|
Objection 1: It would seem that one ought not to suffer oneself to
be reviled. For he that suffers himself to be reviled, encourages the
reviler. But one ought not to do this. Therefore one ought not to
suffer oneself to be reviled, but rather reply to the reviler.
Objection 2: Further, one ought to love oneself more than another.
Now one ought not to suffer another to be reviled, wherefore it is
written (Prov. 26:10): "He that putteth a fool to silence
appeaseth anger." Therefore neither should one suffer oneself to be
reviled.
Objection 3: Further, a man is not allowed to revenge himself, for
it is said: "Vengeance belongeth to Me, I will repay" [Heb.
10:30]. Now by submitting to be reviled a man revenges himself,
according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxii, in Ep. ad Rom.): "If
thou wilt be revenged, be silent; thou hast dealt him a fatal blow."
Therefore one ought not by silence to submit to reviling words, but
rather answer back.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 37:13): "They that
sought evils to me spoke vain things," and afterwards (Ps.
37:14) he says: "But I as a deaf man, heard not; and as a
dumb man not opening his mouth."
I answer that, Just as we need patience in things done against us,
so do we need it in those said against us. Now the precepts of
patience in those things done against us refer to the preparedness of
the mind, according to Augustine's (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i,
19) exposition on our Lord's precept, "If one strike thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him also the other": that is to say, a man
ought to be prepared to do so if necessary. But he is not always bound
to do this actually: since not even did our Lord do so, for when He
received a blow, He said: "Why strikest thou Me?" (Jn.
18:23). Consequently the same applies to the reviling words that
are said against us. For we are bound to hold our minds prepared to
submit to be reviled, if it should be expedient. Nevertheless it
sometimes behooves us to withstand against being reviled, and this
chiefly for two reasons. First, for the good of the reviler;
namely, that his daring may be checked, and that he may not repeat the
attempt, according to Prov. 26:5, "Answer a fool according to
his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise." Secondly, for the
good of many who would be prevented from progressing in virtue on
account of our being reviled. Hence Gregory says (Hom. ix, Super
Ezech.): "Those who are so placed that their life should be an
example to others, ought, if possible, to silence their detractors,
lest their preaching be not heard by those who could have heard it, and
they continue their evil conduct through contempt of a good life."
Reply to Objection 1: The daring of the railing reviler should be
checked with moderation, i.e. as a duty of charity, and not through
lust for one's own honor. Hence it is written (Prov. 26:4):
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like him."
Reply to Objection 2: When one man prevents another from being
reviled there is not the danger of lust for one's own honor as there is
when a man defends himself from being reviled: indeed rather would it
seem to proceed from a sense of charity.
Reply to Objection 3: It would be an act of revenge to keep silence
with the intention of provoking the reviler to anger, but it would be
praiseworthy to be silent, in order to give place to anger. Hence it
is written (Ecclus. 8:4): "Strive not with a man that is full
of tongue, and heap not wood upon his fire."
|
|