Article 2. Whether
fraternal correction is a matter of precept?
Objection 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 ofprecept.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary,
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.
I answer that, 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Article 3. Whether fraternal correction belongs only to prelates?
Objection 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.
Objection 2. Further, fraternal correction is a
spiritual alms. Now corporal alms giving 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, 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."
I answer that, 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Article 4. Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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."
Reply to Objection 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.
Article 5. Whether a sinner ought to reprove a wrongdoer?
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 (
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.
Objection 2. Further,
spiritual alms deeds 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.
Objection 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.
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 (
Romans 2:1): "Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest."
I answer that, 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.
Article 6. Whether one ought to forbear from correcting someone, through fear lest he become worse?
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
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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, 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.
I answer that, 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Article 7. Whether the precept of fraternal correction demands that a private admonition should precede denunciation?
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
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.
Objection 2. Further, according to
Augustine (De Mendacio xv), we learn from the
deeds of
holy men how we ought to understand the commandments of
Holy Writ. Now among the
deeds of
holy men we find that a hidden
sin is publicly denounced, without any previous admonition in private. Thus we read (
Genesis 37:2) that "
Josephaccused 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 beforehandadmonishing them in private: nor do we read that
Our Lord admonished
Judas in secret before denouncing him. Therefore the precept does not require that secret admonition should precede public
denunciation.
Objection 3. Further, it is a graver
matter to accuse than to denounce. Now one may go to the length of accusing a
person publicly, without previously admonishing him in secret: for it is decided in the
Decretal (Cap. Qualiter, xiv, De Accusationibus) that "nothing else need precede accusation except inscription." [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.
Objection 4. Further, it does not seem probable that the customs observed by religious in general are contrary to the precepts of
Christ. Now it is customary among religious orders to proclaim this or that one for a fault, without any previous secret admonition. Therefore it seems that this admonition is not required by the precept.
Objection 5. Further, religious are bound to obey their
prelates. Now a prelate sometimes commands either all in general, or someone in particular, to tell him if they
know of anything that requires correction. Therefore it would seem that they are bound to tell them this, even before any secret admonition. Therefore the precept does not require secret admonition before public
denunciation.
On the contrary,
Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 4) on the words, "Rebuke him between thee and him alone" (
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.
I answer that, With regard to the public denunciation of
sins it is
necessary to make a distinction: because
sins may be either public or secret. 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
Augustinestates (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.
Reply to Objection 1. Whatever is hidden, is
known to
God, wherefore hidden
sins are to the judgment of
God, just what public
sins are to the judgment of
man. Nevertheless
God does rebuke sinners sometimes by secretly admonishing them, so to speak, with an inward inspiration, either while they wake or while they sleep, according to
Job 33:15-17: "By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep falleth upon men . . . then He openeth the ears of
men, and teaching instructeth them in what they are to learn, that He may withdraw a man from the things he is doing."
Reply to Objection 2.
Our Lord as
God knew the
sin of
Judas as though it were public, wherefore He could have made it
known at once. Yet He did not, but warned
Judas of his
sin in words that were obscure. The
sin of Ananias and Saphira was denounced by
Peter acting as
God's executor, by Whose
revelation he
knew of their
sin. With regard to
Joseph it is probable that he warned his brethren, though
Scripture does not say so. Or we may say that the
sin was public with regard to his brethren, wherefore it is stated in the plural that he accused "his brethren."
Reply to Objection 3. When there is danger to a great number of people, those words of
Our Lord do not apply, because then thy brother does not
sin against thee alone.
Reply to Objection 4. Proclamations made in the chapter of religious are about little faults which do not affect a man's
good name, wherefore they are reminders of forgotten faults rather than accusations or denunciations. If, however, they should be of such a
nature as to injure our brother's
good name, it would be contrary to
Our Lord's precept, to denounce a brother's fault in this manner.
Reply to Objection 5. A prelate is not to be obeyed contrary to a Divine precept, according to
Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey
God rather then men." Therefore when a prelate commands anyone to tell him anything that he
knows to need correction, the command rightly understood supports the safeguarding of the order of
fraternal correction, whether the command be addressed to all in general, or to some particular
individual. If, on the other hand, a prelate were to issue a command in express opposition to this order instituted by
Our Lord, both would
sin, the one commanding, and the one obeying him, as disobeying
Our Lord's command. Consequently he ought not to be obeyed, because a prelate is not the judge of secret things, but
God alone is, wherefore he has no power to command anything in respect of hidden matters, except in so far as they are made
known through certain signs, as by ill-repute or suspicion; in which cases a prelate can command just as a judge, whether secular or ecclesiastical, can bind a man under
oath to tell the
truth.
