|
Objection 1: It would seem that fraternal correction is not an act
of charity. For a gloss on Mt. 18:15, "If thy brother shall
offend against thee," says that "a man should reprove his brother out
of zeal for justice." But justice is a distinct virtue from charity.
Therefore fraternal correction is an act, not of charity, but of
justice.
Objection 2: Further, fraternal correction is given by secret
admonition. Now admonition is a kind of counsel, which is an act of
prudence, for a prudent man is one who is of good counsel (Ethic.
vi, 5). Therefore fraternal correction is an act, not of charity,
but of prudence.
Objection 3: Further, contrary acts do not belong to the same
virtue. Now it is an act of charity to bear with a sinner, according
to Gal. 6:2: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so you shall
fulfil the law of Christ," which is the law of charity. Therefore
it seems that the correction of a sinning brother, which is contrary to
bearing with him, is not an act of charity.
On the contrary, To correct the wrongdoer is a spiritual almsdeed.
But almsdeeds are works of charity, as stated above (Question 32,
Article 1). Therefore fraternal correction is an act of charity.
I answer that, The correction of the wrongdoer is a remedy which
should be employed against a man's sin. Now a man's sin may be
considered in two ways, first as being harmful to the sinner, secondly
as conducing to the harm of others, by hurting or scandalizing them,
or by being detrimental to the common good, the justice of which is
disturbed by that man's sin.
Consequently the correction of a wrongdoer is twofold, one which
applies a remedy to the sin considered as an evil of the sinner
himself. This is fraternal correction properly so called, which is
directed to the amendment of the sinner. Now to do away with anyone's
evil is the same as to procure his good: and to procure a person's
good is an act of charity, whereby we wish and do our friend well.
Consequently fraternal correction also is an act of charity, because
thereby we drive out our brother's evil, viz. sin, the removal of
which pertains to charity rather than the removal of an external loss,
or of a bodily injury, in so much as the contrary good of virtue is
more akin to charity than the good of the body or of external things.
Therefore fraternal correction is an act of charity rather than the
healing of a bodily infirmity, or the relieving of an external bodily
need. There is another correction which applies a remedy to the sin of
the wrongdoer, considered as hurtful to others, and especially to the
common good. This correction is an act of justice, whose concern it
is to safeguard the rectitude of justice between one man and another.
Reply to Objection 1: This gloss speaks of the second correction
which is an act of justice. Or if it speaks of the first correction,
then it takes justice as denoting a general virtue, as we shall state
further on (Question 58, Article 5), in which sense again all
"sin is iniquity" (1 Jn. 3:4), through being contrary to
justice.
Reply to Objection 2: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi,
12), prudence regulates whatever is directed to the end, about
which things counsel and choice are concerned. Nevertheless when,
guided by prudence, we perform some action aright which is directed to
the end of some virtue, such as temperance or fortitude, that action
belongs chiefly to the virtue to whose end it is directed. Since,
then, the admonition which is given in fraternal correction is directed
to the removal of a brother's sin, which removal pertains to charity,
it is evident that this admonition is chiefly an act of charity, which
virtue commands it, so to speak, but secondarily an act of prudence,
which executes and directs the action.
Reply to Objection 3: Fraternal correction is not opposed to
forbearance with the weak, on the contrary it results from it. For a
man bears with a sinner, in so far as he is not disturbed against him,
and retains his goodwill towards him: the result being that he strives
to make him do better.
|
|