|
Objection 1: It would seem that fraternal correction is not a matter
of precept. For nothing impossible is a matter of precept, according
to the saying of Jerome [Pelagius, Expos. Symb. ad Damas]:
"Accursed be he who says that God has commanded any. thing
impossible." Now it is written (Eccles. 7:14): "Consider
the works of God, that no man can correct whom He hath despised."
Therefore fraternal correction is not a matter of precept.
Objection 2: Further, all the precepts of the Divine Law are
reduced to the precepts of the Decalogue. But fraternal correction
does not come under any precept of the Decalogue. Therefore it is not
a matter of precept.
Objection 3: Further, the omission of a Divine precept is a mortal
sin, which has no place in a holy man. Yet holy and spiritual men are
found to omit fraternal correction: since Augustine says (De Civ.
Dei i, 9): "Not only those of low degree, but also those of high
position, refrain from reproving others, moved by a guilty cupidity,
not by the claims of charity." Therefore fraternal correction is not
a matter of precept.
Objection 4: Further, whatever is a matter of precept is something
due. If, therefore, fraternal correction is a matter of precept, it
is due to our brethren that we correct them when they sin. Now when a
man owes anyone a material due, such as the payment of a sum of money,
he must not be content that his creditor come to him, but he should
seek him out, that he may pay him his due. Hence we should have to go
seeking for those who need correction, in order that we might correct
them; which appears to be inconvenient, both on account of the great
number of sinners, for whose correction one man could not suffice, and
because religious would have to leave the cloister in order to reprove
men, which would be unbecoming. Therefore fraternal correction is not
a matter of precept.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 4):
"You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him." But
this would not be so unless, by this neglect, one omitted to observe
some precept. Therefore fraternal correction is a matter of precept.
I answer that, Fraternal correction is a matter of precept. We must
observe, however, that while the negative precepts of the Law forbid
sinful acts, the positive precepts inculcate acts of virtue. Now
sinful acts are evil in themselves, and cannot become good, no matter
how, or when, or where, they are done, because of their very nature
they are connected with an evil end, as stated in Ethic. ii, 6:
wherefore negative precepts bind always and for all times. On the
other hand, acts of virtue must not be done anyhow, but by observing
the due circumstances, which are requisite in order that an act be
virtuous; namely, that it be done where, when, and how it ought to
be done. And since the disposition of whatever is directed to the end
depends on the formal aspect of the end, the chief of these
circumstances of a virtuous act is this aspect of the end, which in
this case is the good of virtue. If therefore such a circumstance be
omitted from a virtuous act, as entirely takes away the good of
virtue, such an act is contrary to a precept. If, however, the
circumstance omitted from a virtuous act be such as not to destroy the
virtue altogether, though it does not perfectly attain the good of
virtue, it is not against a precept. Hence the Philosopher
(Ethic. ii, 9) says that if we depart but little from the mean,
it is not contrary to the virtue, whereas if we depart much from the
mean virtue is destroyed in its act. Now fraternal correction is
directed to a brother's amendment: so that it is a matter of precept,
in so far as it is necessary for that end, but not so as we have to
correct our erring brother at all places and times.
Reply to Objection 1: In all good deeds man's action is not
efficacious without the Divine assistance: and yet man must do what is
in his power. Hence Augustine says (De Correp. et Gratia xv):
"Since we ignore who is predestined and who is not, charity should so
guide our feelings, that we wish all to be saved." Consequently we
ought to do our brethren the kindness of correcting them, with the hope
of God's help.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question 32, Article
5, ad 4), all the precepts about rendering service to our neighbor
are reduced to the precept about the honor due to parents.
Reply to Objection 3: Fraternal correction may be omitted in three
ways.
First, meritoriously, when out of charity one omits to correct
someone. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 9): "If a man
refrains from chiding and reproving wrongdoers, because he awaits a
suitable time for so doing, or because he fears lest, if he does so,
they may become worse, or hinder, oppress, or turn away from the
faith, others who are weak and need to be instructed in a life of
goodness and virtue, this does not seem to result from covetousness,
but to be counselled by charity."
Secondly, fraternal correction may be omitted in such a way that one
commits a mortal sin, namely, "when" (as he says in the same
passage) "one fears what people may think, or lest one may suffer
grievous pain or death; provided, however, that the mind is so
dominated by such things, that it gives them the preference to
fraternal charity." This would seem to be the case when a man reckons
that he might probably withdraw some wrongdoer from sin, and yet omits
to do so, through fear or covetousness.
Thirdly, such an omission is a venial sin, when through fear or
covetousness, a man is loth to correct his brother's faults, and yet
not to such a degree, that if he saw clearly that he could withdraw him
from sin, he would still forbear from so doing, through fear or
covetousness, because in his own mind he prefers fraternal charity to
these things. It is in this way that holy men sometimes omit to
correct wrongdoers.
Reply to Objection 4: We are bound to pay that which is due to some
fixed and certain person, whether it be a material or a spiritual
good, without waiting for him to come to us, but by taking proper
steps to find him. Wherefore just as he that owes money to a creditor
should seek him, when the time comes, so as to pay him what he owes,
so he that has spiritual charge of some person is bound to seek him
out, in order to reprove him for a sin. On the other hand, we are
not bound to seek someone on whom to bestow such favors as are due, not
to any certain person, but to all our neighbors in general, whether
those favors be material or spiritual goods, but it suffices that we
bestow them when the opportunity occurs; because, as Augustine says
(De Doctr. Christ. i, 28), we must look upon this as a matter
of chance. For this reason he says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 1)
that "Our Lord warns us not to be listless in regard of one
another's sins: not indeed by being on the lookout for something to
denounce, but by correcting what we see": else we should become spies
on the lives of others, which is against the saying of Prov.
24:19: "Lie not in wait, nor seek after wickedness in the house
of the just, nor spoil his rest." It is evident from this that there
is no need for religious to leave their cloister in order to rebuke
evil-doers.
|
|