Calling Out A Person's Sin Publicly

[MysticMissMisty]

There is a difference between calling out a group publicly regarding the group’s combined sin vs calling out individuals.

As far as I know, Jesus never publicly called out an individual Pharisee. One may have been doing the talking, but he was addressing them as a group.

Furthermore, what was transpiring with the Pharisees was public and made public by the Pharisees themselves.

Ah, now I think we’re getting closer to an answer and reconciling all of this.

I would agree, calling out the sin of a whole group seems to be justified, especially if they are already sinning before the public’s eye.

I would argue that even calling out sin very generally is justified.

However, you bring up a good point about an individual possibly doing the sinning, even though he is a part of a group, and Jesus calling out that sin, though He may have indeed also been calling out the person in His response, but, still, that person is acting publicly so he, presumably(?) has no desire to hide it. This does bring up an interesting question as well: Precisely why would this kind of calling out of sin be justified as opposed to calling out someone’s private sin? What really does make the two different? What really makes one justified and the other not?

 

[clem456]

Think what you’d like. My conscience is clear.

Great. You are in popular company,
Personal conscience has a very high place in modern thought.

 

[phil19034]

Maybe the key here is, in fact, a public vs. a private setting.

If a person sins against you personally and not out in front of the public, whether physically or in a virtual setting where someone can reasonably expect that his words will be public, maybe, then, it is unlawful to expose his sin before the public.

Now, ifthe sin is already known to the community, perhaps it can be justified that a little public shaming might do some good. Hence, Paul’s calling out the Corinthians who presumably already knew that there was sin in their midst. Hence, Jesus calling out the Pharisees who were acting sinflly in the public spehere.

So, again, I come back to the Twitter example I cited earlier. Would the scenario I explained earlier be justified in the eyes of God, since those replying to the person calling them out have a reasonable expectation that their words could receive public exposure?

In the same way, could calling out a politician for public or even personal corruption be justified since he is acting in the public sphere?

If we could, let’s examine this issue more thoroughly.

What is the intent? Is the intent to bring the sinner back to Christ or to publicly shame them? Or is the intent to bring other’s back to Christ who have been influenced by the sinner’s actions?

The ends never justify the means. However, sometimes we are forced to choose the better of two evils. In order to do what you are proposing you need to be sure that your have no other options. But the truth is that normally you do. You could bring your concerns to your priest, for example if they attend the parish. If they are not Catholic, you can address with them privately and with love. When people feel loved, they are more accepting of constructive criticism. However, if they do not feel love, they often take offense and the criticism backfires.

Furthermore, there is also a difference between private sins that a person does to themselves vs sins that hurt innocent people.

Private sins may still be repented, even on the person’s death bed. So actions that potentially push them further away from the Church may prevent that last minute conversion.

While public sins that hurt the innocent are doing exactly that. They are public and they hurt the innocent and they should be fought (with charity).

However, there are also “semi-public” sins which you must be very careful of. For example cohabitation and fornication. It might be public knowledge to some that person X is committing sexual sin, but everyone does not have that knowledge. If you publicly called that person out, the scandal spreads and others may be hurt or led to sin due to that scandal.

Therefore, if you are going to publicly call someone out in sin, you must be 100% sure that your “call out” is not going to cause the mortal sin of scandal. Because if your call out causes someone to sin, the person you called out is then guilty of scandal, and you would be too because both your actions and the sinners actions have caused scandal to another leading them to sin.

 

[phil19034]

Ah, now I think we’re getting closer to an answer and reconciling all of this.

I would agree, calling out the sin of a whole group seems to be justified, especially if they are already sinning before the public’s eye.

I would argue that even calling out sin very generally is justified.

However, you bring up a good point about an individual possibly doing the sinning, even though he is a part of a group, and Jesus calling out that sin, though He may have indeed also been calling out the person in His response, but, still, that person is acting publicly so he, presumably(?) has no desire to hide it. This does bring up an interesting question as well: Precisely why would this kind of calling out of sin be justified as opposed to calling out someone’s private sin? What really does make the two different? What really makes one justified and the other not?

The mortal sin of scandal

 

[DonCampbell]

No, if the sin is private, then correction should be private. No one should publicize one’s sin or call him out in public unless the sin is also of a public nature (such as politicians openly supporting abortion).

To violate this principle without good reason is itself sinful, specifically, of detraction, because every person is entitled to his good name and reputation.

This seems correct. Perhaps the difficulty would be in determining what is a public versus a private sin.

 

[Tablefor9]

Again, I ask, what of Christ calling out the Pharisees publicly? And, again, what of Paul seemingly doing the same?

Okay…let me very clear. Jesus is God, St Paul, a saint.

It has been my experience that those who will publicize another’s sin, assuming they know the motivations and conditions of the heart, may be acting as though they are God, but are scarcely Godly. Sainthood may well be attainable, but hardly any of us are there, yet–not least those who risk great damage for another’s wellbeing in order to “shame them straight”.

Far better, indeed, to lovingly pray for those who spitefully use one, rather than to seek public vindication (sounds like vengeance for a reason, which as a lover of language, I’m sure you will understand).

Even in the case of nationally noted politicians who self-identify as Catholic, yet espouse positions antithetical to the Church, things are handled on a mostly private basis, pastorally, until all that can be done, has been. Contrast this with the use of public castigation and see what looks like the love of God to you.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Great. You are in popular company,
Personal conscience has a very high place in modern thought.

Paul himself made this claim when he believed he was being falsely accused, but we are getting sidetracked with this.

 

[Beryllos]

2477

I have often wondered what the Catechism means by “objectively valid reason.” (I even started a thread on it.) I suppose preventing injury or other serious personal harm would measure up to this standard. On the other hand, I would argue that attempting to modify another person’s bad social behavior does not constitute objectively valid reason.

MysticMissMisty, could you frame your argument in these terms? In what way could the reason for taking the proposed course of action have an objective basis? What is objective about it?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I guess that the notions of honor for right and shame for wrong are a bit archaic today, but I, in my own studies, have been steeped in them for some time.

When you do right, you rightly receive honor which encourages you and often spurs you on to greater good, or at least this should be the result. When you do wrong, you rightly receive condemnation, often publicly, which should lead to shame and then to change.

Honor is deserved fro good works, dishonor and the same that results for evil ones.

Honor is a reward. Shame is a punishment.

Again, I just don’t see anything inherently wrong with a little public shaming to turn a person around.

For those who wish to make a distinction between sin committed privately and in the public sphere, let us also return to the notion of writing a book about a public figure and then to the notion of shaming of politicians both in their public and private lives.

First, let us say that a historian decides to write a book about a well-known public figure. He has his sources, many of which were close to this person and have special knowledge of both the deeds and the character of the person. The writer decides to reveal things about his subject that only these few people know, even the bad things, but he does this either a) so that readers can better get to know the man as a man with all his imperfections and/or b) to set him up as an example of what not to do and how sin can cause even a great man’s downfall. Is, in this case, the author justified in revealing these kinds of details to a wider world rather than keeping them to himself and between the sources that already know these things? Indeed, would the sources even be justified in revealing these details? In this case, we are presuming that these things are not revealed necessarily to turn the person around but for the reasons I just specified.

To those who believe public shaming of politicians is wrong, what of Bill Clinton’s indiscretions? Should they have been completely hidden from the public’s view? After all, does not the character of a politician matter, as it very often impacts how he governs?

Lastly, isn’t “hiding” a person’s sin, in some sense, being insincere about what is really going on and is not insincerity (lying?) never to be justified?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Bill Clinton was not called out for his “indiscretions”, he was called out for lying about them to Congress.

In fact, I would say his indiscretions, as you call them, have made him a hero in the eyes of many in today’s society. He, a public figure, cheated on his wife, lied about it and is responsible for a whole generation thinking that oral sex is not sex, so they can do that and not “cheat” And, be honest here, has it done anything negative to his reputation?

I have to agree with Clem, it seems to me that you are just looking for a way to justify being uncharitable and being “right”.

On that note- I am outta here!

 

[Tablefor9]

Just because something has been a historically accepted course of action doesn’t mean it is acceptable in all but the most egregious circumstances. Slavery is mentioned Biblically and was accepted for millennia, we now hold it verboten.

I’m done, here. The dead horse died from going in circles too many times.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Hmm, was just thinking…

Perhaps if a sin has already become known outside of just the sinner and the one sinned against, publicly calling it out becomes justifiable? This may be the private/public distinction that was alluded to a few times earlier? In other words, we shouldn’t seek to make a sin public if it has not already been made so. We shouldn’t take our own initiative to reveal it if it has not already been revealed outside of the two parties affected. But, if it hasalready come ot light outside ofthe two parties, it is, as they say, fair game to be called out as example, as deterrent, and for other reasons such as turning the other person around? Thoughts? Reasons for or against?

 

[HelenRose]

It really is a matter of intent. Is our intent to change the behavior of a person because we are concerned for their soul or is our intent to continue a mud fight on twitter?

To answer this question we must look deep in ourselves and try to understand what our motives really are. Are we wanting to puff ourselves up by tearing someone else down? Do we feel a self righteous glee in our comments? Are we having fun yet?

These are questions that can only be answered between us and God - who loves both the person we are talking about and ourselves.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

All right, folks who are “done” with me. As I say, my conscience is clear and I can remain secure in that fact. With all due respect, your being exasperated and “done” has no effect on that.

For those who sincerely wish to engage on this issue and who admirably exercise patience in this matter, I applaud you and I appreciate your continue willingness to hellp me to understand this issue and your willingness to give me the benefit of the doubt. I appreciate your charity in this. As many of you have said, you must be careful in judging the motives of others and, if someone sounds legitimate in protesting against charges brought against them, that should at least be given some weight in the final analysis. At any rate, thanks to those who have been charitable and have been trying to help me understand all this. I truly appreciate your giving me the benefit ofthe doubt, as so many people here do not.

 

[phil19034]

All right, folks who are “done” with me. As I say, my conscience is clear and I can remain secure in that fact. With all due respect, your being exasperated and “done” has no effect on that.

Do not take it personally. It’s hard to have these debates online.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

It really is a matter of intent. Is our intent to change the behavior of a person because we are concerned for their soul or is our intent to continue a mud fight on twitter?

To answer this question we must look deep in ourselves and try to understand what our motives really are. Are we wanting to puff ourselves up by tearing someone else down? Do we feel a self righteous glee in our comments? Are we having fun yet?

These are questions that can only be answered between us and God - who loves both the person we are talking about and ourselves.

One of the most reasonable responses I have seen here thus far. Thank you kindly.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

As someone I know once said (and I’m paraphrasing): If you are charitable, you will always be on the side with God. Being hard nosed is not the way to be.

As I said, I paraphrased. It was said to me a while ago, so I don’t recall the exact word-for-word quotation of the individual.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Would you want your sins called out publicly in front of your friends and/or family? Would you want someone to talk to you in private?

As others have said, unless you are 100% sure, calling someone out publicly can have lasting consequences. No one but God can be 100% sure, unless you were there with that person at the time of the sin. Even then, the person has to have full knowledge, deliberate consent and will; and needs to be a grave matter.

I would say that calling someone out on their sin(s) publicly would be uncharitable. People will need to answer to God for what they have/have not done, have said/have not said, etc. at the end of the Earthly life. That is bigger than any pointing fingers could do.

 

[Convert1]

Romans 12:10 “Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.”

IMO “calling someone out publically” regarding their sins, does not reflect the love and mercy we are taught to show others by Christ. Further, I do not know their lives, or their hardships, noir why they may commit the acts they do. I am not the judge and jury of my brothers and sisters.

If I choose to speak with someone individually in a private setting, I find that far more forgiving and loving than publically humiliating them for some thing I believe is wrong.
I will pray for them, and with them; always remaining cognizant of their dignity as a human being.

We are to love one another…above ourselves.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Would you want your sins called out publicly in front of your friends and/or family? Would you want someone to talk to you in private?

As others have said, unless you are 100% sure, calling someone out publicly can have lasting consequences. No one but God can be 100% sure, unless you were there with that person at the time of the sin. Even then, the person has to have full knowledge, deliberate consent and will; and needs to be a grave matter.

I would say that calling someone out on their sin(s) publicly would be uncharitable. People will need to answer to God for what they have/have not done, have said/have not said, etc. at the end of the Earthly life. That is bigger than any pointing fingers could do.

Again, I answer, yes, I think I would, perhaps not initially, but, after the fact, if it led to my shaping up and realizing how sinful I had been.