Holding Someone Accountable is Not “Cancel Culture”

Let’s say there’s a public figure who says some pretty terrible things. People are understandably upset. Some people even demand the person is no longer invited for speaking engagements. As outrage over the comments grows, more and more people call for the public figure to no longer be treated as a public figure.

Is this cancel culture? It depends.

If you want a quick read on cancel culture vs. holding people accountable, JD Flynn’s tweet summarizes it perfectly.

Cancel culture: someone did something wrong, and no matter what he says, is exiled.

Accountability culture: someone did something wrong, and is invited to apologize, seek forgiveness, amend ways.

Suggesting that the latter is the former is a kind of gaslighting.

— JD Flynn (@jdflynn) February 7, 2021

I believe that, as Christians, we should be rightfully leery of “cancel culture,” but we should also recognize that accountability is important.

What is Cancel Culture?

I’ve noticed that some people tend to use the phrase “cancel culture” whenever people call for any form of correction or platform limitation for a public figure, organization, business, etc. However, I agree with JD when he defines “cancel culture” as someone being exiled no matter what.

In other words, I believe context matters when it comes to determining whether or not something is truly part of cancel culture.

I believe that, as Christians, we should be rightfully leery of "cancel culture," but we should also recognize that accountability is important. Click To Tweet

Unconditionally exiling someone for saying or doing something wrong absolutely should concern Christians (and anyone, really). We should want to see people have the opportunity to redeem themselves after making mistakes. As humans in a broken world, we are bound to make mistakes.

After all, if we participated in “cancel culture,” we wouldn’t have the words of people like St. Paul.

At the same time, we shouldn’t turn a blind eye when people say or do things that are harmful, particularly when they are in positions of influence.

We Need Accountability Culture

When there are calls to “cancel” someone, we must consider a number of factors.

Morality

First, we can look to our Catholic faith regarding the morality of an act. We know that there are three things that are the sources for the morality of an act (see CCC Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 4):

1. The object – is the action itself good, evil, or neutral?
2. The intent – did the person performing the act desire a good or evil outcome?
3. The circumstances – what influenced the person to perform the act?

Though intent and circumstances can’t make change something morally evil into a good act, it does give us some context for the situation.

Timing

Second, we should consider the time period and the frequency of the objectionable act. Did the person in question make one inappropriate comment 10 years ago, or are they repeatedly saying bad things in recent years?

Apologies

Third, we should consider their response to correction. Do they admit their mistake? Do they seem to be genuinely apologetic? Are they trying to do better? Again, I think we can look at the teachings of our Faith when it comes to repentance. Though these apply to the acts of the penitent, I think we can see connections to our apologies to others (parents may be familiar with Daniel Tiger’s “Saying I’m Sorry is The First Step”).

• Contrition: “Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”” (CCC 1451)
• Confession: “The confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others. Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.” (CCC 1455)
• Satisfaction: “Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much.” (CCC 1459)

We should even give people some grace if their initial response to correction is negative. No one enjoys being told they did something wrong. Their initial reaction may be defensive. But, we need to be patient and walk with people as they try to do better.

Accountability

When we take all these things into consideration, we can more fairly make judgments on whether or not it makes sense to ask that someone’s platform is limited until they admit their mistake and take actions to correct their mistake.

Cancel culture looks for permanent, unconditional punishment. It is not a Christian attitude. We should welcome opportunities for repentance from everyone and celebrate these growths.

Accountability culture opens the door for growth. It asks people to do better and walks with them during the learning process. Sometimes, accountability culture may call for a permanent removal (for example, a bishop removing a priest from public ministry), but the goal is for the individual to repent and for those who look to that person for guidance to understand the gravity of the mistake.

But…

I know that even with these distinctions, people may still take issue with some aspects of accountability culture. I want to address them briefly.

…that’s censorship!

Choosing to not allow someone to continue speaking at engagements or not promoting their materials is different from censoring them altogether. At the same time, we do “censor” things for the well-being of our society. We don’t allow certain acts to protect people.

Cancel culture is censorship.

Accountability culture looks at a number of factors to determine the best course of action. At the end of the day, the “censoring” isn’t about punishment; it is about helping people be the best they can.

On a related note, you should read Leslie Sholly’s recent blog post on free speech.

…they’ve done a lot of good!

I’ve seen people try to argue against accountability culture because the person who made the big mistake has also done a lot of good.

Cancel culture doesn’t care.

Accountability culture recognizes that someone has done a lot of good, but their big mistake does more harm than good. It acknowledges both the good and the bad. It recognizes that some mistakes are so dangerous, they outweigh the potential good of having someone continue having the same access as they did prior.

…cancel culture is inconsistent.

It is. That’s why we shouldn’t participate in cancel culture.

Accountability culture, on the other hand, looks at situations on a case-by-case basis. Though there will be mistakes in holding others accountable (we are all broken humans after all), it is more likely that it will be a well-reasoned action rather than cancel culture’s “you made me angry so you should never speak again.”

One Last Thing

While my husband and I discussed cancel culture vs. accountability culture, I realized something important: I need to pray for the people I want held accountable. This is a serious mistake on my part. Sure, I might’ve prayed when I saw their initial comment or offered up a brief prayer here and there. However, if I truly want to see them change, I need to remember that it is God who changes hearts.

So my challenge to all of us, myself included, is that we pray for the people we want held accountable more than we talk about them being held accountable. This doesn’t mean that we should stop calling for accountability; instead, we should be praying more.