Q33. Fraternal correction

Secunda Secundae · chapter 33 of 184 · ▶ Speed Read

Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q33. Fraternal correction

Source context

Theme: obligatory correction of a neighbor's moral fault as an act of charity
Soul-faculty: Consciousness Soul

Steiner

not engaged in the GA corpus

Cross-tradition

Jewish Halakha (tokhahah)The rabbinic obligation of tokhahah (Leviticus 19:17) requires reproof of a fellow Jew who sins, structurally paralleling Aquinas's claim that fraternal correction is an act of charity owed to one's neighbor, not a discretionary kindness.
Stoic ethics (parrhesia)The Stoic practice of frank speech (parrhesia) toward those in moral error carries a cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's insistence that correction must be private before public and motivated by the good of the errant soul rather than by reproach.

Article 1

[II-II.q.33.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that fraternal correction is not an act of charity. For a gloss on Matthew 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod corpus Christi non fuerit formatum in primo instanti conceptionis. Dicitur enim Jo., 11, 20: Quadraginta et sex annis ædificatum est templum hoc: quod exponens Augustinus, IV De Trinit., cap. v, col. 893, t. 8, dicit: «Hic numerus perfectioni dominici corporis aperte congruit;» et in lib. LXXXIII QQ., qu. LVI, col. 39, t. 6: «Non absurde quadraginta sex annis dicitur fabricatum esse templum, quod corpus ejus significabat, ut quot anni fuerunt in fabricatione templi, tot dies fuerint in corporis dominici perfectione.» Non ergo filiorum. Sed S. Thomas non admittit quod generativa potentia sit active in femina. S. Bonaventura addit quod B. Virgo genuisset active, nisi præventa fuisset a Spiritu Sancto. in primo instanti conceptionis corpus Christi fuit perfecte formatum.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.arg.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, ad formationem corporis Christi requirebatur motus localis, quo purissimi sanguines de corpore Virginis ad locum generationi congruum perveni rent. Nullum autem corpus potest moveri localiter in instanti, eo quod tempus motus dividitur secundum divisionem mobilis, ut probatur in VI Physic., text. 37 et 38. Ergo corpus Christi non fuit in instanti formatum.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.arg.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 Galatians 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, corpus Christi formatum est ex purissimis sanguinibus Virginis, ut supra habitum est. Non autem potuit esse materia illa in eodem instanti sanguis et caro, quia sic materia simul fuisset sub duabus formis. Ergo aliud fuit instans in quo ultimo fuit sanguis, et aliud in quo primo fuit caro formata. Sed inter quælibet duo instantia est tempus medium. Ergo corpus Christi non fuit in instanti formatum, sed per aliquod tempus.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.sc] 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit XVIII Moral., §85, col. 90, t. 2: «Angelo nuntiante, et adveniente Spiritu sancto, mox verbum in utero, mox intra uterum Verbum caro. »

[II-II.q.33.a.1.co] 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in conceptione corporis Christi tria est considerare: primo quidem motum localem sanguinis ad locum generationis; secundo, formationem corporis ex tali materia; tertio autem augmentum, quo perducitur ad quantitatem perfectam; in quorum medio ratio conceptionis consistit; nam primum est conceptionis præambulum; tertium autem conceptionem consequitur. Primum autem non potuit esse in instanti, quia hoc est contra ipsam rationem motus localis corporis cujus- 1 In 2 Ita septem Cod. Paris.; Sed ipsa formatio corporis, in qua principaliter ratio conceptionis consistit, fuit in instanti, duplici ratione. Primo quidem propter virtutem agentis infinitam: scilicet Spiritus sancti, per quem corpus Christi est formatum, ut supra dictum est. Tanto enim aliquod agens citius potest materiam disponere, quanto majoris virtutis est: unde agens infinitæ virtutis potest in instanti materiam disponere ad debitam formam. Secundo ex parte personæ Filii, cujus corpus formabatur. Non enim erat congruum ut corpus humanum assumeret, nisi formatum. Si autem ante formationem perfectam aliquod tempus conceptionis præcessisset, non posset tota conceptio attribui Filio Dei, quæ non attribuitur ei nisi ratione assumptionis. Et ideo in primo instanti quo materia adunata pervenit ad locum generationis, fuit perfecte formatum corpus Christi et assumptum. Et per hoc dicitur ipse Filius Dei conceptus, quod aliter dici non posset.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.ad.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 (58, 5), in which sense again all "sin is iniquity" (1 John 3:4), through being contrary to justice.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod verbum Augustini utrobique non refertur ad solam formationem corporis Christi, sed ad formationem simul cum determinato augmento usque ad tempus partus. Unde secundum rationem illius numeri dicit perfici tempus novem mensium, quo Christus fuit in utero Virginis.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod motus ille localis non comprehenditur infra ipsam conceptionem, sed est conceptionis præambulus.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod non est assignare ultimum instans, in quo materia illa fuit sanguis: sed est assignare ultimum tempus, quod continuatur nullo interveniente medio ad primum instans in quo fuit caro Christi formata: et hoc instans fuit terminus temporis motus localis materiae ad motum generationis.

Article 2

[II-II.q.33.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that fraternal correction is not a matter of precept. For nothing impossible is a matter of precept, according to the saying of Jerome [Pelagius, Expos. Symb. ad Damas]: "Accursed be he who says that God has commanded any. thing impossible." Now it is written (Ecclesiastes 7:14): "Consider the works of God, that no man can correct whom He hath despised." Therefore fraternal correction is not a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod correctio fraterna non sit in præcepto. Nihil enim quod est impossibile cadit sub præcepto, secundum illud Hieronymi: «Maledictus qui dicit Deum aliquid impossibile præcepisse. » Sed Eccli., vii, 14, dicitur: Considera opera Dei, quod nemo possit corrigere quem ille despexerit. Ergo correctio fraterna non est in præcepto.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.arg.2] Further, all the precepts of the Divine Law are reduced to the precepts of the Decalogue. But fraternal correction does not come under any precept of the Decalogue. Therefore it is not a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, anima sicut quælibet forma naturalis, requirit determinatam quantitatem in sua materia. Sed in primo instanti conceptionis corpus Christi non habuit tantam quantitatem quantam habent corpora aliorum hominum quando animantur: alioquin si continue fuisset postmodum augmentatum, vel citius fuisset natum, vel in sua nativitate fuisset majoris quantitatis quam alii infantes: quorum primum est contra Augustinum, IV De Trinit., cap. v, col. 893, t. 8, ubi probat eum spatio novem mensium in utero Virginis fuisse; secundum autem est contra Leonem Papam, qui in Sermone iv Epiphaniæ, c. 111, col. 247, t. 1, dicit quod Magi invenerunt puerum Jesum « in nullo ab humanæ infantiæ generalitate dissimilem 1. » Non ergo corpus Christi fuit animatum in primo instanti suæ conceptionis.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.arg.3] Further, the omission of a Divine precept is a mortal sin, which has no place in a holy man. Yet holy and spiritual men are found to omit fraternal correction: since Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 9): "Not only those of low degree, but also those of high position, refrain from reproving others, moved by a guilty cupidity, not by the claims of charity." Therefore fraternal correction is not a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ubicumque est prius et posterius oportet esse plura instantia. Sed secundum Philosophum in libro II De generatione animalium, cap. 111, circ. princ., et cap. iv, ad fin., in generatione hominis requiritur prius et posterius; prius enim est vivum, et postea animal, et postea homo. Ergo non potuit animatio Christi perfici in primo instanti suæ conceptionis.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.arg.4] Further, whatever is a matter of precept is something due. If, therefore, fraternal correction is a matter of precept, it is due to our brethren that we correct them when they sin. Now when a man owes anyone a material due, such as the payment of a sum of money, he must not be content that his creditor come to him, but he should seek him out, that he may pay him his due. Hence we should have to go seeking for those who need correction, in order that we might correct them; which appears to be inconvenient, both on account of the great number of sinners, for whose correction one man could not suffice, and because religious would have to leave the cloister in order to reprove men, which would be unbecoming. Therefore fraternal correction is not a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.arg.4] 4. Præterea, illud quod est in præcepto ratione effectus, quia homo non vult æternaliter damnari, quod tamen est effectus peccati mortalis, de quo solo regulariter correctio fraterna ex præcepto fieri debet. Est insuper peccatum semper contra rationalem inclinationem voluntatis; nam rationalis inclination voluntatis est semper ad bonum non ad peccatum; et hoc modo peccatum semper est miseria quædam. Definiri potest correctio fraterna: actus charitatis et misericordiae, quo per convenientem sermonem, vel aliquid æquivalens, proximum a malo peccati ad bonum virtutis convertere nitimur. — Dicitur actus charitatis et misericordiae, quia imperatur a charitate, et elicitur a misericordia. — « Per convenientem sermonem, » quia magna prudentia opus est ad corripiendum fraterne proximum. — « Vel aliquid æquivalens, » quia potest etiam fieri signis, vel alio quocumque modo utili ad removendum proximum a peccato. — « A malo peccati, » quia non solum de peccato commisso sed etiam de peccato futuro imminenti agitur, et sive dicatur correptio, sive monitio, sive instructio, sive consilium, perinde est. Definitur alio modo correctio fraterna: charitativa monitio facta a privato, aut quasi privato, ad emendandum vel impediendum peccatum proximi, procedens ex ipsius et Dei dilectione. Dicitur « charitativa, » quia ex charitate et habet rationem debiti. Si ergo correctio fraterna caderet sub præcepto, hoc fratribus deberemus ut eos peccantes corrigeremus. Sed ille qui debet alicui debitum corporale, puta pecuniam, non debet esse contentus, ut ei occurrat creditor; sed debet eum quærere, ut debitum reddat. Oporteret ergo quod homo quæreret correctione indigentes, ad hoc quod eos corrigeret; quod videtur inconveniens, tum propter multitudinem pecantium, ad quorum correctionem unus homo non posset sufficere; tum etiam quia oporteret quod religiosi de claustris suis exirent ad corrigendos homines; quod est inconveniens. Non ergo fraterna correctio est in præcepto.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.sc] Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 4): "You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him." But this would not be so unless, by this neglect, one omitted to observe some precept. Therefore fraternal correction is a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit in III lib. Orth. fid., cap. 111, col. 987, t. 1: « Simul caro, simul Dei Verbi caro, simul caro animata anima rationali et intellectuali. »

[II-II.q.33.a.2.co] Fraternal correction is a matter of precept. We must observe, however, that while the negative precepts of the Law forbid sinful acts, the positive precepts inculcate acts of virtue. Now sinful acts are evil in themselves, and cannot become good, no matter how, or when, or where, they are done, because of their very nature they are connected with an evil end, as stated in Ethic. ii, 6: wherefore negative precepts bind always and for all times. On the other hand, acts of virtue must not be done anyhow, but by observing the due circumstances, which are requisite in order that an act be virtuous; namely, that it be done where, when, and how it ought to be done. And since the disposition of whatever is directed to the end depends on the formal aspect of the end, the chief of these circumstances of a virtuous act is this aspect of the end, which in this case is the good of virtue. If therefore such a circumstance be omitted from a virtuous act, as entirely takes away the good of virtue, such an act is contrary to a precept. If, however, the circumstance omitted from a virtuous act be such as not to destroy the virtue altogether, though it does not perfectly attain the good of virtue, it is not against a precept. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 9) says that if we depart but little from the mean, it is not contrary to the virtue, whereas if we depart much from the mean virtue is destroyed in its act. Now fraternal correction is directed to a brother's amendment: so that it is a matter of precept, in so far as it is necessary for that end, but not so as we have to correct our erring brother at all places and times.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod ad hoc quod conceptio ipsi Filio Dei attribuatur, ut in Symbolo confitemur dicentes: Qui conceptus est de Spiritu sancto, necesse est dicere ipsum corpus Christi, dum conciperetur, esse a Verbo Dei assumptum. Ostensum est autem supra, quod Verbum Dei assumpsit corpus, mediante anima, et animam mediante spiritu, id est, intellectu. Unde oportuit quod in primo instanti conceptionis corpus Christi esset animatum anima rationali.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.ad.1] In all good deeds man's action is not efficacious without the Divine assistance: and yet man must do what is in his power. Hence Augustine says (De Correp. et Gratia xv): "Since we ignore who is predestined and who is not, charity should so guide our feelings, that we wish all to be saved." Consequently we ought to do our brethren the kindness of correcting them, with the hope of God's help.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod principium inspirationis animæ potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo secundum dispositionem corporis: et sic non ab alio principio inspirata est anima corpori Christi et corporibus aliorum hominum: sicut enim statim formato corpore alterius hominis infunditur anima, ita fuit in Christo. Alio modo potest considerari dictum principium solum secundum tempus: et sic quia prius tempore formatum fuit perfecte corpus Christi, prius tempore fuit etiam animatum.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.ad.2] As stated above (32, 5, ad 4), all the precepts about rendering service to our neighbor are reduced to the precept about the honor due to parents.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod anima requirit debitam quantitatem in materia cui infunditur; sed ista quantitas quam-dam latitudinem habet, quia et in majori et in minori quantitate salvatur. Quantitas autem corporis, quam habet cum primo sibi infunditur anima, proportio-natur quantitati perfectæ ad quam per augmentum perveniet; ita scilicet quod majorum hominum majorem quantitatem corpora habent in prima animatione. Christus autem in perfecta ætate habuit decentem et mediocrem quantitatem, cui 1 Ita Mss. et edit. melioris notæ cum textu S. Leonis. proportionabatur quantitas quam corpus ejus habuit in tempore quo aliorum hominum corpora animantur, minorem tamen habuit in principio suæ conceptionis; sed tamen illa parva quantitas non erat tam parva, ut in ea non posset rationalis anima conservari; cum in tali quantitate quorumdam parvorum hominum corpora animentur.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.ad.3] Fraternal correction may be omitted in three ways.

First, meritoriously, when out of charity one omits to correct someone. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 9): "If a man refrains from chiding and reproving wrongdoers, because he awaits a suitable time for so doing, or because he fears lest, if he does so, they may become worse, or hinder, oppress, or turn away from the faith, others who are weak and need to be instructed in a life of goodness and virtue, this does not seem to result from covetousness, but to be counselled by charity."

Secondly, fraternal correction may be omitted in such a way that one commits a mortal sin, namely, "when" (as he says in the same passage) "one fears what people may think, or lest one may suffer grievous pain or death; provided, however, that the mind is so dominated by such things, that it gives them the preference to fraternal charity." This would seem to be the case when a man reckons that he might probably withdraw some wrongdoer from sin, and yet omits to do so, through fear or covetousness.

Thirdly, such an omission is a venial sin, when through fear or covetousness, a man is loth to correct his brother's faults, and yet not to such a degree, that if he saw clearly that he could withdraw him from sin, he would still forbear from so doing, through fear or covetousness, because in his own mind he prefers fraternal charity to these things. It is in this way that holy men sometimes omit to correct wrongdoers.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod in generatione aliorum hominum locum habet quod dicit Philosophus propter hoc quod successive corpus formatur et disponitur ad animam: unde primo tamquam imperfecte dispositum recipit animam imperfectam, et postmodum, quando perfecte est dispositum, recipit animam perfectam. Sed corpus Christi propter infinitam virtutem agentis fuit perfecte dispositum in instanti: unde statim in primo instanti recepit formam perfectam, id est, animam rationalem.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.ad.4] We are bound to pay that which is due to some fixed and certain person, whether it be a material or a spiritual good, without waiting for him to come to us, but by taking proper steps to find him. Wherefore just as he that owes money to a creditor should seek him, when the time comes, so as to pay him what he owes, so he that has spiritual charge of some person is bound to seek him out, in order to reprove him for a sin. On the other hand, we are not bound to seek someone on whom to bestow such favors as are due, not to any certain person, but to all our neighbors in general, whether those favors be material or spiritual goods, but it suffices that we bestow them when the opportunity occurs; because, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28), we must look upon this as a matter of chance. For this reason he says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 1) that "Our Lord warns us not to be listless in regard of one another's sins: not indeed by being on the lookout for something to denounce, but by correcting what we see": else we should become spies on the lives of others, which is against the saying of Proverbs 24:19: "Lie not in wait, nor seek after wickedness in the house of the just, nor spoil his rest." It is evident from this that there is no need for religious to leave their cloister in order to rebuke evil-doers.

[II-II.q.33.a.2.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod illud quod debetur alicui determinatæ et certæ personæ, sive sit bonum corporale, sive spirituale, oportet quod ei impendamus, non expectantes quod nobis occurrat, sed debitam sollicitudinem habentes, ut eum inquiramus. Unde sicut ille qui debet pecuniam creditori, debet eum requirere, cum tempus fuerit, ut ei debitum reddat; ita qui habet specialiter curam alicujus, debet eum quærere ad hoc quod eum corrigat de peccato. Sed illa beneficia quæ non debentur certæ personæ, sed communiter omnibus proximis, sive sint corporalia, sive spiritualia, non oportet nos quærere quibus impendamus; sed sufficit quod impendamus eis qui nobis occurrunt. Hoc enim « quasi pro quadam sorte habendum est, » ut Augustinus dicit in I De doctrina christiana, c. xxviii, col. 30, t. 3. Et propter hoc dicit in lib. De verb. Domini, serm. Lxxxii, col. 506, t. 5, quod « admonet nos Dominus noster non negligere invicem peccata nostra, non quærendo quid reprehendas, sed videndo quid corrigas; » alioquin efficeremur exploratores vitæ aliorum, contra id quod dicitur Prov., xxiv, 15: Ne quæras impietatem in domo justi, et non* vastes requiem ejus. Unde patet quod nec religiosos oportet exire claustrum ad corrigendum delinquentes.

Article 3

[II-II.q.33.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that fraternal correction belongs to prelates alone. For Jerome [Origen, Hom. vii in Joan.] says: "Let priests endeavor to fulfil this saying of the Gospel: 'If thy brother sin against thee,'" etc. Now prelates having charge of others were usually designated under the name of priests. Therefore it seems that fraternal correction belongs to prelates alone.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod caro Christi prius fuerit concepta, et postmodum assumpta. Quod enim non est, non potest assumi. Sed caro Christi per conceptionem esse inccepit. Ergo videtur quod fuerit assumpta a Verbo Dei, postquam fuit concepta.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.arg.2] Further, fraternal correction is a spiritual alms. Now corporal almsgiving belongs to those who are placed above others in temporal matters, i.e. to the rich. Therefore fraternal correction belongs to those who are placed above others in spiritual matters, i.e. to prelates.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, caro Christi fuit assumpta a Verbo Dei mediante anima rationali. Sed in termino conceptionis acceptit animam rationalem. Ergo in termino conceptionis fuit assumpta. Sed in termino conceptionis dicitur jam concepta. Ergo prius fuit concepta et postmodum assumpta.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.arg.3] Further, when one man reproves another he moves him by his rebuke to something better. Now in the physical order the inferior is moved by the superior. Therefore in the order of virtue also, which follows the order of nature, it belongs to prelates alone to correct inferiors.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, in omni generato prius tempore est id quod est imperfectum, eo quod est perfectum, ut patet per Philosophum, in IX Metaphys., text. 43. Sed corpus Christi est quiddam generatum. Ergo ad ultimam perfectionem, quæ consistit in unione ad Verbum Dei, non statim in primo instanti conceptionis pervenit; De fide ad Petrum restituendus est Fulgentio, apud quam sed primo fuit caro concepta et postmodum assumpta.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.sc] It is written (Dist. xxiv, qu. 3, Can. Tam Sacerdotes): "Both priests and all the rest of the faithful should be most solicitous for those who perish, so that their reproof may either correct their sinful ways. or, if they be incorrigible, cut them off from the Church."

[II-II.q.33.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod 4 Augustinus dicit in lib. De fide ad Petrum, cap. xviii: « Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites, carnem Christi non fuisse conceptam in utero Virginis, prius quam susciperetur a Verbo. »

[II-II.q.33.a.3.co] As stated above (Article 1), correction is twofold. One is an act of charity, which seeks in a special way the recovery of an erring brother by means of a simple warning: such like correction belongs to anyone who has charity, be he subject or prelate.

But there is another correction which is an act of justice purposing the common good, which is procured not only by warning one's brother, but also, sometimes, by punishing him, that others may, through fear, desist from sin. Such a correction belongs only to prelates, whose business it is not only to admonish, but also to correct by means of punishments.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, proprie dicimus Deum factum esse hominem; non autem proprie dicimus quod homo factus sit Deus: quia scilicet Deus assumpsit sibi id quod est hominis; non autem præextitit id quod est hominis, quasi per se subsistens, antequam susciperetur a Verbo. Si autem caro Christi fuisset concepta, antequam susciperetur a Verbo, habuisset aliquando aliquam hypostasim præter hypostasim Verbi Dei; quod est contra rationem Incarnationis, secundum quam ponimus, Verbum Dei esse unitum humanæ naturæ et omnibus partibus ejus in unitate hypostasis. Nec fuit conveniens quod hypostasim præexistentem humanæ naturæ vel alicujus partis ejus Verbum Dei sua assumptione destrueret. Et ideo contra fidem est dicere quod caro Christi prius fuerit concepta, et postmodum assumpta a Verbo Dei.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.ad.1] Even as regards that fraternal correction which is common to all, prelates have a grave responsibility, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 9): "for just as a man ought to bestow temporal favors on those especially of whom he has temporal care, so too ought he to confer spiritual favors, such as correction, teaching and the like, on those who are entrusted to his spiritual care." Therefore Jerome does not mean that the precept of fraternal correction concerns priests only, but that it concerns them chiefly.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod si caro Christi non fuisset in instanti formata seu concepta, sed per temporis successionem, oporteret alterum duorum sequi, vel quod assumptum nondum esset caro, vel quod prius esset conceptio carnis quam ejus assumptio. Sed quia ponimus conceptionem in instanti esse perfectam, consequens est quod in illa carne simul fuit concipi et conceptum esse; et, sicut Augustinus dicit in lib. De fide ad Petrum, cap. xviii, « dicimus ipsum Dei Verbum suæ carnis acceptance conceptum, ipsamque carnem Verbi Incarnatione conceptam. » Et per hoc patet etiam responsio ad secundum: nam simul dum caro illa concipitur, concepta est et animatur.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.ad.2] Just as he who has the means wherewith to give corporal assistance is rich in this respect, so he whose reason is gifted with a sane judgment, so as to be able to correct another's wrong-doing, is, in this respect, to be looked on as a superior.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, sicut ille qui habet unde corporaliter subvenire possit, quantum ad hoc dives est, ita ille qui habet sanum rationis judicium, ex quo possit alterius delictum corrigere, quantum ad hoc est superior habendus.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.ad.3] Even in the physical order certain things act mutually on one another, through being in some respect higher than one another, in so far as each is somewhat in act, and somewhat in potentiality with regard to another. On like manner one man can correct another in so far as he has a sane judgment in a matter wherein the other sins, though he is not his superior simply.

[II-II.q.33.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod in mysterio incarnationis non consideratur ascensus, quasi alicujus præexistentis proficientis usque ad unionis dignitatem, sicut posuit Photinus hæreticus; sed potius consideratur ibi descensus, secundum quod perfectum Dei verbum imperfectiovideas, col. 698. 2 Seu potius Fulgentius, col. 699. nem naturæ nostræ sibi assumpsit, secundum illud Joan., vi, 38: Descendi de cælo.

Article 4

[II-II.q.33.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that no man is bound to correct his prelate. For it is written (Exodus 19:12): "The beast that shall touch the mount shall be stoned," [Vulgate: 'Everyone that shall touch the mount, dying he shall die.'] and (2 Samuel 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod conceptio Christi fuerit naturalis. Secundum enim conceptionem carnis Christus dicitur filius hominis. Est autem verus et naturalis filius hominis, sicut verus et naturalis Dei Filius. Ergo ejus conceptio fuit naturalis.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.arg.2] Further, a gloss on Galatians 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, nulla creatura producit operationem miraculosam. Sed conceptio Christi attribuitur B. Virgini, quæ est pura creatura: dicitur enim quod Virgo Christum concepit. Ergo videtur quod non sit miraculosa conceptio, sed naturalis.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.arg.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ad hoc quod aliqua transmutatio sit naturalis, sufficit quod principium passivum sit naturale, ut supra habitum est. Sed principium passivum ex parte matris in conceptione Christi fuit naturale, ut ex dictis patet. Ergo conceptio Christi fuit naturalis. Sec contra est quod Dionysius dicit in Epist. iv ad Caium monachum, col. 1071, t. 1: « Super hominem operabatur Christus ea quæ sunt hominis; et hoc monstrat Virgo supernaturaliter concipiens. »

[II-II.q.33.a.4.sc] 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit in Regula, § 11, col. 4384, t. 1: « Non solum vestri, sed etiam ipsius, » id est prælati, « miseremini, qui inter vos quanto in loco superiori, tanto in periculo majori versatur. » Sed correctio fraterna est opus misericordia. Ergo et prælati sunt corrigendi.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.co] 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.

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 Timothy 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut Ambrosius dicit in libro De Incarnatione, cap. vi, § 54, col. 867, t. 3, « multa in hoc mysterio et secundum naturam inventies et ultra naturam. » Si enim consideremus id quod est ex parte materiæ conceptus, quam mater ministravit, totum est naturale. Si vero consideremus id quod est ex parte virtutis activæ, totum est miraculosum. Sed quia unumquodque magis judicatur secundum formam quam secundum materiam, et similiter secundum agens quam secundum patiens, inde est quod conceptio Christi debet dici simpliciter miraculos et supernaturalis, sed secundum aliquid naturalis.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Christus dicitur naturalis filius hominis, in quantum habet naturam humanam veram, per quam est filius hominis, licet eam miraculose habuerit; sicut cæcus illuminatus videt naturaliter per potentiam visivam, quam miraculose acceptit.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.ad.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: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." 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 Galatians 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."

[II-II.q.33.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod conceptio attribuitur Virgini beatæ, non tamquam principio activo; sed quia ministravit materiam conceptui, et in ejus utero est conceptio celebrata.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod principium passivum naturale sufficit ad transmutationem naturalem, quando naturali et consueto modo movetur a principio activo proprio; sed hoc in proposito non habet locum, et ideo conceptio illa non potest dici simpliciter naturalis.

Article 5

[II-II.q.33.a.5.arg.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 (Article 2). Therefore it seems that a man ought not to forbear from such like correction for the reason that he has committed a sin.

[II-II.q.33.a.5.arg.1] Ad quintum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod peccator corrigere debeat delinquentem. Nullus enim propter peccatum quod commisit a præcepto observando excusatur. Sed correctio fraterna cadit sub præcepto, ut dictum est. Ergo videtur quod propter peccatum quod quis commisit, non debeat prætermittere hujusmodi correctionem.

[II-II.q.33.a.5.arg.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.5.arg.2] 2. Præterea, eleemosyna spiritualis potior est quam corporalis eleemosyna. Sed ille qui est in peccato, non debet abstinere quin eleemosynam corporalem faciat. Ergo multo minus debet abstinere a correctione delinquentis propter peccatum præcedens.

[II-II.q.33.a.5.arg.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.5.arg.3] 3. Præterea, I Joan., 1, 8, dicitur: Si dixerimus, quia* peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus. Si ergo propter peccatum aliquis impeditur a correctione fraterna, nullus erit qui possit corrigere delinquentem. Hoc autem est inconveniens. Ergo et primum.

[II-II.q.33.a.5.sc] Isidore says (De Summo Bono iii, 32): "He that is subject to vice should not correct the vices of others." Again it is written (Romans 2:1): "Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest."

[II-II.q.33.a.5.sc] Sed contra est quod Isidorus dicit in libro III De summo bono, sive Sententiarum, cap. xxxii, § 1, col. 704, t. 6: «Non debet vitam aliorum corrigere qui est vitiis subjectus; » et Rom., II, 4, dicitur: In quo alium judicas*, teipsum condemnas; eadem enim agis quæ judicas. Pachymeras intelligit sacerdotem a Demophilo gradu dejectum fuisse, τὸν δὲ πρεσθόττερον ἐξώθησε, quod vix absque percussione quadam fieri potest. 1 Ex Epist. Lxxxii Aug., § 22, col. 286, t. 2, desumpta est hæc Glossa. Migne. Juxta quamdam opinionem prælati soli, vel in magistratu constituti ad correctionem fraternam faciendam tenerentur, quia constituere omnes hoc præcepto ligatos est constituere omnes præcepti transgressores: quod durum videtur. Gualterus respondet hoc præceptum non obligare nisi tempore necessitatis; tunc autem est necessitas quando simul concurrunt sex conditiones: 1. Certa peccati cognitio; 2. Mansuetudo in corripiendo; in ira nemo debet; 3. Quod non sit alius aequaliter aptus, vel etiam aptior ad corripiendum; 4. Spes probabilis de correptione; 5. Quod peccatum sit mortale; 6. Quod non speretur ad corripiendum major temporis opportunitas. Alii aliter rem explicant. Subditi possunt corripere fraterne suos superiores, et filii suos parentes; imo ad id aliquando tenentur. Sed notandum quod ad correctionem superiorum, ut plurimum, sunt minus idonei homines de vulgo, conditione et moribus viles; est enim periculum ne id superiores ducant contemptui, et inde magis exasperentur; unde convenit quod inferiores, suos superiores corripere volentes, instruant et adhibeant correptores digniores.

[II-II.q.33.a.5.co] As stated above (3, ad 2), to correct a wrongdoer belongs to a man, in so far as his reason is gifted with right judgment. Now sin, as stated above (I-II, 85, 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. (Matthew 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."

Secondly, 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 Matthew 7:4, "How sayest thou to thy brother?" etc. are expounded by Chrysostom [Hom. xvii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John 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."

Thirdly, 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 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.

Hence the Replies to the Objections are clear.

[II-II.q.33.a.5.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, correctio delinquentis pertinet ad aliquem, inquantum viget in eo rectum judicium rationis. Peccatum autem, ut supra dictum est, non tollit bonum naturæ, quin remaneat in peccante aliquid de recto judicio rationis; et secundum hoc potest ei competere in subditis 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 majus peccatum commisit, non est dignus ut alium corrigat de minori peccato. Unde Super illud Matth, vii: Quid vides festucam? etc., col. 46, t. 7, dicit Hieronymus: « De his loquitur qui cum mortali crimine detineantur obnoxii, minora peccata fratribus non concedunt. Secundo redditur indebita correctio propter scandalum quod sequitur ex correctione, si peccatum corripientis sit manifestum; quia videtur quod ille qui corrigit non corrigat ex charitate, sed magis ad ostentationem. Unde Super illud Matth., vii: Quomodo dicis fratri tuo? etc., exponit Chrysostomus, hom. xvii Oper. imperf.: « Id est, quo proposito putas ex charitate, ut salves proximum tuum? Non, quia teipsum ante salvares. Vis ergo non alios salvare, sed per bonam doctrinam malos actus celare, et scientiæ laudem ab hominibus quærere. » Tertio modo propter superbiam corripientis, inquantum scilicet aliquis propria — Opus imperfectum in Matth. non est Chrysostomi. Sic in textu Augustini apud Migne, paucis interjectis vel mutatis. Si superior sit qui peccatorem corripit, tenetur seipsum emendare ut alium corripiat, quia tenetur procurare ea quæ sunt necessaria ad suum officium rite obeundum, inter quæ est ipsius emendatio. Item tenetur seipsum emendare corripiens, si aliis scandalo est ipse, quia tenentur omnes abstinere a scandalo. Tenetur tandem corripiens emendare se, si proximus, nisi corripiens seipsum emendet, in peccato mortali moriturus est, quia videtur tunc gravis necessitas cui cum aliquo incommodo subvenire debet. Extra hos casus non tenetur corripiens emendare se ut alios corripiat. Ita Dominicus Soto, lib. De tegendo secreto, membr. ii, quæst. Ⅲ, conclus. vi, Bannes, Wiggers, Sylvius, Serra et peccata parvi pendens, seipsum proximo præfert in corde suo, peccata ejus austera severitate dijudicans, ac si ipse esset justus. Unde Augustinus dicit in lib. II De sermone Domini in monte, cap. xix, § 64, col. 1298, t. 3: « Accusare vitia officium est bonorum virorum et benevolorum; quod cum mali faciunt, alienas partes agunt. » Et ideo sicut Augustinus dicit in eodem libro, ibid: « Co-gitemus, cum aliquem reprehendere nos necessitas cogit, utrum tale sit vitium quod nunquam habuimus; et tunc cogitemus nos homines esse, et habere potuisse; vel tale quod aliquando habuimus, et jam non habemus; et tunc tangat memoriam communis fragilitas, ut illam correctionem non odium, sed misericordia praecedat. Si autem invenierimus nos in eodem vitio esse, non objurgemus, sed congemiscamus, et non illum ad obtemperandum nobis, sed ad pariter cavendum invitemus. » Ex his ergo patet quod si peccator 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. Unde patet responsio ad objecta.

Article 6

[II-II.q.33.a.6.arg.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 Psalm 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.arg.1] Ad sextum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod aliquis non debeat a correctione cessare propter timorem ne ille fiat deterior. Peccatum enim est quædam infirmitas animæ, secundum illud Psalmistæ, psalm. vi, 3: Miserere mei Domine, quoniam infirmus sum. Sed ille cui imminet cura infirmi, etiam propter ejus contradictionem vel contemptum non debet cessare, quia tunc majus imminet periculum, sicut patet circa furiosos. Ergo multo magis debet homo peccantem corrigere, quantumcumque graviter ferat.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.arg.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.arg.2] 2. Præterea, secundum Hieronymum, veritas vitæ non est dimittenda propter scandalum. Præcepta autem Dei pertinent ad veritatem vitæ. Cum ergo correctio fraterna cadat sub præcepto, ut dictum est, videtur quod non sit dimittenda propter scandalum ejus qui corripitur.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.arg.3] Further, according to the Apostle (Romans 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.arg.3] 3. Præterea, secundum Apostolum ad Rom., Ⅲ, non sunt facienda mala ut veniant bona. Ergo pari ratione non sunt prætermittenda bona ne veniant mala. Sed correctio fraterna est quoddam bonum. Ergo non est prætermittenda propter timorem, ne ille qui corripitur fiat deterior.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.sc] It is written (Proverbs 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov., Ⅺ, 8: Noli arguere derisorem, ne oderit te; ubi dicit Glossa ordin., col. 1092, t. 1: « Non est timendum ne tibi derisor, cum arguitur, contumelias inferat; sed hoc potius providendum, ne tractus ad odium inde fiat pejor. » Ergo cessandum est a correctione fraterna, quando timetur ne fiat ille inde deterior.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.co] 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, duplex est correctio delinquentis: una quidem pertinens ad prælatos, quæ ordina-tur ad bonum commune, et habet vim coac-tivam; et talis correctio non est dimittenda propter turbationem ejus qui corripitur; tum quia, si propria sponte emendari non velit, cogendus est per pœnas, ut peccare desistat: tum etiam quia si incorrigibilis sit, per hoc providetur bono communi; dum servatur ordo justitiæ, et unius exemplo alii deterrentur. Unde judex non prætermittit ferre sententiam condemnationis in peccan-tem, propter timorem turbationis ipsius, vel etiam amicorum ejus. Alia vero est correctio fraterna; cujus finis est emendatio delinquentis, non habens coactionem, sed simplicem admonitionem; et ideo ubi probabiliter æstimatur quod pec-cator admonitionem non recipiat, sed ad pejora labatur, est ab hujusmodi correctione desistendum; quia ea quæ sunt ad finem debent regulari secundum quod exigit ratio finis.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod medicus quadam coactione utitur in phreneticum, qui curam ejus recipere non vult; et huic assimilatur correctio prælatorum, quæ habet vim coactivam, non autem simplex correctio fraterna.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod de correctione fraterna datur præceptum, secundum quod est actus virtutis; hoc autem est secundum quod proportionatur fini; et ideo quando est impeditiva finis, puta cum effi-citur homo deterior, jam non pertinet ad veritatem vitæ, nec cadit sub præcepto.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.6.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ea quæ ordi-nantur ad finem, habent rationem boni ex ordine ad finem. Et ideo correctio fraterna, quando est impeditiva finis, scilicet emenda-tionis fratris, jam non habet rationem boni; et ideo cum prætermittitur talis correctio, non prætermittitur bonum, ne eveniat malum.

Article 7

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.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 Ephesians 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.1] Ad septimum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod in correctione fraterna non debeat ex necessitate præcepti admonitio secreta præcedere denuntiationem. In operibus enim charitatis præcipue debemus Deum imitari, secundum illud Ephes., v, 1: Estote imitatores Dei, sicut filii charissimi, et ambulate in dilectione. Deus autem interdum publice punit hominem pro peccato, nulla secreta admonitione præcedente. Ergo videtur quod non sit necessarium admonitionem secretam præcedere denuntiationem.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.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 (Genesis 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sicut Augustinus dicit in lib. De mendacio, cap. xv, § 26, col. 506, t. 6, « ex gestis sanctorum intelligi potest qualiter sunt præcepta sacræ Scripturæ intelligenda. » Sed in gestis sanctorum inventur facta publica denuntiatio peccati occulti, nulla secreta monitione præcedente; sicut legitur Gen., xxxvii, 2, quod Joseph 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 præmissa; ipse etiam Dominus non legitur secreto admonuisse Judam, antequam eum denuntiaret. Non ergo est de necessitate præcepti ut secreta admonitio præcedat publicam denuntiationem.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.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." [The accuser was bound by Roman Law to endorse (se inscribere) the writ of accusation. The effect of this endorsement or inscription was that the accuser bound himself, if he failed to prove the accusation, to suffer the same punishment as the accused would have to suffer if proved guilty.] Therefore it seems that the precept does not require that a secret admonition should precede public denunciation.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.3] 3. Præterea, accusatio est gravior quam denuntiatio. Sed ad publicam accusationem potest aliquis procedere, nulla admonitione secreta præcedente; determinatur enim in Decretali, cap. « Qualiter, » xxiv, de Accusationibus, quod « accusationem debet præcedere sola inscriptio. » Ergo videtur quod non sit de necessitate præcepti quod secreta admonitio præcedat publicam denuntiationem.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.4] 4. Præterea, non videtur esse probabile obligat quam præceptum affirmativum ipsi benefaciendi. Hinc, dum quis invincibiliter ignorat se esse invalide matrimonio junctum, si non sit spes quod monitus recedet ab uxore putativa, aut si ipsius discussu sequi debeant gravia inconvenientia aut scandala, odia, rixæ diuturnæ, incontinentia, honestæ familiæ et prolium diffamatio, relinquendus est maritus in bona fide sua. Quod si agatur de matrimonio contrahendo, conferenda sunt in quod ea quæ sunt in communi consuetudine religiosorum, sint contra præcepta Christi. Sed consuetum est in religionibus, quod in capitulis aliqui proclamentur de culpis, nulla secreta admonitione præmissa. Ergo videtur quod hoc non sit de necessitate præcepti.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.arg.5] 5. Præterea, religosi tenentur suis præla-tis obedire. Sed quandoque prælati præci-piunt vel communiter omnibus, vel alicui specialiter, ut si quid scit corrigendum, eis dicatur. Ergo videtur quod eis teneantur dicere etiam ante secretam admonitionem. Non ergo est de necessitate præcepti ut secreta admonitio præcedat publicam denuntiationem.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.sc] Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 4) on the words, "Rebuke him between thee and him alone" (Matthew 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit in lib. De verb. Dom., exponens illud: Corripe ipsum inter te et ipsum solum, serm. Lxxxii, cap. iv, col. 509, t. 5: « Studeas correctioni, parcens pudori; forte enim præ verecundia incipit defendere peccatum suum; et quem vis facere meliorem, facis pejorem. » Sed ad hoc tenemur per præceptum charitatis ut caveamus ne frater deterior efficiatur. Ergo ordo correctionis fraternæ cadit sub præcepto.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.co] With regard to the public denunciation of sins it is necessary to make a distinction: because sins may be either public or secret. On 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 Timothy 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 (Matthew 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 Matthew 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.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod circa publicam denuntiationem peccatorum distinguendum est. Aut enim peccata sunt publica, aut sunt occulta. Si quidem sint publica, non est tantum adhibendum remedium ei qui peccavit, ut melior fiat, sed etiam aliis, in quorum notitiam devenit, ut non scandalizentur. Et ideo talia peccata sunt publice arguenda, secundum illud Apostoli I ad Timoth., v, 20: Peccantes coram omnibus argue, ut et cæteri timorem habeant; quod intelligitur de peccatis publicis, ut Augustinus dicit in lib. De verbis Dom., ubi supra, cap. vii, col. 510, t. 5. Si vero sint peccata occulta, sic videtur habere locum quod Dominus dicit, Matth., xviii: Si peccaverit in te frater tuus. Quando enim te offendit publice coram aliis, jam non solum in te peccat, sed etiam in in alios, quos turbat. Sed quia etiam in occultis peccatis potest parari proximum convenientia ex monitione secutura cum malis ex matrimonio invalido sequi natis, et malum quod minus videbitur eligendum est, monendo vel tacendo. Regulariter tamen tunc monitio fieri debet, quia regulariter minora mala sequuntur de actu futuro, re adhuc integra manente, si quis moneatur quam si non moneatur. offensa, ideo adhuc videtur distinguendum esse. Quædam enim peccata occulta sunt, quæ sunt in nocumentum proximorum vel corporale, vel spirituale; puta si aliquis occulte tractet, quomodo civitas tradatur hostibus, vel si hæreticus privatim homines a fide avertat. Et quia ille qui sic occulte peccat, non solum in te peccat, sed etiam in alios, oportet statim procedere ad denuntia-tionem, ut hujusmodi nocumentum impediatur; nisi forte aliquis firmiter æstimaret quod statim per secretam admonitionem posset hujusmodi mala impedire. Quædam vero peccata sunt quæ solum sunt in malum peccantis, et ejus in quem peccatur, vel quia a peccante solum læditur vel saltem ex sola notitia; et tunc ad hoc solum tendendum est ut fratri peccanti subveniatur; et sicut medicus corporalis sanitatem ægroto debet inferre, si potest, sine alicujus membri abscissione; si autem non potest, abscindit membrum minus necessarium, ut vita totius conservetur; ita etiam ille qui studet emendationi fratris, debet si potest, sic emendare fratrem quantum ad conscientiam, ut fama ejus conservetur; quæ quidem est utilis primo quidem ipsi peccanti, non solum in temporalibus, in quibus quantum ad multa homo patitur detrimentum, amissa fama; sed etiam quantum ad spiritualia, quia præ timore infamiæ multi a peccato retrahuntur, unde quando se infamatos conspiciunt, irrefrenate peccant. Unde Hieronymus dicit Super illud Matth., xviii, Si peccaverit in te, col. 131, t. 7: « Corri-piendus est seorsum frater, ne si semel pudorem ac verecundiam amiserit, remaneat in peccato. » Secundo debet conservari fama fratris peccantis: tum quia, uno infamato, alii infamantur, secundum illud Augustini in Epist. LXXVIII ad plebem hipponensem, § 6, col. 271, t. 2: « Cum de aliquibus qui sanctum nomen profitentur, aliquid criminis vel falsi sonuerit, vel veri patuerit, instant, satagunt, ambiunt, ut de omnibus hoc credatur; » tum etiam quia ex peccato unius publicato alii provocantur ad peccandum. Sed quia conscientia præferenda est famæ, voluit Dominus ut saltem cum dispendio famæ fratris conscientia per publicam de-nuntiationem a peccato liberetur. Unde patet de necessitate præcepti esse quod secreta admonitio publicam denuntiationem præ-ce-dat.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.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."

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod omnia occulta sunt Deo nota: et ideo hoc modo se habent occulta peccata ad judicium divinum, sicut publica ad humanum: et tamen plerumque Deus peccatores quasi secreta admonitione arguit, interius inspirando vel vigilanti, vel dormienti, secundum illud Job, xxxiii, 15: Per somnium in visione nocturna, quando irruit sopor super homines, tunc aperit aures virorum, et erudiens eos instruit disciplina, ut avertat hominem ab his quæ facit.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.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."

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod Dominus peccatum Judæ tanquam Deus sicut publicum habebat; unde statim poterat ad publicandum procedere; tamen ipse non publicavit, sed obscuris verbis eum de peccato suo admonuit. Petrus autem publicavit peccatum occultum Ananiæ et Saphiræ, tanquam executor Dei, cujus revelatione peccatum cognovit. De Joseph autem credendum est quod fratres suos quandoque admonuerit, licet non sit scriptum. Vel potest dici quod peccatum publicum erat inter fratres; unde dicit pluraliter: Accusavit fratres suos.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod quando imminet periculum multitudinis, non habent ibi locum hæc verba Domini; quia tunc frater peccans non peccat in te tantum.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod hujusmodi proclamationes quæ in capitulis religiosorum fiunt, sunt de aliquibus levibus, quæ famæ non derogant; unde sunt quasi quædam commemorationes potius oblitarum culparum, quam accusationes, vel denuntiationes. Si essent tamen talia, de quibus frater infamaretur, contra præceptum Domini ageret qui per hunc modum peccatum fratris publicaret.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.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.

[II-II.q.33.a.7.ad.5] Ad quintum dicendum, quod prælato non est obediendum contra præceptum divinum, secundum illud Act., v, 29: Obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus. Et ideo quando prælatus præcepit ut sibi dicatur quod quis sciverit corrigendum, intelligendum est præceptum sane, salvo ordine fraternæ Sic cod.; in Scilicet intelligit episcopos, clericos, monachos, moniales, paucis, omnes, « qui totam vitam suam Dei cultui manciparunt, seque totos Deo dederunt,» correctionis; sive praeceptum fiat communiter ad omnes, sive ad aliquem specialiter. Sed si praelatus expresse praecipet contra hunc ordinem a Domino institutum; et ipse peccaret praecipiens, et ei obediens, quasi contra praeceptum Domini agens: unde non esset ei obediendum; quia praelatus non est judex occultorum, sed solus Deus; unde non habet potestatem praecipiendi aliquid super occultis nisi inquantum per aliqua judicia manifestantur, puta per infamiam, vel per aliquas suspiciones; in qui bus casibus potest praelatus praecipere eodem modo, sicut et judex sæcularis vel ecclesias-ticus potest exigere juramentum de veritate dicenda.

Article 8

[II-II.q.33.a.8.arg.1] It would seem that before the public denunciation witnesses ought not to be brought forward. For secret sins ought not to be made known to others, because by so doing "a man would betray his brother's sins instead of correcting them," as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 7). Now by bringing forward witnesses one makes known a brother's sin to others. Therefore in the case of secret sins one ought not to bring witnesses forward before the public denunciation.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.arg.1] Ad octavum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod testium inductio non debeat præcedere publicam denuntiationem. Peccata enim occulta non sunt aliis manifestanda, quia sic « magis homo esset proditor criminis quam corrector fratris, » ut Augustinus dicit in lib. De verb. Dom., serm. Lxxxii, cap. VII, col. 510, t. 5. Sed ille qui inducit testes, peccatum fratris aliis manifestat. Ergo in peccatis occultis non debeat testium inductio præcedere publicam denuntiationem.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.arg.2] Further, man should love his neighbor as himself. Now no man brings in witnesses to prove his own secret sin. Neither therefore ought one to bring forward witnesses to prove the secret sin of our brother.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.arg.2] 2. Præterea, homo debet diligere proximum sicut seipsum. Sed nullus ad suum peccatum occultum inducit testes. Ergo neque ad peccatum occultum fratris debet inducere.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.arg.3] Further, witnesses are brought forward to prove something. But witnesses afford no proof in secret matters. Therefore it is useless to bring witnesses forward in such cases.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.arg.3] 3. Præterea, testes inducuntur ad aliquid probandum. Sed in occultis non potest fieri probatio per testes. Ergo frustra hujusmodi testes inducuntur.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.arg.4] Further, Augustine says in his Rule that "before bringing it to the notice of witnesses . . . it should be put before the superior." Now to bring a matter before a superior or a prelate is to tell the Church. Therefore witnesses should not be brought forward before the public denunciation.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.arg.4] 4. Præterea, Augustinus dicit in Regula, § 7, col. 1381, t. 1, quod « prius præposito debet ostendi quam testibus. » Sed ostendere præposito, vel prælato, est dicere Ecclesiæ. Non ergo testium inducio debet præcedere publicam denuntiationem.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.sc] Our Lord said (Matthew 18:16): "Take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two," etc.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.sc] Sed contra est quod Dominus dicit Matth., xviii, 16: Adhibe tecum unum, vel duos, ut in ore duorum, etc.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.co] The right way to go from one extreme to another is to pass through the middle space. Now Our Lord wished the beginning of fraternal correction to be hidden, when one brother corrects another between this one and himself alone, while He wished the end to be public, when such a one would be denounced to the Church. Consequently it is befitting that a citation of witnesses should be placed between the two extremes, so that at first the brother's sin be indicated to a few, who will be of use without being a hindrance, and thus his sin be amended without dishonoring him before the public.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod de uno extremo ad aliud extremum convenienter transitur per medium. In correctione autem fraterna Dominus voluit quod principium eset occultum, dum frater corriperet fratrem inter se et ipsum solum, finem autem voluit esse publicum, ut scilicet Ecclesiæ denuntiaretur. Et ideo convenienter in medio ponitur testium inductio, ut in primo paucis indicetur peccatum fratris qui possint prodesse, et non obesse; ut saltem sic sine multitudinis infamia emendetur.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.ad.1] Some have understood the order of fraternal correction to demand that we should first of all rebuke our brother secretly, and that if he listens, it is well; but if he listen not, and his sin be altogether hidden, they say that we should go no further in the matter, whereas if it has already begun to reach the ears of several by various signs, we ought to prosecute the matter, according to Our Lord's command.

But this is contrary to what Augustine says in his Rule that "we are bound to reveal" a brother's sin, if it "will cause a worse corruption in the heart." Wherefore we must say otherwise that when the secret admonition has been given once or several times, as long as there is probable hope of his amendment, we must continue to admonish him in private, but as soon as we are able to judge with any probability that the secret admonition is of no avail, we must take further steps, however secret the sin may be, and call witnesses, unless perhaps it were thought probable that this would not conduce to our brother's amendment, and that he would become worse: because on that account one ought to abstain altogether from correcting him, as stated above (Article 6).

[II-II.q.33.a.8.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quidam sic intellexerunt ordinem fraternæ correctionis esse servandum, ut primo frater sit in secreto corripiendus; et si audierit, bene quidem; si autem non audierit, si peccatum sit omnino occultum, dicebant non esse ulterius procedendum; si autem incipit jam ad notitiam plurium devenire aliquibus indiciis, debet ulterius procedi, secundum quod Dominus mandat. Sed hoc est contra id quod Augustinus dicit in Regula, ubi supra, quod « peccatum fratris non debeat occultari, ne putrescat in corde. » Et ideo aliter dicendum est, quod post admonitionem secretam semel vel pluries factam, quamdiu spes probabiliter habetur de correctione, per secretam admonitionem procedendum est; ex quo autem probabiliter jam cognoscere possumus quod secreta admonition non valet, procedendum est ulterius, quantumcumque sit peccatum occultum ad testium inductionem; nisi forte probabiliter aestimaretur quod hoc ad emendationem fratris non proficeret, sed exinde deterioreretur; quia propter hoc est totaliter a correctione cessandum, ut supra dictum est. Certe res est admodum flebilis ut in collegiis quibusdam, juvenumque vel adolescentium gymnasii, superiores libenter subditos suos audiant, dum hi absque prævia monitione, et absque necessitate ulla, ordinem correctionis fraternæ prætermittentes, consodales suos qui juri suo non renuntiaverunt, contra justitiam et charitatem occulte denuntiant. Sic Domini præceptum de correctione fraterna, scientibus ac volentibus superioribus, non solum pede conculcatur a subditis, sed etiam extra mores eorum procul rejicitur, et forte ab ipsis ignoratur. Nonne debent superiores omnia præcepta Christi suis inculcare subditis, eorumdemque observantiam repetitis actibus familiarem ipsis redere? Sub quo prætextu actus præcepto charitatis fraternæ præcise oppositos in secundam naturam suorum subditorum transire permittunt, proditionique animos docibiles curæ suæ paternæ commissos assuefaciunt? « Si solus nostri quia peccavit in te, et eum vis coram omnibus arguere; non es corrector, sed proditor. » Migne. Peccatum fratribus occultum potest dici post monitionem secretam loco trium testium prælato, non ut prælato, sed ut viro gravi, mansueto, aptiorique ad corrigendum delinquentem absque infamatione nec alio nocumento. Si vero prælatus iram vel rancorem in delinquentes minus coerceat ex indole sua, correctionis ordo omnino servetur. Ordo evangelicus correctionis fraternæ sub gravi servandus est. Excipe: 1. Si de peccato publico agatur; 2. Vel de peccato pernicioso reipublicæ aut Ecclesiæ, cum periculo in mora; v. g., de proditione civitatis, aut crimine hæreseos: hæc duo citant auctores; tu vero de istis ad alia minora cave ne concludas; 3. Si quis ordini evangelico pro se cessit, ut cessisse dicuntur patres societatis permittentes sua peccata occulta suis superioribus statim revelari. His exceptis,

[II-II.q.33.a.8.ad.2] A man needs no witnesses that he may amend his own sin: yet they may be necessary that we may amend a brother's sin. Hence the comparison fails.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod homo non indiget testibus ad emendationem sui pecati; quod tamen potest esse necessarium ad emendationem peccati fratris. Unde non est similis ratio.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.ad.3] There may be three reasons for citing witnesses. First, to show that the deed in question is a sin, as Jerome says: secondly, to prove that the deed was done, if repeated, as Augustine says (in his Rule): thirdly, "to prove that the man who rebuked his brother, has done what he could," as Chrysostom says (Hom. in Matth. lx).

[II-II.q.33.a.8.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod testes possunt induci propter tria: uno modo ad ostendendum quod hoc sit peccatum, de quo aliquis arguitur, ut Hieronymus dicit, XVIII In Matth., col. 431, t. 7; secundo modo ad convincendum de actu, si actus iteratur, ut Augustinus dicit in Regula, loco sup. cit.; tertio modo ad testificandum quod frater admonens fecit quod in se fuit, ut Chrysostomus dicit, Hom. lxi in Matth.

[II-II.q.33.a.8.ad.4] Augustine means that the matter ought to be made known to the prelate before it is stated to the witnesses, in so far as the prelate is a private individual who is able to be of more use than others, but not that it is to be told him as to the Church, i.e. as holding the position of judge.

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ

[II-II.q.33.a.8.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod Augustinus intelligit quod prius dicatur prælato quam testibus, secundum quod prælatus est quædam singularis persona, quæ magis potest prodesse quam alii; non autem quod dicatur ei tanquam Ecclesiæ, id est, sicut in loco judicis residenti.

← Q32. Almsdeeds

Secunda Secundae

Q34. Hatred →

JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q033.json