|
Objection 1: It would seem that one ought not to forbear from
correcting someone through fear lest he become worse. For sin is
weakness of the soul, according to Ps. 6:3: "Have mercy on me,
O Lord, for I am weak." Now he that has charge of a sick person,
must not cease to take care of him, even if he be fractious or
contemptuous, because then the danger is greater, as in the case of
madmen. Much more, therefore should one correct a sinner, no matter
how badly he takes it.
Objection 2: Further, according to Jerome vital truths are not to
be foregone on account of scandal. Now God's commandments are vital
truths. Since, therefore, fraternal correction is a matter of
precept, as stated above (Article 2), it seems that it should not
be foregone for fear of scandalizing the person to be corrected.
Objection 3: Further, according to the Apostle (Rm. 3:8) we
should not do evil that good may come of it. Therefore, in like
manner, good should not be omitted lest evil befall. Now fraternal
correction is a good thing. Therefore it should not be omitted for
fear lest the person corrected become worse.
On the contrary, It is written (Prov. 9:8): "Rebuke not a
scorner lest he hate thee," where a gloss remarks: "You must not
fear lest the scorner insult you when you rebuke him: rather should you
bear in mind that by making him hate you, you may make him worse."
Therefore one ought to forego fraternal correction, when we fear lest
we may make a man worse.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 3) the correction of the
wrongdoer is twofold. One, which belongs to prelates, and is
directed to the common good, has coercive force. Such correction
should not be omitted lest the person corrected be disturbed, both
because if he is unwilling to amend his ways of his own accord, he
should be made to cease sinning by being punished, and because, if he
be incorrigible, the common good is safeguarded in this way, since the
order of justice is observed, and others are deterred by one being made
an example of. Hence a judge does not desist from pronouncing sentence
of condemnation against a sinner, for fear of disturbing him or his
friends.
The other fraternal correction is directed to the amendment of the
wrongdoer, whom it does not coerce, but merely admonishes.
Consequently when it is deemed probable that the sinner will not take
the warning, and will become worse, such fraternal correction should
be foregone, because the means should be regulated according to the
requirements of the end.
Reply to Objection 1: The doctor uses force towards a madman, who
is unwilling to submit to his treatment; and this may be compared with
the correction administered by prelates, which has coercive power, but
not with simple fraternal correction.
Reply to Objection 2: Fraternal correction is a matter of precept,
in so far as it is an act of virtue, and it will be a virtuous act in
so far as it is proportionate to the end. Consequently whenever it is
a hindrance to the end, for instance when a man becomes worse through
it, it is longer a vital truth, nor is it a matter precept.
Reply to Objection 3: Whatever is directed to end, becomes good
through being directed to the end. Hence whenever fraternal correction
hinders the end, namely the amendment of our brother, it is no longer
good, so that when such a correction is omitted, good is not omitted
lest evil should befall.
|
|