"Taking it to the Church"

[PLeeD]

Regarding Matthew 18:15:

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
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. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

It’s apparent to me that whenever the progression of “take it to the person”, “take it to two or three”, then “take it to the church” appears in scripture, it is always in the context of a Christian brother sinning against you. That is to say, your fellow Christian has lied to you, cheated you, or stolen from you personally. Some tranlslations leave out the “against you” part, but it should be there.

Understanding it that way, the teaching seems to match with the context of Paul’s teaching about lawsuits among believers in the opening of 1 Cor 6.

How do people go from the idea of seeking restitution after being wronged, to wholesale judgement of the perceived sins of others, when those supposed sins don’t personally affect us? This seems like a huge problem for Christians in general. “Judging others” is assumed to be justified based on these passages.

Note: I originally posted this in response to a thread in “Non-Catholic Religions” forum, but thought it would be better discussed here.

 

[bogeydogg]

Regarding Matthew 18:15:

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
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. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

It’s apparent to me that whenever the progression of “take it to the person”, “take it to two or three”, then “take it to the church” appears in scripture, it is always in the context of a Christian brother sinning against you. That is to say, your fellow Christian has lied to you, cheated you, or stolen from you personally. Some tranlslations leave out the “against you” part, but it should be there.

Understanding it that way, the teaching seems to match with the context of Paul’s teaching about lawsuits among believers in the opening of 1 Cor 6.

How do people go from the idea of seeking restitution after being wronged, to wholesale judgement of the perceived sins of others, when those supposed sins don’t personally affect us? This seems like a huge problem for Christians in general. “Judging others” is assumed to be justified based on these passages.

Note: I originally posted this in response to a thread in “Non-Catholic Religions” forum, but thought it would be better discussed here.

To call sin a sin is to acknowledge reality not to pass judgement. You must remember that the same God who warned us against judging others lest our standard be used against us also commands us to judge a tree by its fruit.

I think the salient point of both teachings is not the recognition of right and wrong as objective reality in light of the Law of God, but rather that the standard we use not be one of personal comparison. Which usually has much to do with downplaying my sins while spotlighting yours while having little to do with actually preserving my brother or sister from the ravages of sin.

God Bless

 

[Nate13]

We judge people everyday in the courts of the United States as well as other courts all around the World. No one has a problem with these judgement as long as they are “just”. Judging people in general is not wrong. We do have a problem with judgments that could be called “rash”, “hasty”, “uninformed”, etc… Do you see what I’m getting at?

 

[Gethsemane]

We can’t judge the motives of peoples hearts. That something which only Jesus Christ can do, because he’s the only one who knows the thoughts of our hearts. As has been said, we can’t judge someone based on our own standard thus raising our own selves up.

We are allowed to judge the words and actions of people which is what the fig tree teaches. We are also bound to point out sin in James 5:19-20:

“My brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him: He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.”

Basically, we’re not supposed to judge for the sake of our own glory.

 

[jcrichton]

Regarding Matthew 18:15:

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
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. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

It’s apparent to me that whenever the progression of “take it to the person”, “take it to two or three”, then “take it to the church” appears in scripture, it is always in the context of a Christian brother sinning against you. That is to say, your fellow Christian has lied to you, cheated you, or stolen from you personally. Some tranlslations leave out the “against you” part, but it should be there.

Understanding it that way, the teaching seems to match with the context of Paul’s teaching about lawsuits among believers in the opening of 1 Cor 6.

How do people go from the idea of seeking restitution after being wronged, to wholesale judgement of the perceived sins of others, when those supposed sins don’t personally affect us? This seems like a huge problem for Christians in general. “Judging others” is assumed to be justified based on these passages.

Note: I originally posted this in response to a thread in “Non-Catholic Religions” forum, but thought it would be better discussed here.

When we are Commanded by Jesus Christ not to judge because only One is the Judge (another little problem for those who deny Jesus’ Divinity), Jesus is not saying that we should ‘live and let live.’ But evil must not be tolerated in Christ’s Church–that’s why the issue of escalation leads to the person’s refusal to change his ways the reason why he is austed from the Body–it is not that he is being judged but that he refuses to change from his wickedness.

…all sin hurt the Body of Christ… that’s why Believers are called to acknowledge that we are sinners; we are also Commanded to confess and repent (confess your sins to one another)… in the Church’s infancy we find several sins affecting the Body–to the point of the beginning of schism!

…my personal sin seems to only affect me… but if in the name of Christ I teach that it’s OK to do what I do, does that not affect the Body of Christ? …and when my sin away from the Church (building and people) reaches both the Believers and non-Believers, is that sin still just my personal business?

…further, if I defend my right to live outside of the Light, does that not give the non-Believers the same right… and what of other Believers… would their frail Faith not be hindered or their ego not blow up and seek to circumvent God as I did?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

To call sin a sin is to acknowledge reality not to pass judgement. You must remember that the same God who warned us against judging others lest our standard be used against us also commands us to judge a tree by its fruit.

I think the salient point of both teachings is not the recognition of right and wrong as objective reality in light of the Law of God, but rather that the standard we use not be one of personal comparison. Which usually has much to do with downplaying my sins while spotlighting yours while having little to do with actually preserving my brother or sister from the ravages of sin.

God Bless

Well put!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

We judge people everyday in the courts of the United States as well as other courts all around the World. No one has a problem with these judgement as long as they are “just”. Judging people in general is not wrong. We do have a problem with judgments that could be called “rash”, “hasty”, “uninformed”, etc… Do you see what I’m getting at?

…but usually these are rooted in personal bias and almost never require any truth–and even when there’s reason to doubt the veracity of the judgment those involved do not want to hear that they were wrong!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ChrisB103]

As others have said, we can judge the objective moral value of an action, but we can’t judge the state of anyone’s soul. Judging an action as morally wrong is not the kind of judging that we’re taught about in the “judge not, lest ye be judged” kind of way. Hopefully this isn’t too simple to be of some use!

 

[Nate13]

As others have said, we can judge the objective moral value of an action, but we can’t judge the state of anyone’s soul. Judging an action as morally wrong is not the kind of judging that we’re taught about in the “judge not, lest ye be judged” kind of way. Hopefully this isn’t too simple to be of some use!

I think this is pretty good, but what about judging people’s intentions? A lot of people view this as “judging people’s souls”. However if so then our courts are wrong in what they do. Part of the judgement process requires judging someone’s motivations and intent. There is a big difference between killing someone accidentally and killing someone on purpose both morally and legally.

I guess the real question is “what does judging someone’s soul really mean?” I for one don’t believe that judging someone’s intent in an act is the same as judging someone’s soul and I have to believe the Church agrees, otherwise it would be against the court system.

However once you have judged the act, and the intent of an act, you are 2/3rd’s of the way to saying someone has committed a mortal sin. All that is left is whether someone did the act knowing it was wrong. Even that can be judged accordingly with enough information which leaves you at a point where with enough knowledge you can say whether someone has committed a mortal sin or not. Are you doing wrong in telling that person they have committed a mortal sin and should seek reconciliation?

If all of the above is true though then that leaves “not judging a person’s soul” to very simply meaning not judging whether that person will end up in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory when they die. I think something can be said for us not every being able to really perfectly judge someone intentions and therefore never truly know if they have committed a mortal sin, but I think in some cases intentions can be very clear.

For instance in the case of murder, you find the accused person made a map showing the exact route that person was going to take in order to get to the person who was killed and had written out a plan of exactly how they were going to go about it. They then executed it to perfection and then left a note explaining that they did it and exactly why they did it. Are we not allowed to judge this person’s intentions in regard to how that person is treated on Earth for his crime?

So where does this leave us? Can intentions never be judged, only judged sometimes, or can they always be judged with enough information?

 

[PLeeD]

Jesus is not saying that we should ‘live and let live.’ But evil must not be tolerated in Christ’s Church–that’s why the issue of escalation leads to the person’s refusal to change his ways the reason why he is austed from the Body–it is not that he is being judged but that he refuses to change from his wickedness.

Not to pick on you in particular, JC, but this is exactly what I’m talking about. I don’t think Matthew 18:15 has any bearing on this.

That is not to say that what you describe should never happen. Paul did exactly this when someone in the church was engaging in sexual relations with their stepmother(?). But that is an obvious violation of God’s expectation of us, and is clearly spelled out in the new covenant.

I’m more concerned about less certain issues like whether or not a person should have a tattoo? Is smoking a cigarette a sin? What about going to a bar and drinking alcohol? There are Christians who will judge a fellow Christian who might do any of these things, and even go to the extreme of confronting that fellow Christian about it (or worse yet, talking about it behind their back).

My problem is with quoting Matthew 18:15, or a similar passage, to justify confronting someone about a perceived ‘sin’ when, even if it is a sin, when it is not a sin against the busy-body Christian.

 

[ChrisB103]

I think this is pretty good, but what about judging people’s intentions? A lot of people view this as “judging people’s souls”. However if so then our courts are wrong in what they do. Part of the judgement process requires judging someone’s motivations and intent. There is a big difference between killing someone accidentally and killing someone on purpose both morally and legally.

I guess the real question is “what does judging someone’s soul really mean?” I for one don’t believe that judging someone’s intent in an act is the same as judging someone’s soul and I have to believe the Church agrees, otherwise it would be against the court system.

However once you have judged the act, and the intent of an act, you are 2/3rd’s of the way to saying someone has committed a mortal sin. All that is left is whether someone did the act knowing it was wrong. Even that can be judged accordingly with enough information which leaves you at a point where with enough knowledge you can say whether someone has committed a mortal sin or not. Are you doing wrong in telling that person they have committed a mortal sin and should seek reconciliation?

If all of the above is true though then that leaves “not judging a person’s soul” to very simply meaning not judging whether that person will end up in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory when they die. I think something can be said for us not every being able to really perfectly judge someone intentions and therefore never truly know if they have committed a mortal sin, but I think in some cases intentions can be very clear.

For instance in the case of murder, you find the accused person made a map showing the exact route that person was going to take in order to get to the person who was killed and had written out a plan of exactly how they were going to go about it. They then executed it to perfection and then left a note explaining that they did it and exactly why they did it. Are we not allowed to judge this person’s intentions in regard to how that person is treated on Earth for his crime?

So where does this leave us? Can intentions never be judged, only judged sometimes, or can they always be judged with enough information?

I think you make some interesting points. I don’t think it’s wrong for courts and judges to make rulings that do their best to take into account someone’s intentions. However, I think the best a court can do is to make a guess at this, unlike the Good Judge, who can know with certainty the individual’s intentions. It does seem like the only thing that is an absolute in this matter is not attempting to judge someone’s eternal destiny. However, as you point out, trying to judge people’s intentions in serious matters seems to put you on a bit of a slide towards judging someone’s eternal destiny. It seems to me that it comes down to humility in a way. We must be humble and understand that God is the only judge of our souls, regardless of what we think.

 

[ChrisB103]

Not to pick on you in particular, JC, but this is exactly what I’m talking about. I don’t think Matthew 18:15 has any bearing on this.

That is not to say that what you describe should never happen. Paul did exactly this when someone in the church was engaging in sexual relations with their stepmother(?). But that is an obvious violation of God’s expectation of us, and is clearly spelled out in the new covenant.

I’m more concerned about less certain issues like whether or not a person should have a tattoo? Is smoking a cigarette a sin? What about going to a bar and drinking alcohol? There are Christians who will judge a fellow Christian who might do any of these things, and even go to the extreme of confronting that fellow Christian about it (or worse yet, talking about it behind their back).

My problem is with quoting Matthew 18:15, or a similar passage, to justify confronting someone about a perceived ‘sin’ when, even if it is a sin, when it is not a sin against the busy-body Christian.

I think I’m with you on this one. I don’t think it would be right to claim this verse in order to go “hold someone accountable” when you haven’t been asked to do so. However, I think to some extent any sin someone commits affects the whole community of believers in a myriad of ways. This seems to put every sin into the category of being “against your brother”, but probably not in the same way as Matthew 18:15 intends.

 

[jcrichton]

I think this is pretty good, but what about judging people’s intentions? A lot of people view this as “judging people’s souls”. However if so then our courts are wrong in what they do. Part of the judgement process requires judging someone’s motivations and intent. There is a big difference between killing someone accidentally and killing someone on purpose both morally and legally.

I guess the real question is “what does judging someone’s soul really mean?” I for one don’t believe that judging someone’s intent in an act is the same as judging someone’s soul and I have to believe the Church agrees, otherwise it would be against the court system.

However once you have judged the act, and the intent of an act, you are 2/3rd’s of the way to saying someone has committed a mortal sin. All that is left is whether someone did the act knowing it was wrong. Even that can be judged accordingly with enough information which leaves you at a point where with enough knowledge you can say whether someone has committed a mortal sin or not. Are you doing wrong in telling that person they have committed a mortal sin and should seek reconciliation?

If all of the above is true though then that leaves “not judging a person’s soul” to very simply meaning not judging whether that person will end up in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory when they die. I think something can be said for us not every being able to really perfectly judge someone intentions and therefore never truly know if they have committed a mortal sin, but I think in some cases intentions can be very clear.

For instance in the case of murder, you find the accused person made a map showing the exact route that person was going to take in order to get to the person who was killed and had written out a plan of exactly how they were going to go about it. They then executed it to perfection and then left a note explaining that they did it and exactly why they did it. Are we not allowed to judge this person’s intentions in regard to how that person is treated on Earth for his crime?

So where does this leave us? Can intentions never be judged, only judged sometimes, or can they always be judged with enough information?

…intentions are abstract and malleable-- say you were at a bank, made a withdrawal, and as you get into your car you dropped your wallet-- seconds later I see the wallet, pick it up, check it, and run after your car with the intent to return it… hours later, you return to the bank, cancel all your credit and debit cards and proceed to report a lost wallet to the police… in the mean while I made a nice purchase with your money and even made a hefty donation to my local parish to help the needy families on this Christmas… were my intentions good?

…just as I cannot claim ignorance on man’s court of law, I cannot claim “good itnentions” and “ignorance” on the Throne of Justice–God will see right to my heart!

I believe that that’s Christ’s point: judge not for you do not know the heart of men!

Conversely… our actions do expose our intentions… had I walked into the bank and asked for the manager and surrendered your wallet intact… my intentions would have been proven to be according to Christ’s Command: Love Yahweh God above all and your neighbor as yourself!

…now, neither the first nor the second scene definitively demonstrate that I will end up in hell or in Heaven since I can repent and turn back to God or turn from God and surrender to the vices of the world; however, as Christ’s Revelations, from the storage of the heart the mouth speaks (or a tree is known by its fruits)… both of my examples demonstrate that a man/woman can be known by what he/she chooses to do… and just as ‘practice makes perfect’ so too embracing righteousness or unrighteousness eases our path into Salvation or perdition… a person who, out of Love for Jesus, warns me to repent and turn back to God is not passing judgment on me but simply acquiescing to his/her obligation as God’s Sentinel (Ezekiel 33).

…as for the human courts… justice is often blinded, circumvented or rightout dismantled according to the financial or political power that is wheeling the gavel…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Not to pick on you in particular, JC, but this is exactly what I’m talking about. I don’t think Matthew 18:15 has any bearing on this.

That is not to say that what you describe should never happen. Paul did exactly this when someone in the church was engaging in sexual relations with their stepmother(?). But that is an obvious violation of God’s expectation of us, and is clearly spelled out in the new covenant.

I’m more concerned about less certain issues like whether or not a person should have a tattoo? Is smoking a cigarette a sin? What about going to a bar and drinking alcohol? There are Christians who will judge a fellow Christian who might do any of these things, and even go to the extreme of confronting that fellow Christian about it (or worse yet, talking about it behind their back).

My problem is with quoting Matthew 18:15, or a similar passage, to justify confronting someone about a perceived ‘sin’ when, even if it is a sin, when it is not a sin against the busy-body Christian.

…perception is a killer… many times our personal predispositions rather than reality define how we see others–this would, of course, taint our judgment… I find the parable of the good Samaritan a perfect example of this…

…but then there’s reality! …we can choose to ignore it; we can claim ignorance; we can even claim ambiguity or lack of clarity… but it is still there!

Is smoking a cigarette a sin? …many will say no; many will claim “not Biblical” (or some other sort of clause); some would even point to the Church being silent on the issue (or to a Priest/Nun that smokes)… so how can smoking a cigarette be a sin? …well… if you really want to know… it is as simple as ‘it is written:’ though shall not kill! In the past the tobacco industry managed to keep the truth hidden: tobacco products kill–along with the government they managed to pass the responsibility over to the consumer: ‘the use of this product, as intended, will kill.’

Yet, some would still argue against designating somiking a cigarette a sin since Scriptures do not specifically state so… are they reading the Sacred Scriputures with a selective eye? Yes! St. Paul clearly warns that we have been purchased at a price and that we do not belong to ourselves since our bodies are the Living Temple of the Holy Spirit! Further, he argues that if we harm the Temple of the Holy Spirit God will destroy us! Smoking cigarettes, as well as consuming/using anything else that is harmful to the body, is a form of destruction of the body… hence, a sin.

…as for tattoos… the same applies and we can add Exodus’ Command not to create graven images of worship… consider the reason why society chooses to engage in body painting and piercing… is it to Glorify God?

…and while a visit to a pub/bar may seem quite inoffensive (like that victimless crime of those who can afford to purchase recreational drugs without resorting to theft or some other ciminal enterprise) we do have to factor in that what makes it a sin is not the consumption of alcohol (a beer/drink/glass) but the loss of selfcontrol that comes from abusing the substance. Yet, as Believers, we must also take into account the example that we set for others… more often than not, bars are frequented by those whose spiritual lives are closer to the spirits than to the Spirit so it becomes quite probable that anyone witnessing my frequent visit to a bar might believe that my Christian fellowship is based on hypocrisy–this also applies to the social/home drinkers…

…any Biblical passage can be abused (used as a weapon) but that is not the intent of the Word (check the beam in your own eye); yet, while Jesus warns that we should not judge (for the same measure will be applied onto you) we must be on guard against error infiltrating the Body.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think I’m with you on this one. I don’t think it would be right to claim this verse in order to go “hold someone accountable” when you haven’t been asked to do so. However, I think to some extent any sin someone commits affects the whole community of believers in a myriad of ways. This seems to put every sin into the category of being “against your brother”, but probably not in the same way as Matthew 18:15 intends.

…but this is the same intent of Ezekiel 33… if I visit your house and lift money, jewelry or other valuables, am I not sinning both against you and the Body?

…so when I show up for the Holy Mass with the expensive watch I got from your dresser, do you simply ignore it?

Holding me to account does not mean passing judgment!

…now, if it happens that several other friends and acquaintances were also invited and without proof you determine that I have to have been the thief since I just got fired or unemployment comp was terminated or I am destitute… you are using perception rather than fact to accuse me of the theft–by judging me guilty you are violating Christ’s Command; however, if after careful investigation it is found that I did enter your house and removed your valuables, this determines that I am sinning against you and the Body and it is your obligation to warn me of my error/s (Ezekiel 33) and you can choose to make me your personal mission and you can opt to keep the matter in-house (not proceed to report the crime) and employ other members of our local parish to assist you in my rehabilitation or you can opt to do both… either way no judment is passed!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PLeeD]

Is smoking a cigarette a sin? …
…as for tattoos…
…and while a visit to a pub/bar may seem quite inoffensive

Are you saying that you would feel justified in confronting a fellow Catholic on any one of these items? If you saw someone smoke a cigarette, saw a tattoo on their skin, or saw them walk into a bar, you would feel compelled to say something about it to them, and feel justified in doing so?

And further, if that person rejected your rebuke, would you feel justified in bringing this ‘sin’ to the attention of others in the church?

 

[Nate13]

…intentions are abstract and malleable-- say you were at a bank, made a withdrawal, and as you get into your car you dropped your wallet-- seconds later I see the wallet, pick it up, check it, and run after your car with the intent to return it… hours later, you return to the bank, cancel all your credit and debit cards and proceed to report a lost wallet to the police… in the mean while I made a nice purchase with your money and even made a hefty donation to my local parish to help the needy families on this Christmas… were my intentions good?

…just as I cannot claim ignorance on man’s court of law, I cannot claim “good itnentions” and “ignorance” on the Throne of Justice–God will see right to my heart!

I believe that that’s Christ’s point: judge not for you do not know the heart of men!

Conversely… our actions do expose our intentions… had I walked into the bank and asked for the manager and surrendered your wallet intact… my intentions would have been proven to be according to Christ’s Command: Love Yahweh God above all and your neighbor as yourself!

…now, neither the first nor the second scene definitively demonstrate that I will end up in hell or in Heaven since I can repent and turn back to God or turn from God and surrender to the vices of the world; however, as Christ’s Revelations, from the storage of the heart the mouth speaks (or a tree is known by its fruits)… both of my examples demonstrate that a man/woman can be known by what he/she chooses to do… and just as ‘practice makes perfect’ so too embracing righteousness or unrighteousness eases our path into Salvation or perdition… a person who, out of Love for Jesus, warns me to repent and turn back to God is not passing judgment on me but simply acquiescing to his/her obligation as God’s Sentinel (Ezekiel 33).

…as for the human courts… justice is often blinded, circumvented or rightout dismantled according to the financial or political power that is wheeling the gavel…

Maran atha!

Angel

So where does this leave us? Can intentions never be judged, only judged sometimes, or can they always be judged with enough information?

So your answer to the question is no we can never judge intentions?

Also to attack this problem from another angle I put this quote forward from the Catechism:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

You could add fornication, contraception, and homosexual acts to that list as well. There are acts that regardless of the intention or ends that are reached through it are objectively always wrong. For example if you know someone who is married, and you know for a fact that they had sex with another woman outside of marriage you know what they did is wrong regardless of their intentions. Fornication would work the same way. If you know someone is having sex with someone they are not married too, there is no doubt what they are doing is wrong regardless of their intentions. Murder could be looked at in the same way, because the circumstances surrounding killing someone would allow for a judgement to be put forward on whether or not murder was committed.

 

[zz912]

In this discussion of judging another, specifically which Church are we to take it to?

 

[PLeeD]

Presumably, if you are Catholic, a sin perpetrated against you by another Catholic would eventually be taken to a priest. For protestants it would probably be the local pastor, or the leadership of the individual congregation.

The point I take away from passages like Matt. 18:15 is that if a fellow Christian sins against us personally, by way of fraud, lying, cheating, stealing, whatever, where we have personally suffered a loss, then we should not proceed to civil court for redress. Matt 18:15 tells us what we should do.

To paraphrase and twist this teaching in order to justify confronting a fellow Christian about ‘supposed’ sin that doesn’t affect you personally, is IMO a sin in itself. By “supposed sin”, I don’t mean murder, adultery, or things similar which are prohibited in the new covenant. I’m talking about precisely the type of things mentioned earlier in this thread; tattoos, smoking, responsible use of alcohol, etc. It amounts to Judaizing at worst, and being a busy-body at best.

 

[jcrichton]

Are you saying that you would feel justified in confronting a fellow Catholic on any one of these items? If you saw someone smoke a cigarette, saw a tattoo on their skin, or saw them walk into a bar, you would feel compelled to say something about it to them, and feel justified in doing so?

And further, if that person rejected your rebuke, would you feel justified in bringing this ‘sin’ to the attention of others in the church?

Yes and no; I have sat with people in a restaurant and have cautioned them that I do not drink; if we are gathered there it is not for liquid nourishment (this is done in as friendly as possible tone–no judgment on those who do drink); another instance I had to explain to a fellow traveler that he was married and that his behavior was offensive to me, his wife and his kids–this caused a rift where he would never travel in the same circles as I (or is it “me?”); there are many other examples where I had to take the innitiative to halt a behavior that included cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs… I once attempted to lure a go-go dancer out of her trade (didn’t work so I did not date her); once I refused to allow entrence to my home to an acquaintance when he came to wish me a “Merry Christmas;” as civil and friendly as I could I explained that when he sobered up he could come visit; once I was called names for not drinking on every invite that I received (didn’t have a single ounce while teased that I was a baby and that the hosts should offer me some milk); …and while I have never had the encounter, if I engage anyone who is into tattoos I must inform the person that he/she may be setting a bad example for his fellow Christians (be they Catholic or not)–and if the tattoos are vulgar or demonic I will caution that they are consciously choosing to represent an anti-Christian value in the billboard that Christ purchased!

…every situation has its nuances… but if we forget that to be friends of the world means to be an enemy of God our Christianity is nothing but a water-down discipleship… and while Christ was very forgiving… He never proclaim ‘don’t worry, God loves you as you are so don’t change a thing!’ Rather, He Commanded: “…go and sin no more…”

…and to His Disciples He said: “…if your righteousness is not greater than the Pharisees and Sadducees, you cannot be my disciples.”

Our call is to strive for Perfection not to emulate the world.

Maran atha!

Angel