Tolerance is not a virtue

Godcrazy said:

I would be concerned, myself or for others soul if I knew they, or myself, would live sin and not care about it, and refuse to talk to God about it.
I wouldn't be able to abandon such a person. Because it would always be in the back, what if I could do something
I don't equal judgement as what we normally think as judgement. I prefer discernment. For sure, we are always forgiven. The thing is if we die without care

Click to expand...

Yes, we must always use discernment when dealing with people—especially those living openly in sin. A little self-disclosure, I have in the past struggled with the sin of drunkenness. I know (or I have discerned) that socializing with someone who currently carries that sin would more likely lead me to sin than I lead them to the light. However, if a person with the sin of drunkenness were to seek repentance, it would be my duty to do my best to first, set an example of one that has been freed of that sin and two, to do my best to help them free themselves from that sin. Not taking on the entire job on my own but being a resource for them and help them get the help that they need. For me to judge that person as a lost soul would do neither they nor I any good. I was taught "we can't keep it unless we give it away." To me, that means helpful solutions rather than casting them out. Now allowing a person to make trouble in the sanctuary while they are chemically impaired or even worse, allowing a preditor access to vulnerable people would just be irresponsible as a congregation. Still not casting them out but perhaps not allowing them free access to things that make them vulnerable to going back into their sin (whatever it is). So there is judgment and there is discernment as you also differentiated it.

Yes we should always try to help others. I have heard priests say as long as a person wants to believe and do their best, even if they fail, for what ever long time, they are fine that the dangers are if they give up