Calling Out A Person's Sin Publicly

[MysticMissMisty]

I am going to back up a bit.
It would be a sin for me to call out another person’s sin publically because I know darn well that it is wrong.

Something may be objectively wrong but we can not judge that another person is sinning unless that person is aware of what he or she is doing is causing sin within him or her.

To sin, one must be aware that a certain behavior is wrong. If one is truly innocent of this fact, that wrong done is somewhat mitigated and the person may not be completely held responsible for his or her actions.

A very well-reasoned response, which I would mostly agree with except for the part that we can never know, or at least be reasonably certain, whether a person knows something is wrong. If a person commits murder or theft, there is a very good chance, even though he is doing it, he knows that is wrong, as this is pretty much a universal. Same with many lesser sins, I would argue, including rash personal-attack negativity that so often exists in our world today.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

You may also be crushed to the point of no return unnecessarily, when the correction could have been done privately and discreetly. Why would you want to dwell in shame?

Why would we do something that might destroy a person’s reputation, and might forever turn them away from Christ?

Again, I think it is indeed very case-dependent and, yes, if you believe a person may be that sensitive, sure, you should not call them out publicly, but, generally, people do bounc back and, I would argue, learn from the experience. It’s all based, I would argue, on what you do and don’t know. That’s how you’ll be judged, but you always have to start from, as it were, a default position, judging how a person would react based on how most do, certainly if you don’t know the person well enough.

 

[phil19034]

A very well-reasoned response, which I would mostly agree with except for the part that we can never know, or at least be reasonably certain, whether a person knows something is wrong. If a person commits murder or theft, there is a very good chance, even though he is doing it, he knows that is wrong, as this is pretty much a universal. Same with many lesser sins, I would argue, including rash personal-attack negativity that so often exists in our world today.

We are not God. We do not know with 100% certainty what is truly going on inside another person’s head. We might have a good idea. We might even think we know, but we will never know 100%.

We also don’t know how someone is going to react. Are they having a bad day, and our actions cause them to react in a way they normally wouldn’t, causing them more shame upon themselves? Are they secretly considering suicide or are they close to “going postal”?

We must act with Mercy. Mercy is when love meets our brokenness.

The Bible says when confronting another, address it with your brother, if he doesn’t listen, bring a few others, if he still doesn’t listen, bring it to the Church.

The part about bringing it to the Church does NOT mean telling the whole parish. It means telling the priest and letting him deal with it.

Do not misunderstand: it is totally just to want to point out sins to people. But it must be done with charity, mercy and in private. This is why Confession is done one on one with a priest and with the seal of confession. The Church does not condone involuntary public sharing (aka shaming or guilting)

From the other thread, I know you are looking into how people used to deal with excommunicated people. It was never shaming. The publicly excommunicated were exactly that, publicly excommunicated. But when people are privately excommunicated, that excommunication is not publicly announced. It’s between the appropriate clergy and the individual.

I pray this is helpful.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

As far as both Christ and Paul calling out the Pharisees and the churches respectively, coule one not argue that both of them could have confronted those Pharisees and those church members who were sinning against him or against others privately rather than calling them out before each other and others? Why, then, did they not take this tact but, rather, called them out publicly?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

We are not God. We do not know with 100% certainty what is truly going on inside another person’s head. We might have a good idea. We might even think we know, but we will never know 100%.

We also don’t know how someone is going to react. Are they having a bad day, and our actions cause them to react in a way they normally wouldn’t, causing them more shame upon themselves? Are they secretly considering suicide or are they close to “going postal”?

We must act with Mercy. Mercy is when love meets our brokenness.

The Bible says when confronting another, address it with your brother, if he doesn’t listen, bring a few others, if he still doesn’t listen, bring it to the Church.

The part about bringing it to the Church does NOT mean telling the whole parish. It means telling the priest and letting him deal with it.

Do not misunderstand: it is totally just to want to point out sins to people. But it must be done with charity, mercy and in private. This is why Confession is done one on one with a priest and with the seal of confession. The Church does not condone involuntary public sharing (aka shaming or guilting)

From the other thread, I know you are looking into how people used to deal with excommunicated people. It was never shaming. The publicly excommunicated were exactly that, publicly excommunicated. But when people are privately excommunicated, that excommunication is not publicly announced. It’s between the appropriate clergy and the individual.

I pray this is helpful.

I would argue that, once a person has made it to Confession, he is generally already repentant of his sins and is often no longer in need of correction.

 

[clem456]

Again, I think it is indeed very case-dependent and, yes, if you believe a person may be that sensitive, sure, you should not call them out publicly, but, generally, people do bounc back and, I would argue, learn from the experience. It’s all based, I would argue, on what you do and don’t know. That’s how you’ll be judged, but you always have to start from, as it were, a default position, judging how a person would react based on how most do, certainly if you don’t know the person well enough.

So we are talking about conditions, and having doubts about the best course of action in any given case.

Isn’t this the human condition? Aren’t we called to make decisions all the time that are fraught with doubts about what to do?
If we were God, we would not have this problem. Right?
God has all knowledge at all times and knows the best course of action.

If it’s part of the human condition to have imperfect knowledge and dubious circumstances, what should our “default” disposition be towards others?
What side should you err on, if you are going to err? (because it’s a given that you are going to err, it’s part of being human. We cannot read souls.)

If we are wondering whether to treat someone with the extra amount of kindness, or forgive them, or do something for them when their merit is dubious, why you wouldn’t just go ahead and do the best and kindest thing, and exhort others to do it, rather than venture into actions that will probably be mortally sinful.

I can tell you this, detracting a person in public can bring very harsh consequences for the person called out, and his family, and all his associates.
For some people, public shame kills them spiritually rather than bring them to repentance. The roads are full of people who have left the Church because of un-charitable public spats.

I would not want to be responsible for that, especially when it’s pointless.

 

[Tablefor9]

Matthew 18:15-17: “if your brother sins (against you) go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the word of two or three witnesses’. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector”.

This is Jesus speaking, so we ought to pay attention. Our Lord sets the bar very high for how we treat our brothers. The arguments you are making take one scriptural reference and set it against the rest of scripture and teaching of the Church.

Also, when our Lord “called out” those you mention–He had first wept and prayed for them many times, and was still giving His life for them. (Matt 23:37–this was over those who “killed the prophets”–negativity in use of social media scarcely compares). Have you done the same? No, we must be taught by the whole counsel of God, and that includes Tradition.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Yes, He wept over the Pharisees. Yes, He felt horribly for them, but, surely, He was also angry about what they had done as well. And, we cannot negate the fact that He did eventually call them out publicly.

Perhaps what Christ means here is that we should not call a person out as a vengeful response to what they did to us, just as a “get-back-at-you” kind of thing. He may have had in mind not taking personal vengeance.

However, if you are calling out sin for more righteous reasons, which I believe I have stated above, would Jesus, do you think, really have a problem with that?

And, again, what of Paul?

 

[Tablefor9]

Yes, He wept over the Pharisees. Yes, He felt horribly for them, but, surely, He was also angry about what they had done as well. And, we cannot negate the fact that He did eventually call them out publicly.

Perhaps what Christ means here is that we should not call a person out as a vengeful response to what they did to us, just as a “get-back-at-you” kind of thing. He may have had in mind not taking personal vengeance.

However, if you are calling out sin for more righteous reasons, which I believe I have stated above, would Jesus, do you think, really have a problem with that?

And, again, what of Paul?

I would say it is better to act with Charity and Mercy, supporting the dignity of both the wronged and the wrongdoer. It would be a terrible thing to find, too late, that one’s righteousness was merely well cloaked self-righteousness.

 

[clem456]

Yes, He wept over the Pharisees. Yes, He felt horribly for them, but, surely, He was also angry about what they had done as well. And, we cannot negate the fact that He did eventually call them out publicly.

Perhaps what Christ means here is that we should not call a person out as a vengeful response to what they did to us, just as a “get-back-at-you” kind of thing. He may have had in mind not taking personal vengeance.

However, if you are calling out sin for more righteous reasons, which I believe I have stated above, would Jesus, do you think, really have a problem with that?

And, again, what of Paul?

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t know the state of a person’s heart like Jesus.
Or St Paul.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I would say it is better to act with Charity and Mercy, supporting the dignity of both the wronged and the wrongdoer. It would be a terrible thing to find, too late, that one’s righteousness was merely well cloaked self-righteousness.

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

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t know the state of a person’s heart like Jesus.
Or St Paul.

Are you suggesting that Paul was given some special divine spiritual knowledge of their hearts. ARe you saying that, for instance, all the Corinthians who were sinning and whom he called out were appropriately called out and that none of them would be too devastated to justify this? No evidence, at least as far as I am aware, to suggest that, and arguing ex nihilo is always the weaker position.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Jesus commanded us to love one another as he loved us. Period.

I don’t know how “loving” it would be for a person to call out another person on their sin, without having all the facts.

What may look like sin to you may very well not be.

Would you want to be responsible for killing someone’s spirit, because that is a possibility if you call someone out publicly. The world is filled with people left the Catholic church, and I am sure many other denominations, because of this attitude that they should be publicly shamed.

I get the impression that you want to be “right”. I will ask you, what is better, to be “right” or to be “kind”.

In the end, it is what I do, or not do, that will either give me eternal life or eternal damnation. I would not want my need to be “right” to make that decision for me.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Jesus commanded us to love one another as he loved us. Period.

I don’t know how “loving” it would be for a person to call out another person on their sin, without having all the facts.

What may look like sin to you may very well not be.

Would you want to be responsible for killing someone’s spirit, because that is a possibility if you call someone out publicly. The world is filled with people left the Catholic church, and I am sure many other denominations, because of this attitude that they should be publicly shamed.

I get the impression that you want to be “right”. I will ask you, what is better, to be “right” or to be “kind”.

In the end, it is what I do, or not do, that will either give me eternal life or eternal damnation. I would not want my need to be “right” to make that decision for me.

Of course I don’t want to be responsible for something like that, but, am I truly “responsible” if I do not know that they will react in this way. If I can be prety sure that they will, then, yes, I would argue that I should be held responsible for that, but, if I don’t, though such would be unfortunate, I don’t think I would be held responsible.

As fr as wanting to be “right”, yes, I have held the position I am looking into here for a while and I have thought it justified. What has caused me to question it now was, in fct, Jesus’ words about confronting a person privately, so, now, I am legitimately trying to flesh out the issue from all sides, thoroughly evaluating it to be sure whether my position can stand in any way possible. I am still approaching it with an open mind, of course. I think it is a worthy thing thoroughly to evaluate one’s position even if it will be difficult to change it if necessary, so, I think I am coming at this from a right perspective. This has been my approach in several instances on here and in life in general, so, please don’t take my seemingly incessant questioning as somehow trying to be “right” (as many here have taken it) as it is only doing a very thorough evaluation of my own positions, sifting them, as it were, for truth. My questioning is in very rarely rhetorical or defensive, unless it is in defense of what I believe to be a legitimate point. I do not wish to “be right” just to “be right”, nor do I wish to attack other people with my questioning.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

You know, I was just thinking…

Maybe the confronting a person one-on-one is not necessarily about preventing the sinner’s embarrassment but about not immediately gathering others to “gang up” against that one person, again, as some act of revenge or trying to start a fight.

After all, when the person is sinning against you, chances are that, at the time, he is really not even thinking about hsi honor or dishonor, but, he might be compelled to do so if he is called out for it. I dunno…

Thoughts?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

“Pretty sure” or “reasonably sure” is not sure. Unless you can read souls, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!
That’s the point.

Hypothetically, let’s say I am reasonably sure my friend Sue is cheating on her husband. I have seen her meeting with another man in different places around town. I don’t know for sure, I haven’t talked to her about it, but think why else would she be with this guy while her poor husband is at work.
At our next gathering, I call Sue out, in front of her husband, children and other family members on her “sin”.

She is devastated and embarrassed , her husband is furious and her kids and the rest of the family don’t know what to think. Come to find out, this is a person she is mentoring, as he is changing careers and she is giving him the benefit of her years of experience.

All because I was “pretty sure”.

Now, I have lost a friend, and I am sure I will lose many more, once our mutual friends find out what I did.

Sorry, not worth it in the long run. If you think so, go ahead, but it’s something that is way above my “pay grade”.

Of course I don’t want to be responsible for something like that, but, am I truly “responsible” if I do not know that they will react in this way. If I can be prety sure that they will, then, yes, I would argue that I should be held responsible for that, but, if I don’t, though such would be unfortunate, I don’t think I would be held responsible.

As fr as wanting to be “right”, yes, I have held the position I am looking into here for a while and I have thought it justified. What has caused me to question it now was, in fct, Jesus’ words about confronting a person privately, so, now, I am legitimately trying to flesh out the issue from all sides, thoroughly evaluating it to be sure whether my position can stand in any way possible. I am still approaching it with an open mind, of course. I think it is a worthy thing thoroughly to evaluate one’s position even if it will be difficult to change it if necessary, so, I think I am coming at this from a right perspective. This has been my approach in several instances on here and in life in general, so, please don’t take my seemingly incessant questioning as somehow trying to be “right” (as many here have taken it) as it is only doing a very thorough evaluation of my own positions, sifting them, as it were, for truth. My questioning is in very rarely rhetorical or defensive, unless it is in defense of what I believe to be a legitimate point. I do not wish to “be right” just to “be right”, nor do I wish to attack other people with my questioning.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

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.

 

[clem456]

Are you suggesting that Paul was given some special divine spiritual knowledge of their hearts. ARe you saying that, for instance, all the Corinthians who were sinning and whom he called out were appropriately called out and that none of them would be too devastated to justify this? No evidence, at least as far as I am aware, to suggest that, and arguing ex nihilo is always the weaker position.

No I didn’t suggest that. I didn’t make a suggestion. I said this:

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t know the state of a person’s heart like Jesus.
Or St Paul.

You brought up St Paul.
Why did you bring up St Paul if you didn’t want to talk about him?
St Paul is a saint. I think he probably had more wisdom than you and I. Correct me if I am wrong.

Really, it seems the point of your thread is to find every last excuse to justify un-charitable public behavior that hurts other people. This is not how Christians behave.
It’s disturbing.

 

[phil19034]

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

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.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

No I didn’t suggest that. I didn’t make a suggestion. I said this:

You brought up St Paul.
Why did you bring up St Paul if you didn’t want to talk about him?
St Paul is a saint. I think he probably had more wisdom than you and I. Correct me if I am wrong.

Really, it seems the point of your thread is to find every last excuse to justify un-charitable public behavior that hurts other people. This is not how Christians behave.
It’s disturbing.

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