Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum aliquis teneatur corrigere praelatum suum Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis non teneatur corrigere praelatum suum. Dicitur enim Exod. XIX, bestia quae tetigerit montem lapidabitur, et II Reg. VI dicitur quod Oza percussus est a domino quia tetigit arcam. Sed per montem et arcam significatur praelatus. Ergo praelati non sunt corrigendi a subditis. Objection 1: It would seem that no man is bound to correct his prelate. For it is written (Exod 19:12): The beast that shall touch the mount shall be stoned, and (2 Kgs 6:7) it is related that the Lord struck Oza for touching the ark. Now the mount and the ark signify our prelates. Therefore prelates should not be corrected by their subjects. Praeterea, Gal. II, super illud, in faciem ei restiti, dicit Glossa, ut par. Ergo, cum subditus non sit par praelato, non debet eum corrigere. Obj. 2: Further, a gloss on Gal. 2:11, I withstood him to the face, adds: as an equal. Therefore, since a subject is not equal to his prelate, he ought not to correct him. Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, sanctorum vitam corrigere non praesumat nisi qui de se meliora sentit. Sed aliquis non debet de se meliora sentire quam de praelato suo. Ergo praelati non sunt corrigendi. Obj. 3: Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 8) that one ought not to presume to reprove the conduct of holy men, unless one thinks better of oneself. But one ought not to think better of oneself than of one’s prelate. Therefore one ought not to correct one’s prelate. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in regula, non solum vestri, sed etiam ipsius, idest praelati, miseremini, qui inter vos quanto in loco superiore, tanto in periculo maiore versatur. Sed correctio fraterna est opus misericordiae. Ergo etiam praelati sunt corrigendi. On the contrary, Augustine says in his Rule: Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger. But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected. Respondeo dicendum quod correctio quae est actus iustitiae per coercionem poenae non competit subditis respectu praelati. Sed correctio fraterna, quae est actus caritatis, pertinet ad unumquemque respectu cuiuslibet personae ad quam caritatem debet habere, si in eo aliquid corrigibile inveniatur. I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction. Actus enim ex aliquo habitu vel potentia procedens se extendit ad omnia quae continentur sub obiecto illius potentiae vel habitus, sicut visio ad omnia quae continentur sub obiecto visus. Sed quia actus virtuosus debet esse moderatus debitis circumstantiis, ideo in correctione qua subditi corrigunt praelatos debet modus congruus adhiberi, ut scilicet non cum protervia et duritia, sed cum mansuetudine et reverentia corrigantur. Unde apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. V, seniorem ne increpaveris, sed obsecra ut patrem. Et ideo Dionysius redarguit Demophilum monachum quia sacerdotem irreverenter correxerat, eum percutiens et de Ecclesia eiiciens. Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim 5:1): An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father. Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod tunc praelatus inordinate tangi videtur quando irreverenter obiurgatur, vel etiam quando ei detrahitur. Et hoc significatur per contactum montis et arcae damnatum a Deo. Reply Obj. 1: It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God’s condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark. Ad secundum dicendum quod in faciem resistere coram omnibus excedit modum fraternae correctionis, et ideo sic Paulus Petrum non reprehendisset nisi aliquo modo par esset, quantum ad fidei defensionem. Sed in occulto admonere et reverenter, hoc potest etiam ille qui non est par. Unde apostolus, ad Coloss. ult., scribit ut praelatum suum admoneant, cum dicit, dicite Archippo, ministerium tuum imple. Sciendum tamen est quod ubi immineret periculum fidei, etiam publice essent praelati a subditis arguendi. Unde et Paulus, qui erat subditus Petro, propter imminens periculum scandali circa fidem, Petrum publice arguit. Et sicut Glossa Augustini dicit, ad Gal. II, ipse Petrus exemplum maioribus praebuit ut, sicubi forte rectum tramitem reliquissent, non dedignentur etiam a posterioribus corrigi. Reply Obj. 2: To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: Say to Archippus: Fulfill thy ministry. It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11, Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects. Ad tertium dicendum quod praesumere se esse simpliciter meliorem quam praelatus sit, videtur esse praesumptuosae superbiae. Sed aestimare se meliorem quantum ad aliquid non est praesumptionis, quia nullus est in hac vita qui non habeat aliquem defectum. Et etiam considerandum est quod cum aliquis praelatum caritative monet, non propter hoc se maiorem existimat, sed auxilium impartitur ei qui, quanto in loco superiori, tanto in periculo maiori versatur, ut Augustinus dicit, in regula. Reply Obj. 3: To presume oneself to be simply better than one’s prelate, would seem to savor of presumptuous pride; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without some fault. We must also remember that when a man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help to one who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger, as Augustine observes in his Rule quoted above. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum peccator corrigere debeat delinquentem Whether a sinner ought to reprove a wrongdoer? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccator corrigere debeat delinquentem. Nullus enim propter peccatum quod commisit a praecepto observando excusatur. Sed correctio fraterna cadit sub praecepto, ut dictum est. Ergo videtur quod propter peccatum quod quis commisit non debeat praetermittere huiusmodi correctionem. Objection 1: It would seem that a sinner ought to reprove a wrongdoer. For no man is excused from obeying a precept by having committed a sin. But fraternal correction is a matter of precept, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore it seems that a man ought not to forbear from such like correction for the reason that he has committed a sin. Praeterea, eleemosyna spiritualis est potior quam eleemosyna corporalis. Sed ille qui est in peccato non debet abstinere quin eleemosynam corporalem faciat. Ergo multo minus debet abstinere a correctione delinquentis propter peccatum praecedens. Obj. 2: Further, spiritual almsdeeds are of more account than corporal almsdeeds. Now one who is in sin ought not to abstain from administering corporal alms. Much less therefore ought he, on account of a previous sin, to refrain from correcting wrongdoers. Praeterea, I Ioan. I dicitur, si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nosipsos seducimus. Si igitur propter peccatum aliquis impeditur a correctione fraterna, nullus erit qui possit corrigere delinquentem. Hoc autem est inconveniens. Ergo et primum. Obj. 3: Further, it is written (1 John 1:8): If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Therefore if, on account of a sin, a man is hindered from reproving his brother, there will be none to reprove the wrongdoer. But the latter proposition is unreasonable: therefore the former is also. Sed contra est quod Isidorus dicit, in libro de summo bono, non debet vitia aliorum corrigere qui est vitiis subiectus. Et Rom. II dicitur, in quo alium iudicas, teipsum condemnas, eadem enim agis quae iudicas. On the contrary, Isidore says (De Summo Bono iii, 32): He that is subject to vice should not correct the vices of others. Again it is written (Rom 2:1): Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, correctio delinquentis pertinet ad aliquem inquantum viget in eo rectum iudicium rationis. Peccatum autem, ut supra dictum est, non tollit totum bonum naturae, quin remaneat in peccante aliquid de recto iudicio rationis. Et secundum hoc potest sibi competere alterius delictum arguere. Sed tamen per peccatum praecedens impedimentum quoddam huic correctioni affertur, propter tria. Primo quidem, quia ex peccato praecedenti indignus redditur ut alium corrigat. Et praecipue si maius peccatum commisit, non est dignus ut alium corrigat de minori peccato. Unde super illud Matth. VII, quid vides festucam etc., dicit Hieronymus, de his loquitur qui, cum mortali crimine detineantur obnoxii, minora peccata fratribus non concedunt. I answer that, As stated above (A. 3, ad 2), to correct a wrongdoer belongs to a man, insofar as his reason is gifted with right judgment. Now sin, as stated above (I-II, Q. 85, AA. 1, 2), does not destroy the good of nature so as to deprive the sinner’s reason of all right judgment, and in this respect he may be competent to find fault with others for committing sin. Nevertheless a previous sin proves somewhat of a hindrance to this correction, for three reasons. First because this previous sin renders a man unworthy to rebuke another; and especially is he unworthy to correct another for a lesser sin, if he himself has committed a greater. Hence Jerome says on the words, Why seest thou the mote? etc. (Matt 7:3): He is speaking of those who, while they are themselves guilty of mortal sin, have no patience with the lesser sins of their brethren. Secundo, redditur indebita correctio propter scandalum, quod sequitur ex correctione si peccatum corripientis sit manifestum, quia videtur quod ille qui corrigit non corrigat ex caritate, sed magis ad ostentationem. Unde super illud Matth. VII, quomodo dicis fratri tuo etc., exponit Chrysostomus, in quo proposito? Puta ex caritate, ut salves proximum tuum? Non, quia teipsum ante salvares. Vis ergo non alios salvare, sed per bonam doctrinam malos actus celare, et scientiae laudem ab hominibus quaerere. Second, such like correction becomes unseemly, on account of the scandal which ensues therefrom, if the corrector’s sin be well known, because it would seem that he corrects, not out of charity, but more for the sake of ostentation. Hence the words of Matt. 7:4, How sayest thou to thy brother? etc. are expounded by Chrysostom thus: That is—‘With what object?’ Out of charity, think you, that you may save your neighbor? No, because you would look after your own salvation first. What you want is, not to save others, but to hide your evil deeds with good teaching, and to seek to be praised by men for your knowledge. Tertio modo, propter superbiam corripientis, inquantum scilicet aliquis, propria peccata parvipendens, seipsum proximo praefert in corde suo, peccata eius austera severitate diiudicans, ac si ipse esset iustus. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, accusare vitia officium est bonorum, quod cum mali faciunt, alienas partes agunt. Et ideo, sicut Augustinus dicit in eodem, cogitemus, cum aliquem reprehendere nos necessitas coegerit, utrum tale sit vitium quod nunquam habuimus, et tunc cogitemus nos homines esse, et habere potuisse. Vel tale quod habuimus et iam non habemus, et tunc tangat memoriam communis fragilitas, ut illam correctionem non odium sed misericordia praecedat. Si autem invenerimus nos in eodem vitio esse, non obiurgemus, sed congemiscamus et ad pariter poenitendum invitemus. Ex his igitur patet quod peccator, si cum humilitate corripiat delinquentem, non peccat, nec sibi novam condemnationem acquirit; licet per hoc vel in conscientia fratris, vel saltem sua, pro peccato praeterito condemnabilem se esse ostendat. Third, on account of the rebuker’s pride; when, for instance, a man thinks lightly of his own sins, and, in his own heart, sets himself above his neighbor, judging the latter’s sins with harsh severity, as though he himself were a just man. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19): To reprove the faults of others is the duty of good and kindly men: when a wicked man rebukes anyone, his rebuke is the latter’s acquittal. And so, as Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19): When we have to find fault with anyone, we should think whether we were never guilty of his sin; and then we must remember that we are men, and might have been guilty of it; or that we once had it on our conscience, but have it no longer: and then we should bethink ourselves that we are all weak, in order that our reproof may be the outcome, not of hatred, but of pity. But if we find that we are guilty of the same sin, we must not rebuke him, but groan with him, and invite him to repent with us. It follows from this that, if a sinner reprove a wrongdoer with humility, he does not sin, nor does he bring a further condemnation on himself, although thereby he proves himself deserving of condemnation, either in his brother’s or in his own conscience, on account of his previous sin. Unde patet responsio ad obiecta. Hence the Replies to the Objections are clear. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum aliquis debeat a correctione cessare propter timorem ne ille fiat deterior Whether one ought to forbear from correcting someone, through fear lest he become worse? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis non debeat a correctione cessare propter timorem ne ille fiat deterior. Peccatum enim est quaedam infirmitas animae, secundum illud Psalm., miserere mei, domine, quoniam infirmus sum. Sed ille cui imminet cura infirmi etiam propter eius contradictionem vel contemptum non debet cessare, quia tunc imminet maius periculum, sicut patet circa furiosos. Ergo multo magis debet homo peccantem corrigere, quantumcumque graviter ferat. 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. Praeterea, secundum Hieronymum, veritas vitae non est dimittenda propter scandalum. Praecepta autem Dei pertinent ad veritatem vitae. Cum ergo correctio fraterna cadat sub praecepto, ut dictum est, videtur quod non sit dimittenda propter scandalum eius qui corripitur. Obj. 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 (A. 2), it seems that it should not be foregone for fear of scandalizing the person to be corrected. Praeterea, secundum apostolum, ad Rom. III, non sunt facienda mala ut veniant bona. Ergo, pari ratione, non sunt praetermittenda bona ne veniant mala. Sed correctio fraterna est quoddam bonum. Ergo non est praetermittenda propter timorem ne ille qui corripitur fiat deterior. Obj. 3: Further, according to the Apostle (Rom 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. Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. IX, noli arguere derisorem, ne oderit te, ubi dicit Glossa, non est timendum ne tibi derisor, cum arguitur, contumelias inferat, sed hoc potius providendum, ne, tractus ad odium, inde fiat peior. Ergo cessandum est a correctione fraterna quando timetur ne fiat ille inde deterior. 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. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, duplex est correctio delinquentis. Una quidem pertinens ad praelatos, quae ordinatur ad bonum commune, et habet vim coactivam. Et talis correctio non est dimittenda propter turbationem eius qui corripitur. Tum quia, si propria sponte emendari non velit, cogendus est per poenas ut peccare desistat. Tum etiam quia, si incorrigibilis sit, per hoc providetur bono communi, dum servatur ordo iustitiae, et unius exemplo alii deterrentur. Unde iudex non praetermittit ferre sententiam condemnationis in peccantem propter timorem turbationis ipsius, vel etiam amicorum eius. I answer that, As stated above (A. 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. Alia vero est correctio fraterna, cuius finis est emendatio delinquentis, non habens coactionem sed simplicem admonitionem. Et ideo ubi probabiliter aestimatur quod peccator admonitionem non recipiat, sed ad peiora labatur, est ab huiusmodi correctione desistendum, quia ea quae sunt ad finem debent regulari secundum quod exigit ratio finis. 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod medicus quadam coactione utitur in phreneticum, qui curam eius recipere non vult. Et huic similatur correctio praelatorum, quae habet vim coactivam, non autem simplex correctio fraterna. Reply Obj. 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod de correctione fraterna datur praeceptum secundum quod est actus virtutis. Hoc autem est secundum quod proportionatur fini. Et ideo quando est impeditiva finis, puta cum efficitur homo deterior, iam non pertinet ad veritatem vitae, nec cadit sub praecepto. Reply Obj. 2: Fraternal correction is a matter of precept, insofar as it is an act of virtue, and it will be a virtuous act insofar 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 no longer a vital truth, nor is it a matter of precept. Ad tertium dicendum quod ea quae ordinantur ad finem habent rationem boni ex ordine ad finem. Et ideo correctio fraterna, quando est impeditiva finis, scilicet emendationis fratris, iam non habet rationem boni. Et ideo cum praetermittitur talis correctio, non praetermittitur bonum ne eveniat malum. Reply Obj. 3: Whatever is directed to an 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. Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum in correctione fraterna debeat, ex necessitate praecepti, admonitio secreta praecedere denuntiationem Whether the precept of fraternal correction demands that a private admonition should precede denunciation? Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in correctione fraterna non debeat, ex necessitate praecepti, admonitio secreta praecedere denuntiationem. Operibus enim caritatis praecipue debemus Deum imitari, secundum illud Ephes. V, estote imitatores Dei, sicut filii carissimi, et ambulate in dilectione. Deus autem interdum publice punit hominem pro peccato nulla secreta monitione praecedente. Ergo videtur quod non sit necessarium admonitionem secretam praecedere denuntiationem. 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. Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro contra mendacium, ex gestis sanctorum intelligi potest qualiter sunt praecepta sacrae Scripturae intelligenda. Sed in gestis sanctorum invenitur facta publica denuntiatio peccati occulti nulla secreta monitione praecedente, sicut legitur Gen. XXXVII quod Ioseph accusavit fratres suos apud patrem crimine pessimo; et Act. V dicitur quod Petrus Ananiam et Saphiram, occulte defraudantes de pretio agri, publice denuntiavit nulla secreta admonitione praemissa. Ipse etiam dominus non legitur secreto admonuisse Iudam antequam eum denuntiaret. Non ergo est de necessitate praecepti ut secreta admonitio praecedat publicam denuntiationem. Obj. 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 (Gen 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.