What "Do Not Judge" Actually Means

Spoiler: It doesn't mean indiscriminate tolerance.

Simple Man and Juan Domínguez del Corral

Jul 09, 2026

La distruzione del tempio di Gerusalemme, Francesco Hayez

“Judge not, that you may not be judged”
— Matthew 7:1

A long time subscriber recently reached out to me and asked me if I could write an article on the concept of “judgment”, since he was both confused and concerned at the lack of clarity surrounding this term. I thought this was a great idea, because I’ve also seen a lot of people —both within and without the faith— misunderstanding what it means to “judge” someone.

You have probably also been faced with many who believe that the Christian command is to never “judge” anything, meaning that we shouldn’t make any moral judgments at all, because we are all sinners needing God’s grace. And while that is true, when Christ tells us not to judge, He doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t hold firm moral convictions (as is evident by the much more abundant examples of Him commanding us to live righteously and proclaim the Gospel), but rather saying that we should not take up a role that isn’t ours, as the final judges for someone’s fate or intentions.

This explains it best:

Matthew 7:1 is a passage that is used ad nauseam mostly by unbelievers or lukewarm Christians to try and guilt trip you into not correcting them or naming the sin they are committing. Ironically, it’s often those who despise religion who use this passage and this shallow understanding of one Gospel phrase as a sort of shield against any behavioral or moral critiques.

“Who are you to judge me? The Bible says ‘do not judge.’”

Yes, that is true, but the Bible also says about a million other things about judgment and correction, for example:

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment.”
— John 7:24

“But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.”
— Matthew 18:15

It’s problematic enough that the mainstream understanding of Christianity is that it’s a philosophy that calls us to “just let everyone do whatever they want”, but it’s even worse when so many Christians also believe this to be the case. At the core, this stems from a fundamental error that equates “judgment” with “condemnation”, and love with tolerance.

When you believe that the Christian duty is all about “tolerating”, you will naturally be led astray.

Tolerance is Not a Christian Virtue

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput explains why this misunderstanding can in fact even lead to grave sin:

Tolerance comes from the Latin words tolerare , which means to bear or sustain, and tollere , which means to lift up. It implies bearing other people and their beliefs the way we bear a burden or a really nasty migraine headache. It’s a negative. And it’s not a Christian virtue.
As Catholics we have a duty to treat all people, regardless of their beliefs, with justice, charity, mercy, prudence, patience, and understanding. We’re not asked to “tolerate” them but to love them, which is a much more demanding task. Obviously, tolerance is an important democratic working principle. Most of the time, it’s a good and vital thing. But tolerating lies about the nature of the human person is a sin. Tolerating grave evil in a society is an equally grave evil. And using “tolerance” as an excuse for not living and witnessing Jesus Christ in our private lives and in our public actions is not an act of civility. It’s a form of cowardice.
People who take the question of human truth, freedom and meaning seriously will never remain silent about it. They can’t. They’ll always act on what they believe, even at the cost of their reputations and lives. That’s the way it should be. Religious faith is always personal, but it’s never private. It always has social consequences, or it isn’t real. […].1

The key point here is that we’re not called to merely tolerate others, but to love them. And love, understood as “willing the good of the other”2, often requires a clear moral judgment of those actions that are causing them harm. It demands fraternal correction, and it demands speaking the truth boldly.

Now, none of this negates the fact that we ought to look at ourselves first and foremost, because it is wrong to focus exclusively on other people’s sins while remaining oblivious to yours. But it is not wrong to, in humility, look at the self-destructive vices of someone else and lovingly calling them out on it.

Hate the Sin, not the Sinner

It’s key to understand what the Church tradition clarifies about passing judgment. Perhaps the clearest interpretation of Matthew 7 comes from St. Thomas Aquinas, who explains:

“First, therefore, he ordains that there be not rash judgment, and he says, do not judge, i.e., out of the bitterness of hatred; you have turned judgment into bitterness (Amos 6:13). Or in this way: do not judge as regards those things which are not entrusted to our judgment. Judgment is the Lord’s; he has charged us to judge about exterior things, but he has reserved the interior things for himself. Therefore do not judge about these things. Therefore do not judge before the time (1 Cor 4:5); the heart is perverse above all things, and unsearchable, who can know it? (Jer 17:9–10), for no one should judge about another that he is a bad man; for the doubtful things should be interpreted on the good side. Likewise, judgment should be fitting as regards the person of the one judging. Hence if you are in the same sin, or a greater, you should not judge; for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself (Rom 2:1).”3

A few important points here:

We are called not to judge out of bitterness or hatred, but out of love, meaning that any moral judgments we pass must come from a place of wanting what’s best for someone else.
Most importantly, we are called not to judge those things not entrusted to our judgment, like the heart or the intentions of someone else, which we do not and cannot ever know.
Additionally, we are not to judge the person as a whole, and those things which are negative we should try to interpret on the good side, meaning that we are called to give others the benefit of the doubt.
Finally, we are not to judge those who are in the same sin as us, as that would be hypocritical. Humility, understood as the proper understanding of one’s current position, serves us here to know when we are and aren’t qualified to offer advice and correction regarding particular sins or behaviors.

It is fitting, however, to judge actions, because we have a clear moral standard to compare them against: we can know if an action is sinful and it’s not judgmental in the negative sense to call it as such.

It’s not wrong to tell someone who cheats on their wife that they are doing something wrong. It is wrong, however, to condemn the person as a whole, because even though we can recognize, name, and attempt to correct a specific behavior, only God knows the person’s wounds, story, struggles, and heart.

As long as the judgments we make pass Aquinas’s four conditions (doing it out of love, judging only those things entrusted to our judgment, not judging the person as a whole, and not taking it upon ourselves to judge behaviors that we ourselves engage in), it’s not wrong to offer clarity as to the morality of a particular action, ideology, or mindset.

Like most theological principles, this requires nuance. It is not as simple as refusing to make moral claims and practicing unrestricted tolerance of sinful behavior in yourself and others. It’s also not as simple as the pharisaical position of judging and condemning everyone out of pride, resentment, or to prove a point.

The Christian call is neither cowardly silence nor prideful condemnation but love expressed through truth, which is a much more demanding standard than either.

In this age of relativism and rampant immorality, we need more loving judgment, more fraternal correction, and more moral clarity.

That is also a Christian duty.

Ad Maiora Nati Sumus,

Juan