Obj. 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 endors.e.m.e.nt 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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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" (Matt. 18:15): "Aiming at his amendment, while avoiding his disgrace: since perhaps from shame he might begin to defend his sin; and him whom you thought to make a better man, you make worse." Now we are bound by the precept of charity to beware lest our brother become worse. Therefore the order of fraternal correction comes under the precept.
_I answer that,_ With regard to the public denunciation of sins it is necessary to make a distinction: because sins may be either public or secret. In the case of public sins, a remedy is required not only for the sinner, that he may become better, but also for others, who know of his sin, lest they be scandalized. Wherefore such like sins should be denounced in public, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Tim. 5:20): "Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear," which is to be understood as referring to public sins, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 7).
On the other hand, in the case of secret sins, the words of Our Lord seem to apply (Matt. 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 Matt. 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 Obj. 1: Whatever is hidden, is known to G.o.d, wherefore hidden sins are to the judgment of G.o.d, just what public sins are to the judgment of man. Nevertheless G.o.d 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 Obj. 2: Our Lord as G.o.d 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 G.o.d"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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 5: A prelate is not to be obeyed contrary to a Divine precept, according to Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey G.o.d 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 inst.i.tuted 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 G.o.d 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.
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 33, Art. 8]
Whether Before the Public Denunciation Witnesses Ought to Be Brought Forward?
Objection 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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 18:16): "Take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two," etc.
_I answer that,_ The right way to go from one extreme to another is to pa.s.s through the middle s.p.a.ce. 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.
Reply Obj. 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 (A. 6).
Reply Obj. 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.
Reply Obj. 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 (loc.
cit.): thirdly, "to prove that the man who rebuked his brother, has done what he could," as Chrysostom says (Hom. in Matth. lx).
Reply Obj. 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.
_______________________
QUESTION 34
OF HATRED (In Six Articles)
We must now consider the vices opposed to charity: (1) hatred, which is opposed to love; (2) sloth and envy, which are opposed to the joy of charity; (3) discord and schism, which are contrary to peace; (4) offense and scandal, which are contrary to beneficence and fraternal correction.
Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is possible to hate G.o.d?
(2) Whether hatred of G.o.d is the greatest of sins?
(3) Whether hatred of one"s neighbor is always a sin?
(4) Whether it is the greatest of all sins against our neighbor?
(5) Whether it is a capital sin?
(6) From what capital sin does it arise?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 34, Art. 1]
Whether It Is Possible for Anyone to Hate G.o.d?
Objection 1: It would seem that no man can hate G.o.d. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the first good and beautiful is an object of love and dilection to all." But G.o.d is goodness and beauty itself.
Therefore He is hated by none.
Obj. 2: Further, in the Apocryphal books of 3 Esdras 4:36, 39 it is written that "all things call upon truth ... and (all men) do well like of her works." Now G.o.d is the very truth according to John 14:6.
Therefore all love G.o.d, and none can hate Him.
Obj. 3: Further, hatred is a kind of aversion. But according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) G.o.d draws all things to Himself. Therefore none can hate Him.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 73:23): "The pride of them that hate Thee ascendeth continually," and (John 15:24): "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father."
_I answer that,_ As shown above (I-II, Q. 29, A. 1), hatred is a movement of the appet.i.tive power, which power is not set in motion save by something apprehended. Now G.o.d can be apprehended by man in two ways; first, in Himself, as when He is seen in His Essence; secondly, in His effects, when, to wit, "the invisible things" of G.o.d ... "are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom. 1:20). Now G.o.d in His Essence is goodness itself, which no man can hate--for it is natural to good to be loved. Hence it is impossible for one who sees G.o.d in His Essence, to hate Him.
Moreover some of His effects are such that they can nowise be contrary to the human will, since _to be, to live, to understand,_ which are effects of G.o.d, are desirable and lovable to all. Wherefore again G.o.d cannot be an object of hatred if we consider Him as the Author of such like effects. Some of G.o.d"s effects, however, are contrary to an inordinate will, such as the infliction of punishment, and the prohibition of sin by the Divine Law. Such like effects are repugnant to a will debased by sin, and as regards the consideration of them, G.o.d may be an object of hatred to some, in so far as they look upon Him as forbidding sin, and inflicting punishment.
Reply Obj. 1: This argument is true of those who see G.o.d"s Essence, which is the very essence of goodness.
Reply Obj. 2: This argument is true in so far as G.o.d is apprehended as the cause of such effects as are naturally beloved of all, among which are the works of Truth who reveals herself to men.