|
Objection 1: It would seem that the precept of fraternal correction
does not demand that a private admonition should precede denunciation.
For, in works of charity, we should above all follow the example of
God, according to Eph. 5:1,2: "Be ye followers of God, as
most dear children, and walk in love." Now God sometimes punishes a
man for a sin, without previously warning him in secret. Therefore it
seems that there is no need for a private admonition to precede
denunciation.
Objection 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Mendacio
xv), we learn from the deeds of holy men how we ought to understand
the commandments of Holy Writ. Now among the deeds of holy men we
find that a hidden sin is publicly denounced, without any previous
admonition in private. Thus we read (Gn. 37:2) that "Joseph
accused his brethren to his father of a most wicked crime": and
(Acts 5:4,9) that Peter publicly denounced Ananias and
Saphira who had secretly "by fraud kept back the price of the land,"
without beforehand admonishing them in private: nor do we read that
Our Lord admonished Judas in secret before denouncing him.
Therefore the precept does not require that secret admonition should
precede public denunciation.
Objection 3: Further, it is a graver matter to accuse than to
denounce. Now one may go to the length of accusing a person publicly,
without previously admonishing him in secret: for it is decided in the
Decretal (Cap. Qualiter, xiv, De Accusationibus) that
"nothing else need precede accusation except inscription." Therefore
it seems that the precept does not require that a secret admonition
should precede public denunciation.
Objection 4: Further, it does not seem probable that the customs
observed by religious in general are contrary to the precepts of
Christ. Now it is customary among religious orders to proclaim this
or that one for a fault, without any previous secret admonition.
Therefore it seems that this admonition is not required by the
precept.
Objection 5: Further, religious are bound to obey their prelates.
Now a prelate sometimes commands either all in general, or someone in
particular, to tell him if they know of anything that requires
correction. Therefore it would seem that they are bound to tell them
this, even before any secret admonition. Therefore the precept does
not require secret admonition before public denunciation.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 4) on
the words, "Rebuke him between thee and him alone" (Mt.
18:15): "Aiming at his amendment, while avoiding his
disgrace: since perhaps from shame he might begin to defend his sin;
and him whom you thought to make a better man, you make worse." Now
we are bound by the precept of charity to beware lest our brother become
worse. Therefore the order of fraternal correction comes under the
precept.
I answer that, With regard to the public denunciation of sins it is
necessary to make a distinction: because sins may be either public or
secret. In the case of public sins, a remedy is required not only for
the sinner, that he may become better, but also for others, who know
of his sin, lest they be scandalized. Wherefore such like sins should
be denounced in public, according to the saying of the Apostle (1
Tim. 5:20): "Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest
also may have fear," which is to be understood as referring to public
sins, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 7).
On the other hand, in the case of secret sins, the words of Our
Lord seem to apply (Mt. 18:15): "If thy brother shall
offend against thee," etc. For if he offend thee publicly in the
presence of others, he no longer sins against thee alone, but also
against others whom he 'disturbs. Since, however, a man's neighbor
may take offense even at his secret sins, it seems that we must make
yet a further distinction. For certain secret sins are hurtful to our
neighbor either in his body or in his soul, as, for instance, when a
man plots secretly to betray his country to its enemies, or when a
heretic secretly turns other men away from the faith. And since he
that sins thus in secret, sins not only against you in particular, but
also against others, it is necessary to take steps to denounce him at
once, in order to prevent him doing such harm, unless by chance you
were firmly persuaded that this evil result would be prevented by
admonishing him secretly. On the other hand there are other sins which
injure none but the sinner, and the person sinned against, either
because he alone is hurt by the sinner, or at least because he alone
knows about his sin, and then our one purpose should be to succor our
sinning brother: and just as the physician of the body restores the
sick man to health, if possible, without cutting off a limb, but, if
this be unavoidable, cuts off a limb which is least indispensable, in
order to preserve the life of the whole body, so too he who desires his
brother's amendment should, if possible, so amend him as regards his
conscience, that he keep his good name.
For a good name is useful, first of all to the sinner himself, not
only in temporal matters wherein a man suffers many losses, if he lose
his good name, but also in spiritual matters, because many are
restrained from sinning, through fear of dishonor, so that when a man
finds his honor lost, he puts no curb on his sinning. Hence Jerome
says on Mt. 18:15: "If he sin against thee, thou shouldst
rebuke him in private, lest he persist in his sin if he should once
become shameless or unabashed." Secondly, we ought to safeguard our
sinning brother's good name, both because the dishonor of one leads to
the dishonor of others, according to the saying of Augustine (Ep.
ad pleb. Hipponens. lxxviii): "When a few of those who bear a
name for holiness are reported falsely or proved in truth to have done
anything wrong, people will seek by busily repeating it to make it
believed of all": and also because when one man's sin is made public
others are incited to sin likewise.
Since, however, one's conscience should be preferred to a good
name, Our Lord wished that we should publicly denounce our brother
and so deliver his conscience from sin, even though he should forfeit
his good name. Therefore it is evident that the precept requires a
secret admonition to precede public denunciation.
Reply to Objection 1: Whatever is hidden, is known to God,
wherefore hidden sins are to the judgment of God, just what public
sins are to the judgment of man. Nevertheless God does rebuke sinners
sometimes by secretly admonishing them, so to speak, with an inward
inspiration, either while they wake or while they sleep, according to
Job 33:15-17: "By a dream in a vision by night, when deep
sleep falleth upon men . . . then He openeth the ears of men, and
teaching instructeth them in what they are to learn, that He may
withdraw a man from the things he is doing."
Reply to Objection 2: Our Lord as God knew the sin of Judas as
though it were public, wherefore He could have made it known at once.
Yet He did not, but warned Judas of his sin in words that were
obscure. The sin of Ananias and Saphira was denounced by Peter
acting as God's executor, by Whose revelation he knew of their sin.
With regard to Joseph it is probable that he warned his brethren,
though Scripture does not say so. Or we may say that the sin was
public with regard to his brethren, wherefore it is stated in the
plural that he accused "his brethren."
Reply to Objection 3: When there is danger to a great number of
people, those words of Our Lord do not apply, because then thy
brother does not sin against thee alone.
Reply to Objection 4: Proclamations made in the chapter of
religious are about little faults which do not affect a man's good
name, wherefore they are reminders of forgotten faults rather than
accusations or denunciations. If, however, they should be of such a
nature as to injure our brother's good name, it would be contrary to
Our Lord's precept, to denounce a brother's fault in this manner.
Reply to Objection 5: A prelate is not to be obeyed contrary to a
Divine precept, according to Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God
rather then men." Therefore when a prelate commands anyone to tell
him anything that he knows to need correction, the command rightly
understood supports the safeguarding of the order of fraternal
correction, whether the command be addressed to all in general, or to
some particular individual. If, on the other hand, a prelate were to
issue a command in express opposition to this order instituted by Our
Lord, both would sin, the one commanding, and the one obeying him,
as disobeying Our Lord's command. Consequently he ought not to be
obeyed, because a prelate is not the judge of secret things, but God
alone is, wherefore he has no power to command anything in respect of
hidden matters, except in so far as they are made known through certain
signs, as by ill-repute or suspicion; in which cases a prelate can
command just as a judge, whether secular or ecclesiastical, can bind a
man under oath to tell the truth.
|
|