Some more translation problems

The Catholic Chinese Bible has been in use for nearly 60 years and is undergoing revision because the language Chinese used six decades ago engenders some unnecessary misunderstandings nowadays. Furthermore, the Franciscan friars want to rectify some errors, typograhpical as well as interpretational ones. Translating texts is a notorious task. Translators can unintentionally open up loopholes for misunderstandings.

I usually pick up the English readings to compare the different translations. Today, I accidentally discovered a totally different Chinese translation of the Gospel. It is Matthew 21:29-30.

他回答說：主，我去。但他卻沒有去。
他對第二個也說了同樣的話，第二個卻答應說：我不願意。但後來悔悟過來，而又去了。【思高版】
And he answered, 'I will not'; but afterward he repented and went.
And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, 'I go, sir,' but did not go. (RSV)

Puzzled, I went home to check the other versions.
他回答說、我不去．以後自己懊悔就去了。
又來對小兒子也是這樣說、他回答說、父阿、我去．他卻不去。【和合本】
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐ θέλω, ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν.
προσελθὼν δὲ τῷ ἑτέρῳ εἶπεν ὡσαύτως. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ἐγώ, κύριε: καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν.  (NA26)

A note of translation: The Greek word in red "hetero" means a different one, another one, the other one etc. Since there were only 2 sons, translating it into the second son is accurate. However, the translator of the Chinese Protestant version has made one more assumption --- the father had asked the elder son first. Given that the first born always enjoyed a higher priority in the eyes of the father who might had already sent the elder son on a more important errant, or that he preferred sending the younger son to do some chores first or that the brothers might even be twins. Therefore, it is unwarranted to translate "the other one" into "the younger son".

The Chinese Catholic translation fares no better, It is different from all others by switching the roles of the two sons. Why? The next verse Matthew 21:31a is even more damaging.
τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; λέγουσιν, Ὁ πρῶτος.
Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first."
二人中那一個履行了父親的意願？」他們說：「後一個。」【思高版】
你們想這兩個兒子、是那一個遵行父命呢。他們說、大兒子。【和合本】
The Greek word in red means the first.
Consistent with their translations, the Chinese Protestant version translates it into "the elder son" and the Chinese Catholic version translates it into "the latter one"! What a blatant betrayal of the original text!

I am not learned enough to defend the Franciscan friars who were saintly Biblical scholars. Perhaps they had, in their possession, a certain Greek manuscript which carries such a rendition. Still, they owe us an explanation why they chose this manuscript and did not follow the Textus Receptus, the "Received Text".
The only reason which I can think of is that such a rendition follows Jesus' teaching: the first will become the last and the last first.
Since Genesis, God has consistently chosen not the first born. Isaac was the second son of Abraham. Jacob was the second son of Isaac. Judah was the fourth son of Jacob. Moses had an elder brother Aaron. King David was the last son of Jesse etc.Therefore, in this parable of the two sons, the Franciscan friars chose the latter one. This is the only hypothesis I can think of. What do you think?

This morning, Deacon Tsang brought up a new insight. Both sons did not keep their words though one of them did the father's will! No matter what, only doing the Father's will counts.

In the evening, I attended the Matrimony of my niece. Father Simon Li Chi Yuen, an alumus of my alma mater, officiated at the ceremony. He gave a new understanding of the famous line "and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24b). Usually, we interpret this text to mean the two persons share physically, psychologically, financially and spiritually.
No! The woman was made from the rib of the man. They were originally one flesh. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the wife is the other half of the man. Rather, the man finds himself in his wife and the woman herself in her husband. That is why when a man loves his wife, he loves himself.
let each one of you love his wife as himself (Ephesians 5:33a).
This is a brilliant opinion.

Dear Lord, strengthen us to do the Father's will. Amen.

---

Today, I brought up the issue to share with my new colleague Louis in school. He also noticed the discrepancy when he was preparing his address for the Morning Assembly in school this morning. Later, he showed me a book published by the Franciscan friars: 【思高聖經原著譯釋版系列──福音】Revised 3^rd edition, February, 2011. In the footnote #15 on page 192, the friars confirm that there are manuscripts containing the text they chose. Moreover, their choice fits better with the context of the whole chapter and the next.

September 26, 2011.

Is God being unfair (I)?

The Gospel reading today is a single parable of 15 verses long plus one verse for conclusion. Unlike many other shorter parables of a few verses in length, this parable is a sophisticated one. There are many things we can learn in this story. I am sure some of us will look at it from the perspective of management and find it difficult to accept Jesus' logic which is fine for salvation but not for social justice.

Today, Fr. Joseph Yim, who taught us homilectics, came to our parish in the capacity of the Chief Executive of Caritas to promote the upcoming Caritas annual fund raising campaign. It is a wonderful opportunity to watch him deliver his homily. His delivery was attention arresting. The congregation responded to every move he made. The contents were incisive.

First of all, Fr. Yim pointed out that the master of the vineyard would have avoided the resentment from the labourers who came first if he had given them the agreed wage first. Instead, he chose to give the last labourers their wages first, thus creating an expectation on the part of the first labourers. It was not a smart decision as a manager. He was creating troubles for himself. I would defend that even if he gave the first labourers their wages first, sooner or later, they would find out the fact that he gave all labourers the same wage. Therefore, the complaint would still arise. The complaint will be inevitable when a manager is perceived to be unfair. Then what is the reason behind this perception of injustice?
For the sake of discussion, let us assume that a price tag / a value can be assigned to the labour/service offered. In a workplace, justice means equal work, equal pay. This is intuitively enough. As a corollary, different work should be paid differently. A doctor receiving a higher wage than a hospital janitor is fair because the system puts more value on the work of a doctor than that of a janitor. Fair enough. Now, the labourers in the parable were doing the same job. Therefore, it is fair to pay them equally if they work equally. Now that the first labourers had worked for 12 hours whereas the last batch of labourers had worked for only 1 hour, their work had been unequal. Unequal work should be paid unequally. In a cliché popularized by a stomachache pill, more work more pay. Therefore, the master of the vineyard was being unfair to the first batch of labourers by paying all the same wage though it had been agreed beforehand.
Fr. Yim disagreed. Indeed, he challenged the corollary of more work more pay. He did not query the validity of the logic. Of course, the logic is flawed. If equal work implies equal pay, we can only conclude that unequal pay implies unequal work. Take another approach. Assuming that justice really means equal work, equal pay in a workplace, this principle has a limited scope of application. Those who invoke this principle may not intend to apply it to the society at large. It remains to be proved that we can apply this principle in the context of the whole society. If we apply it to the whole society without the necessary proof, we commit the fallacy of composition. What works in a workplace may not work in the larger society.

Back to Fr. Yim. He argued instead from another perspective. He said that if we applied this corollary, a third of the congregation would receive nothing because they, senior citizens and minors did not work, not to mention the patients in the hospitals. Those who hold the more-work-more-pay corollary would argue that the seniors had already received their pay in the past and the minors will receive their pay in the future. It is not fair to subsidize them now. Yet, they receive huge allowances from the government which might fight back arguing that denying the minors the necessary welfare, they would not be able to develop their potentials and receive their pay in the future, while denying the seniors a decent dignified retirement life would be inhumane. Besides justice, we should also consider beneficence. Therefore, people who apply the "more work more pay" corollary are wrong. Of course Fr. Yim did not mention the fallacy of composition and he could very easily relate the themes of the three readings. His homily is exemplary.

In Justice --- what's the right thing to do?, a bestseller written by Michael Sandel, a Harvard professor, the author introduces us to John Rawls' arguments against making moral desert the basis for distributive justice (pp 160-164). More-work-more-pay is an example of moral desert or meritocracy. People who work better and/or harder deserve to be rewarded more. According to Rawls, our inborn talents and/or our family background, i.e. our initial starting point in society are not our merits. We do not deserve such advantages or disadvantages. We are born into them, thrown into them by destiny. It is not our merits. Therefore, we do not deserve to claim whatever achievements we gain later as a consequence of these "lucks".
This logic throws a new light onto the understanding of the parable. The initial starting points of the labourers were not their merits. They were not better, more skilful workers. Even if they were born/trained better labourers, it was also not their merits. Perhaps they were even slower, lazier workers who took more time to finish the same job. Thus the master gave them a head start. I wonder if John Rawls is a Christian.

In the afternoon, I attended the annual workshop organized by the parish. The topic is "Looking at Sufferings from different perspectives". The parish invited Fr. William Yip, our philosophy department head in the seminary, Fr. John Baptist Kwan, our ex-parish priest and Dr. Vincent Tse, an oncology consultant and experienced speaker on the topic of hospice and death.
The Church was full-house. The three speakers did not disappoint us. But I want to mention Fr. Yip in particular because I went there just to listen to his philosophical approach to sufferings.

Fr. Yip did not speak too philosophically. He shared his painful experience of the death of his father. Four years ago, his father suffered a stroke and deteriorated to such an extent that at a later stage, he lost his memory. As a philosopher, he reflected.
Firstly, it took at least three hours to visit his father in the hospital from the seminary. He would have done many things with his tight schedule. Even if he went there, the health of his father would not improve. If he did not go, his father would not remember. So, what is the point visiting his father? This is a typical utilitarian reasoning which Fr. Yip would definitely reject. He followed the reasoning of duty ethics/virtue ethics. If he does not go, something would be missing in his life. He further explained how his mother passed away abruptly and peacefully without giving them any advanced warnings and troubles. In the funeral parlour after the vigil service, he wanted to stay behind longer to stay with the corpse of his mother. Now that his father was not yet dead, why shouldn't he take the opportunity to stay more with his father so that he would not regret in the future?
Secondly, he turned philosophical to explain the philosophy of the body. On the sensation level, all of us are alone. If you can feel all the sensations I feel, how do we tell the two different persons, you and me, apart. Therefore, we have to face the fact that in suffering pains, all of us are alone. Of course, on the psychological and social levels, we can still build up an empathy to feel partially the pains of others' pains. Luckily, we have the sacrament of Eucharist, the body of Christ. Jesus enters into our body and integrates bodily with us. In our blood stream flows the blood of Jesus and our cells are built up by the body of Jesus. We can be one with Jesus, bodily and spiritually. Our pains are his and his ours. It is transformative. It is very consoling and enlightening. Thank you, Fr. Yip.

Dear Lord, Your thoughts are higher than ours but You are willing to lift us up. Transform us so that we can love You and our neighbour more. Amen.

First Meeting with Ms. TM

I arrived on time. She was still seeing a client. I took a look around the office. It was not quite fully decorated. There were 2 rolled up colour backdrops on the left hand side of her interview room, like what you find in a studio. There was no partition, just a translucent curtain. A bookshelf stood on the right hand side of the interview room, lining with books which can be borrowed. The lady receptionist turns out to be a substitute because the secretary was off today. She read her book while I sat on the sofa, waiting and looking casually around the room.

Ms. M is a pleasant lady of thirty something. She is a bit slim and her dress flows along with her movements. She made me feel comfortable in the otherwise cool waiting region. We entered the interview room and sat opposite each other. She jotted notes here and there during the interview. To begin with, she explained that it is a new arrangement for the formation of the permanent deacons. At the end of the interview when I filled in my personal particulars, I found my reference number to be VG006. I am Number Six (not Number Four, nor 007!).
I felt comfortable perhaps my psychology training three decades ago assures me that she is trying to help me explore and know myself better. Truly, meeting new people can be enriching. Perhaps at the back of my mind, beneath my subconscious, I am confident that I would recognize the psychological tricks up her sleeves. (Sorry, her dress is sleeveless!). OK, let's go to the main course.

After some warm-up exchanges of my background, she turned to my worries in the course of my exploration of my diaconate vocation. There are mainly two: my hesitation to approach authority/power and my health. I mentioned the health problem second because I think I have overcome it. It is true that I have been troubled by my diabetes. I suffered depression. It is sipping away my strength. My mood fluctuates with my blood sugar level ... etc. and etc. For some time, I was not confident if I would be able to serve the Church in the capacity of a deacon. However, I have read signs, showing that God has been very merciful to me and been restoring my health. The births of Saturnia and Symphorian confirm my optimism. Rationally, I begin to take up the view that God will protect me, keep me healthy enough to carry out His mission. I learn to put myself in God's hand. On my own, I am truly incapable. No health insurance would ever cover diabetics. However, how can I forget to set my eyes on God whose loving mercy will cover me?

Let me return to the first worry: the abuse of authority. I am a simple (minded) man, leading a simple life. I am not used to using authority though in my daily life, I am able to command a rather absolute authority over the people around me: my family, my students and even the parishioners. In many situations, family and school alike, relationships are rather power-oriented. Even in parish life, my seniority and biblical knowledge give me leaverage over most of the power relationships.
In reality, I have seen too much abuse of authority, the major cause for my leaving La Salle; and I lament having little feedback from people to point out my mistakes. My major worry is that one day, I may abuse my authority and harm the people and the Church I mean to serve. I don't want to bring scandals to the Church I love. As for now, very few people come forth to point out my weaknesses and my mistakes. What about the future when I am further cladded with the authority of a clergyman?
Who have ever told me my mistakes? Erminia, my wife for one. She is able to remind me of things I have overlooked, have overdone or failed to do. Sometimes, she would complain. However, this is limited to the interactions between a man and his wife. What then can prevent me from abusing authority to bring scandals to the Church?

Dear Lord, I am badly in need of a retreat, a luxurious 7-day retreat or even longer. May these appointments with Ms. M shed light on my vocation. Bless this pleasant lady. May her work as well as her family flourish. Amen.

Is traditional marriage outmoded and unconstitutional? What is marriage?

This morning, we three E&RE teachers attended a seminar on homosexuality and marriage. It was organized by the Diocesan Committee for the Pastoral Care of Persons with Same Sex Attraction and was not an open seminar to the public. The participants turned out to be heavy weights in the Catholic Church --- Bishop John Tong, Vicar Generals Michael Yeung and Pierre Lam, Chancellor Lawrence Lee and the Holy Spirit Seminary Rector Benedict Lam etc. Many other priests and nuns turned up and only 18 teachers and principals signed up. The keynote speakers were Mr. Denis Chang QC, SC, LLD; Dr. Lam Chiu-wan, an Associate Professor at Hong Kong Polytechnic University and Mr. Gordon Truscott, a secondary school English teacher who happens to be working actively for the gay people, founder of Caring Friends.

Mr. Denis Chang presented his views from the legal perspective. His speech and PowerPoint were very clear and informative. We understand better why Ms. W lost her case to marry her boyfriend. Though she is anatomically a female, she does not pass the biological criteria set out in the Corbett vs. Corbett case in 1970: chromosomal, gonadal and genital. In a court of law, these three biological factors at birth is determinative of a person's sex for the purpose of marriage. Way back in 1866, the Hyde vs. Hyde case defined marriage as a voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Neither same sex marriage nor civil union is currently legal in Hong Kong. If Ms. W still wants to get married, she has to go elsewhere.
Mr. Chang continued with a sampling of Church teachings from the popes and Catechism of the Catholic Church. Before he finished with several challenges the Church has to face, he rounded off with the 10 principles of marriage and public good.
He made some off-the-record remarks which I think are more meaningful. First, he said that many present day challenges from the human rights groups are actually effected by a handful of lobbyists. This remark was followed up by the other two speakers who agreed that we should counteract by actively voicing our positions in the media. Do not let this minority monopolize the media.
Secondly, Mr. Chang said that we should speak more on the public good of marriage. Very often, we soften and show sympathy towards the human rights arguments.
Lastly, in enumerating the challenges, he showed worry about the Church being forced to obey secular laws that go against the core values of Christianity.

Dr. Lam was also systematic and pretty much philosophical. A front-line social worker turned academic, he analyzed the situation in 5 levels.
On the factual levels, he was rather optimistic in his interpretation of divorce and single-parent families statistics.
On the epistemological level, he believed that sexual preference is changeable. Gay people don't have to be gay throughout their life.
On the level of social policy, it was important to take care of the interests of the minority.
On the linguistic level, he made it clear that language could never be neutral. He warned that we should not allow gay people to hijack our language by, say demanding the Gay Parade Day to be celebrated and called Dragon Boat Festival because the patriotic poet was believed to be gay!
On the cultural level, we should follow the principle of continuity and preserve our core values. On this last level, I beg to disagree. Change is eternal. There can be evolutions, revolutions as well as paradigm shifts. The problem is, people reject revolution which when the time is ripe, will roll you over if you are unprepared.

Mr. Truscott was lively but he turned me off when he made use of his time to promote the book he wrote.

To end the seminar, Fr. Michael Yeung led the closing prayer. He did not lose the opportunity to say a few words on the topic, to enrich it theologically. He agreed with Mr. Chang that people nowadays suffer from relational poverty. Therefore, it is the more important to handle the pastoral issues with greater sensitivity. Though the pain of being imprisoned in the body of the wrong sex is genuine, we should not forget that God has a plan for all these sufferings. He finished his prayer with a reading from Romans 8 and a Hail Mary.

All in all, I think the speeches have failed to answer the question adequately. They only barely met the requirement of the sub-title --- what is traditional marriage. To deal with the question whether traditional marriage is outmoded, we need to approach it from the socio-cultural perspectives and the legal perspective is but one such perspective. Our society today is very different from the agricultural society in which the institution of marriage had served well. Outside the Church, marriage has long lost its sacramental significance. It is currently regarded as a contract, a business deal. Modern couples have long severed the bond between the unitive and procreative meanings of marriage. The kind of production activities, the mass media and our life styles have long changed. The core values advocated by the Church have been under severe attacks. But we still believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is God ordained. I am sure the dignitaries among the audience are well pleased with the speeches today. Yet, I am not satisfied.

---

p.s.
I was a bit puzzled about the Hyde vs. Hyde case way back in 1866. There wasn't any sexual alignment technology. I do not count castration. Therefore, the case should not be about the gender of the Hyde's. It must be something else. A simple search on the internet confirmed my suspicion. The case shows that the British legal system does not accept polygamy as a form of marriage. The British Matrimony Law only accepts the marriage of one man and one woman. Therefore, the British Matrimony Law cannot dissolve a polygamous union because such a union is not a marriage in the system. No divorce can be granted. Neither is there any alimony of one-third of husband's income etc.

September 14, 2011

What is your capacity?

Most of us are not greedy, but we usually want more: more food to eat, more money to spend and more space in my flat etc. Wanting more is not bad because it drives us to work better, harder and more efficiently. Doubtless to say, given the same attribute, we are different in our capacities.  For example money. Some people are very good at handling huge sums of money. Some, I for one, are idiots in managing their own as well as others' finance. I am too insensitive to monetary numerals whereas my eldest son, Hilary, is good at calculating financially. It is my belief that if we try to handle sums of money beyond our financial management capacities, we are doomed to bankrupt. Of course, I do not deny the readers' potential to develop their financial management talents.

The gospel reading today is well-known. Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive his brother. Was 7 times generous enough? No. Not enough, Jesus demanded 70 times 7 (Matthew 18:22). Then Jesus told the famous parable of a bad servant, in which a king forgave the 10,000 talents of debt owed by the bad servant who did not forgive the 100 denarii of his fellow servant. Of course, the king was angry and the bad servant is sent to jail until he repaid every cent (Matthew 18:23-34). The teaching is obvious. God is merciful in forgiving our sins. Therefore, we should forgive our brothers.
OK, some clarification of measurements: 1 denarius is the wage of 1 day. In Hong Kong, the minimum wage is set at $28 per hour since May 1 this year. Suppose a man works 10 hours a day. Therefore, 1 denarius is equivalent to $280. The fellow servant owed the bad servant $28,000 (roughly US$3,590).
On the other hand, 1 talent is equivalent to about 1200 ounces of gold which closed at US$1855 an ounce on September 10, 2011. Therefore, 1 talent worths roughly 2.2 million US Dollar ( $2,226,000) and 10,000 talents is 22 billion US Dollar, ranking 18^th in Forbes 2011 list (Bill Gates 56B and Li Ka-shing 26B)! How impressive but mind-numbing our debts are!

I am not trying to defend the bad servant. The fact is, for some people, $3,600 is easier to understand than $22,000,000,000. Many people who sit in committees to vet budgets must have the following experience. They spend less than 10 minutes to pass a billion-dollar project but many hours to debate whether it is value-for-money to spend $500 more to hire or to buy a new photocopying machine for teachers. Why is there such a difference? Size does matter. We think we understand $500 better than $1,000,000,000.
Similarly, twenty two billion is too mind-numbing. We do not know how bad our debt position is. Therefore, when God forgives us, we take it for granted. But we know what three thousand six hundred is. It hurts when you lose it. It hurts when you could have enjoyed 5 holiday package tours to Phuket happily. No wonder the bad servant was so fierce as to seize the throat of his fellow servant.
The king sent the bad servant to jail until he repaid in full. The bad servant would have enough time to learn what 22 billion means.

Let us return from the parable world to real life. Who can offend you often so that you can forgive them 70 times 7? They cannot be strangers or casual acquaintance whom we do not meet often. They must be people we see nearly everyday. They are, our immediate family members and colleagues in the workplace. They are people from whom you cannot run away. They can hurt you most. Here, we must face the fact that we cannot change them. What we can change is ourselves, our perception. In fact, to forgive them is to release ourselves. Here lies the wisdom. Indeed, by releasing, we increase our capacity. So, start releasing today.

Dear Lord, we are tiny vessels. Our capacity is meagre. Give us the grace we need to forgive so that we can increase our capacity to receive more grace from You. Amen.

My Brother's Keeper

When God asked Cain where his brother Abel, whom he had killed in envy, was, Cain retorted, saying "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9b) God did not refute him directly but the answer is obvious. We are our brothers' keepers. Why not? We should love our neighbour as ourselves. Isn't my brother one of my closest neighbour? We share the same genes!

In the immediate preceding section of today's gospel reading, we hear the same story of leaving behind 99 sheep to look for the one lost sheep and the joy of recovering it (Matthew 18:12-13). Jesus stated unambiguously that God rejoices in seeing sinners repent. He does not will to see anyone perish.
So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish (Matthew 18:14).
So be it that we should try our best to help our fallen brothers. Jesus himself has set an example for us. He came to reconcile us with God. Therefore, we help our fallen brothers through reconciliation. This is the theme of the reading next week. So, let us focus more on the theme today. Jesus told us a three-step procedure to settle disputes between members of the Church.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Matthew 18:15-17).

At first sight, we may find it strange to bring up the dispute between two people to the Church level if the two of them cannot settle it between themselves. After all, it is only a dispute between two people and cannot be more than personal. Why should we get so many people involved?
Our most likely response to disputes is to tolerate injustice done to us. This is Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:39-42, the Beatitudes. If we cannot tolerate but can afford the loss, we quit to save the trouble. We do not want to see the offender any more. (I have to admit that this attitude does not quite follow the spirit of the Beatitudes.) We will seek a third party to adjudicate if we cannot afford the loss. This kind of reasoning is understandable for us modern urban people because we have been brought up in an individualistic environment. We stress more and more about personal freedom and human rights. We identify ourselves less and less as members of a city, a nation and humanity at large. Consequently, we become more and more indifferent to the plights of our neighbour. However, in previous ages, people were more community-minded. They took it their responsibility the well-being of their neighbour. They did not simply want to redress their loss. They cared about the souls of their neighbour as well. Nowadays, we couldn't care less. In short, we are selfish and selfishness is a sin! Therefore, for the sake of our own soul, we had better follow Jesus' procedure.

I think here lies the mission of Christians in modern days. We need to uphold the spirit of the Gospel. We need to care about not only the welfare of our souls, but also those of our brothers'. We will be more like our heavenly Father if we rejoice in the recovery of the "little ones". Do we? Do we rather rejoice in seeing the bad guys punished?

The hardest thing to do is to take the first step, Fr. Milanese said this morning in the homily. We would rather choose the easy way out instead of facing our offender face to face. This is all very human, very natural. Here lies the challenge of the spirit of gospel. We don't have the courage to face our offenders without God's grace. However, like what the prophet Ezekiel said, God would hold us responsible for the fall of our brothers if we fail to bring them the warning message. He would mete out the same punishments to both of us.
If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death (Ezekiel 33:8).
How seriously do we take the Old Testament prophet's message?
Jesus took two steps further. We do not bring the warning message perfunctorily like what Jonah did to the people of Nineveh. We need to give our brothers ample chances to repent. If seeing our brothers face to face fails to solve the dispute, bring in a mediator, a middleman. Most civil cases would be settled in this stage. Of course, our brothers would think that we are gang up against them. They might bring in theirs and a controversy would arose. That is how the Church enters into the picture ... Unfortunately, when the secular government is involved, things become too complicated for us to discuss within the space allowed here. I am referring to those child abuse cases involving priests. May God have mercy on the souls of the victims and the offenders.

Dear Lord, grant me the virtue of charity so that I may be courageous enough to admit my faults. Amen.