from which those who do not judge will be spared, according to Mt 7:1: “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” Therefore, it is unlawful to judge.
2. Objection: Further, it is written (Rom 14:4): “Who are you to judge another man’s servant? He stands or falls to his own master.” Now God is the Lord of all. Therefore, it is not permitted for any man to judge.
3. Objection: Further, no man is without sin, according to 1 Jn 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” Now it is unlawful for a sinner to judge, according to Rom 2:1: “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge; for in whatever you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you do the same things you judge.” Therefore, it is not permitted for any man to judge.
On the contrary, it is written (Deut 16:18): “You shall appoint judges and officials in all your gates … that they may judge the people with just judgment.”
I answer that: Judgment is permitted insofar as it is an act of justice. Now, from what has been said above (Article [1], ad 1,3), three conditions are required for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; second, that it come from one who has authority; third, that it be given according to the right rule of prudence. If any of these conditions is lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. First, if it is contrary to the rectitude of justice, then it is called “perverted” or “unjust” judgment; second, if a man judges matters in which he has no authority, this is called judgment “by usurpation”; third, if reason lacks certainty, as when a man judges a doubtful or hidden matter without solid grounds, then it is called judgment from “suspicion” or “rash” judgment.
Reply to Objection 1: By these words our Lord forbids rash judgment, which concerns the inner intention or other uncertain things, as Augustine notes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 18). Or He forbids judgment concerning divine things, about which we should not judge but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary explains in his commentary on Mt 5. Or again, according to Chrysostom *Hom. xvii on Matthew in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely attributed to St. John of the Cross, He forbids judgment that does not arise from goodwill but from bitterness of heart.
Reply to Objection 2: A judge is appointed as a servant of God; hence it is written (Deut 1:16): “Judge what is just,” and further on (Deut 1:17): “for the judgment is God’s.”
Reply to Objection 3: Those who are guilty of more serious sins should not judge those who are guilty of the same or lesser sins, as Chrysostom [*Hom. xxiv] says on the words of Mt 7:1 “Judge not.” This is especially true when such sins are public, because it would give occasion for scandal in the hearts of others. However, if they are not public but hidden, and there is an urgent necessity for the judge to pass judgment because it is his duty, he may correct or judge with humility and fear. Therefore Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19): “If we find that we are guilty of the same sin as another man, we should sigh together with him and invite him to struggle against it with us.” And yet a man does not condemn himself by acting thus so as to deserve to be condemned again, but when, in condemning another, he shows that he is equally worthy of condemnation because of another or the same sin.