On Brotherly Correction: Article 2: Whether the order for brotherly correction laid down in Matthew 18:15–17 counts as a
On Brotherly Correction is failing to correct ourselves. This need not cause perplexity,since we ought to forgive sins and offer correction in the manner of Matthew :,
'First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will be able to see to remove the speck from your brother's.'
()Everytimeweareinsinourselveswhenwerebukesomeoneelse,we also in a way condemn ourselves, that is, pronounce our own damnation.
However, we do not always heap damnation on ourselves: for example, if we are sinful in a small way, and reprove a greater sin, or if we are sinful in secret and reprove a public sin; and also when in public we simultaneously reprove ourselves too, not condemning, but rather criticising, ourselves at the same time. Gregory says [MorJob .] that, since we ought to love our neighboursasourselves,wearethereforeobligedtocorrectsomeoneelse's sins and be angry at them as we are at our own. But if we reprove someone else arrogantly, as if we do not acknowledge our own sin, then we bring damnation on ourselves. That is why Matthew :says, 'Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, and you do not see the plank in your own?'
Again, if because one's own sins are obvious, correcting someone else will cause scandal, then such correction will not be a virtuous act.
() Correction by force is the duty of superiors, but correction through charity the duty of all.
() Since our superiors are also our neighbours, we ought to correct them, but in a humble and reverent way, without impudence, to avoid making them angry; indeed, St Paul says this in the same place [Tim
:], 'Someone senior to you beseech as a father.' That is why Demophilus the monk was criticised, because he corrected an errant priest by insulting him and hurting him, beating him and throwing him out of the church.
() If correction is offered when the circumstances are appropriate, such disturbances will not follow, but rather peace and stability, as the causes of disharmony have been removed.
Article : Whether the order for brotherly correction laid down in Matthew :–counts as a precept Objections It seems not, because:
'Perplexity' is Aquinas's term for what some philosophers call a 'moral dilemma': a situation in which, whatever one does, one acts wrongly.
Article () Timothy :says, 'Reprove the sinner in the presence of everyone.' However, Matthew :says, 'Accuse him between the two of you alone', that is, admonish him in private. Now, St Paul's words cannot conflict with a precept of Christ's. Therefore it seems that there cannot be a precept that we should first admonish a brother in private and then publicly denounce him in the church.
() Rejoinder: St Paul's words should be understood to refer to open sins, which have to be reproved in public. The words of the Lord, however, refer to secret sins. On the other hand no one should make secret sins public; that would be betraying an offence rather than correcting a brother. But the Lord instructs us in Matthew :–that if our brother does not listen to the warning given in private, we should bring in one or two witnesses, and then tell the church. That, surely, is making the sin public.
Therefore it seems that the Lord's precept should not be understood as referring to secret sins.
() As Augustine says [Trin ..], all standards of truth are derived from the law of eternal truth. But the law of eternal truth holds that God does not only punish people for secret sins, but also sometimes punishes them without first giving any warning in private. Therefore it seems that a human being too, who ought to imitate divine truth, may publicly denounce someone even without first giving him a warning in private.
() As Augustine says [Ly .], we can understand from the deeds of the saints how we ought to interpret the precepts of holy scripture.
But what we sometimes find the saints doing is publicly denouncing a secret sin, without giving any private warning first. We can read this in Acts :–, where Peter publicly denounced Ananias and Sapphira for secret dishonesty concerning money from the sale of a field, without first warning them in private. Therefore we are not bound by Christ's precept to warn someone in private before denouncing him in public.
() Every action of Christ is there to instruct us; he himself said in John :, 'I have given you an example; you should do just as I have done.' But we are not told that Christ warned Judas in private before he denounced him. Therefore it seems that we too can publicly denounce a brother's sin without first warning him in private.
() Just as denunciation happens in public, so also does indictment.
But someone can proceed to indicting someone else without warning him For the legal significance of these terms, see the reply to this argument, below.
On Brotherly Correction privately first. The only prerequisite for an indictment is a written challenge, as the Decretal states [Decretals of Gregory IX ..]. Therefore it seems that we are also permitted to denounce someone publicly without first warning him in private.
() If in every case one is free to omit a certain act, then there is no precept requiring that act. And it does seem that in every case one is free to omit a private warning. For in each and every sin, one might be aiming at the common good of justice and therefore proceed to an indictment without first giving a private warning. Therefore it seems that the precept does not require that a private warning should be given first.
() It does not seem to be plausible that something that is a general custom among members of religious orders is against the precepts of Christ. But it is the custom among religious that specific sins of specific people are declared in the chapter meetings without any private warning being given first. Therefore it seems that the precept does not require that one gives a private warning prior to a public denunciation.
() Augustine says [CT ..] that just as roundness has the same character whether the circle in question is large or small, so justice has the same character in both great and small matters. Therefore, if for small sins there is no need for a private warning prior to a public denunciation
(as was being argued), then neither, it seems, is there for big sins.
() If a public denunciation ought to be preceded by a private warning, it is necessary for there to be some delay between criticising the sin and publicly denouncing it. Sometimes, however, such a delay could be dangerous in that afterwards it would not be possible to cure the problem adequately. Suppose, for example that someone has had dealings with an enemy about betraying the city, or that there is a heretic within the flock seducing people from the faith. Then it does not seem as if a private warning should be given first.
()Anagentcanfunctioninthreetypesofway:(i)natural;(ii)artificial; (iii) acting through grace or charity (in this case, rebuking a brother out of charity). (i) But a natural agent does everything as well as it is able; (ii) the same is true of an artificial agent. (iii) Therefore, someone who rebukes a brother out of love ought to do this as well as possible. But this would be done better if done publicly, for it is more beneficial to the majority in that way, and the good of the majority is better than the good of one person. Therefore it seems that it is better to reprove a brother in public straight away, without a prior warning in private.
Article () A sinner in the church is like a gangrenous limb in a natural body.
It does not matter how a doctor chooses to amputate a gangrenous limb in order to prevent the whole body being infected. Therefore it seems that it does not matter how a brother who sins is rebuked, whether in public or privately.
() Subordinates are under an obligation to obey their superiors. But sometimes superiors order their subordinates to tell them whatever they know about someone else's sinning. Therefore, even if these sins were committed in secret, the subordinates are obliged to reveal them, without giving the sinner a prior warning.
() The gloss comments on Matthew :, 'If your brother has sinned againstyou',thatyououghttoreproveyourbrotheroutofazealforjustice.
From this it seems that brotherly correction is an act of justice. However, justice ought to be done openly. For Aristotle says [NE .., b] that justice is a virtue that is brighter than the morning or evening star.
Therefore brotherly correction ought to be carried out in public not in private.
() It is the role of justice to pay people what they merit. But sinners by sinning are dishonoured before God. Therefore it seems that they ought also to lose their reputation among human beings, as they merit, by being corrected publicly.
() None of God's precepts are contrary to a counsel or another precept. But the Lord says in Luke :, 'If anyone takes what is yours, do not ask for it back', and this saying must be either a counsel or a precept.
Therefore it seems that where you cannot give a warning without asking for your things back, especially in a case where someone has made off with your goods, the precept cannot require a private warning.
() At any time and in every way we are allowed to return good for evil. But Augustine says [GrFC .] that when we rebuke troublesome people, we are returning to them good for evil. Therefore it seems that we are allowed to rebuke them publicly at any time without a prior private warning.
() Laws are passed to deal with common rather than rare events.
But it happens only rarely that someone actually becomes a worse person through losing his reputation. Very often, however, people are checked from sin through its being exposed. Therefore it seems that there is no precept of God's law which tells us to warn someone privately before denouncing him in public.
On Brotherly Correction () The order for brotherly correction includes the stipulation that the sin should only be denounced to the church or to a superior when the brother refuses to listen when he is first reproved. But if a person commits a sin with the knowledge of someone else and then promises to correct himself, it seems that he has therefore listened to the brother who reproved him. However, it still seems that the sin should be denounced to the relevant superior, so that the discipline of justice is maintained.
Therefore it seems that the order of brotherly correction given by the Lord is not a precept.
() Jerome comments on Matthew :, 'If your brother has sinned against you', as follows: 'If he has sinned against God, then it is not up to us to judge' (CommMatt ). Therefore it seems that this system of correction does not apply to all sins.
() The Lord says in Matthew :, 'If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.' But you do not gain your brother if he merely listens to someone reproving him and desists from sin when he has already committed serious sins. It needs a lot more than this for him to reach salvation, to which 'gaining your brother' refers. Therefore it seems that this order of brotherly correction does not apply to serious sins.
() Ecclesiasticus :says, 'Have you heard words against your neighbour? Let them die inside you, trusting that they will not harm you.' Therefore if we catch our neighbour sinning, we ought not to report him to anyone else.
() We should treat a brother more gently in the case of other sins than in the case of the perverse sin of heresy. But with the perverseness of heresy, we should warn someone two or three times, according to Titus :, 'Avoid a heretical person after his second or third warning.'
Therefore it seems that rebuking someone once before denouncing him, as the words of the Lord seem to imply, is not enough.
() According to Augustine [Serm ..–.], this order of giving correction is observed in the case of secret sins. But in such a case it does not seem possible to prove anything through witnesses. Therefore it is inappropriate to include in the order of giving correction the calling in of witnesses.
() We ought each to love our neighbours as ourselves. But no one is obliged to bring in witnesses to make his own offence public. Nor, then, should this be done in order to reveal a brother's offence.
Article () Augustine says [Rev .] that one should reveal such things to whoever is in charge before one does so to witnesses. But to reveal them to whoever is in charge, as to a superior, is to tell them to the church.
Thereforewitnessesdonothavetobebroughtinbeforetellingthechurch.
Consequently, it seems as if the order that the Lord gives cannot be a precept.
But on the other hand () Augustine when explaining 'Rebuke him between the two of you alone' says [Serm ..] the following: 'Be eager to correct but spare people's shame. For someone might begin to defend his sin out of shame. Then you will make worse the person you want to make better.' Therefore the reason for preserving this order when correcting a brother is to spare his shame so that he does not get worse. But we are obliged to do this by the precept of charity. Therefore there is a precept about the order for brotherly correction.
() The gloss comments on Matthew :–'If he has sinned against you' etc. as follows: 'We ought to avoid scandal by using this order.' But there is a precept about avoiding scandal, as is clear from Romans [:].
Therefore there is a precept about the order for brotherly correction.
My reply Just as we said above, there is a precept about brotherly correction insofar as it is an act of virtue; it is an act of virtue insofar as it is clothed in the appropriate circumstances. Among these, being ordered towards the end seems particularly important; moreover, this ordering should have a common standard in everything that is to be done.Now the purpose of correcting a brother is to reform him, as has been said. That is why the Lord wanted brotherly correction to be given in this order, because it is suitable for reforming a brother, whom we want to free from sin.
Sin threatens a person with a double danger – to conscience and to reputation. These two, i.e. conscience and reputation, are related in such a way that conscience should be put before reputation: for the witness of That is, the proper end for a given sort of action provides a general rule or standard governing all the actions of that sort.
On Brotherly Correction conscience happens in the sight of God, whereas the witness of reputation is part of human responsibility. They also differ in that people need a conscience for their own sake, but they need reputation both for their own sake and for that of others. Therefore, the Lord wanted brotherly correction to be offered in an order that first, as far as possible, provides for conscience without injuring reputation. This happens by means of a private warning. Next, since conscience is to be preferred to reputation, the Lord ordained that if a brother cannot be reformed except by losing his reputation he should in the end be publicly denounced, so that when more people castigate him, this might be the cure that saves him.
However, if one were to proceed straight away to denouncing the brother publicly, he would lose his reputation; this ought to be avoided
(i) for his sake, and (ii) for all those others who also have need of his reputation.
(i) For his sake for two reasons: (a) because good reputation is the most important of the exterior goods, in accordance with Proverbs :, 'A good name is better than great wealth'; and also because a good reputation renders someone fit for carrying out the human duties that are a part of human social life. That is why Ecclesiasticus :says, 'Take care to keep a good name; for this will last longer for you than a mass of great and precious treasures.' Therefore, if it is a sin to deprive a neighbour of his wealth where that is not necessary, it is far more of a sin to deprive him of his reputation where that is not necessary, by making his sin public where that is not necessary; (b) because frequently people refrain from sinning in order to keep their reputation. Consequently, those who see that they have already lost their reputation may think nothing of sinning, in accordance with Jeremiah :, 'Your face has become like a prostitute's, and you have forgotten how to blush.' That is why Jerome comments on the passage from Matthew as follows: 'You ought to rebuke your brother away from others in case he once loses his sense of propriety and of shame and then remains in sin' [CommMatt , on :].
(ii) Again, there are two dangers from the point of view of others:
(a) people may hear about someone's sin and be scandalised and then begin to scorn not only the sinner, but many other innocent people too.
Hence Augustine says [Let .], 'When it is rumoured falsely or revealed truly that someone who has a reputation for holiness has committed a crime, immediately people busy themselves in trying to believe the same of everyone'; (b) if one person's sin is publicised it can provoke many
Article others to sin; as Corinthians :puts it, 'Do you not know that a little leaven can spoil the whole lump?'
That is why there is a precept that we should not proceed to a public denunciation before correcting someone in private. However, one goes from one extreme to another via a mid-point. Therefore, the Lord included a middle level: after the private warning and before denouncing someone publicly to everyone else, one should bring in two or three witnesses, so as to correct the offender more privately without telling everyone, as Augustine says in his Rule [.]. Consequently, there is a precept about the order of brotherly correction, just as there is about brotherly correction itself; in both cases, though, you need to preserve proper distinctions, observing appropriate times, places, and other circumstances, and do everything that you see to be helpful for reforming your brother, which is the purpose and standard of brotherly correction.
Replies to objections () As Augustine explains [Serm ..–.], we should understand St Paul to be talking about public sins. The Lord's words, though, should be taken to refer to secret sins, as is clear from his very form of expression. For he says, 'If your brother has sinned against you.' But someone who has sinned publicly has sinned not against you alone, by insulting or harming you, but also against everyone who see this. The Lord signifies this in the parableatMatthew:,whendescribingtheworthlessservant:whenhe beathisfellow-servant,'hisfellow-servantsonseeingwhatwashappening became very distressed'. Again, Peter :says, 'They tormented the soul of the just man by their wicked deeds.'
()(i)Somepeopleunderstandtheorderofbrotherlycorrectionthatwe should observe as follows: first the brother should be rebuked in private; if he listens, all is well. If he does not listen, they say, you need to make a distinction: (a) if the sin is completely secret, you should go no further;
(b) if it is already beginning to be noticed by more people, you should continue the procedure in accordance with the Lord's instructions.
However, this does not seem to be correct, for Augustine says [Rule .], 'If your brother has a wound in his body which he wants to hide because he is afraid of being operated on, would it not be cruel of you to remain silent, but merciful to point this out? How much more ought we not to keep secret wounds in the heart, in case they fester and get worse?'
On Brotherly Correction (ii) Therefore we need a different distinction: (a) if we can consider it likely that by proceeding further we will get somewhere with reforming him, then we ought to proceed further by calling in witnesses and denouncing him; (b) if we reckon it likely that making the sin public in this way will make him worse, then we ought not to proceed any further.
If this is the case, we ought completely to leave off correcting the brother, as we said above.
() The entire truth of human justice is regulated by divine truth.
However, the deeds of human beings are not related in the same way to divine and to human judgement. From the point of view of human judgementsomesinsaresecret,andthereforehereweoughtnottoproceed immediately to the public forum. But no sin is related to divine judgement in this way, because 'everything is naked and open in the eyes of God', as Hebrews :says. That is why there is no need for a secret warning first with respect to divine judgement; however, normally sinners do receive a sort of private warning when God reproves them through the inward remorse of their conscience and through inward inspiration, whether when they are awake or when they are asleep. For Job :–says, 'In sleep and in dreams at night, when slumber overwhelms us, then he opens men's ears and teaches, instructs and trains them, to turn them away from what they have done.'
() Peter did not find out about Ananias's and Sapphira's sin in a human way, but through divine revelation. For this reason, he acted in the case of this sin according to the procedure for divine rather than human judgement, on the grounds that he was in this case God's agent.
() The Lord also recognised Judas's sin by divine power insofar as he knew what was hidden. That is why, as God, he could have proceeded immediately to making the sin public. However, he did not actually make it public, but gave Judas a warning about the sin in coded language.
() The rationale is different for indicting and for denouncing someone.
A denunciation aims to reform the brother, which is why it ought to be done in an order suitable for reforming him. An indictment, however, aims at the good of the church, to keep the community free from the infection of sin. That is why an indictment does not always need to be preceded by a denunciation.
() We ought not to proceed to an indictment for every sin, but only for those sins which easily cause either spiritual or physical danger to the mass of people. Then someone can proceed to an indictment without
Article giving a prior warning, if this is needed to help the community. This is because the common good should be put before the good of an individual.
() The declarations in the chapter-meetings of religious are reminders rather than denunciations or indictments. They are there to make the brother mindful of the fault from which he ought to cleanse himself, without this damaging his reputation. For declarations of this sort deal with minor faults. However, it would be unlawful and against Christ's precept to make a public declaration of a serious fault, which could harm someone's reputation, without a prior warning.
() A poor reputation is not created by minor sins, as it is by serious ones. Therefore the reasoning is different in the two cases.
() In cases where it would be dangerous to delay a denunciation, we ought not to wait and warn the offender first, but proceed straight to the denunciation. This is not against Christ's precept, for two reasons: (i) because the sin that risks endangering a lot of people is not against you alone, but also against a lot of others. But the Lord's words were, 'If your brother sins against you'; (ii) because the Lord was not speaking about taking precautions against future faults, but about past faults that had already been committed.
() It is far better both for the brother whom you are aiming to reform, and for the mass of people, if you manage to reform him privately, as is clear from what has been said. That is why someone who is offering correction in accordance with charity ought to proceed in the manner we have described.
() If a doctor were to proceed to amputating gangrenous limbs immediately, he would be acting rashly, and would often amputate limbs when they could have been healed. A wise doctor will begin with less drastic remedies, and only amputate a limb as a last resort, after discovering that it cannot be healed. We should act similarly as regards brotherly correction.
()WeoughtnottoobeyasuperiorincontradictionofChrist'sprecept, as Acts :tells us: 'You ought to obey God rather than human beings.'
The superior who gives an order that is contrary to the instruction of Christ is not exonerated from sinning. Therefore, if a superior commands someone to tell him anything he knows about where correction is needed, or about someone else's sins, we surely ought to interpret the command in accordance with the order established by Christ (in a case, that is, where he has the right to give this command). If he gives a command that is
On Brotherly Correction expressly against this order, it ought not to be obeyed. However, in those cases where a secular or ecclesiastical judge is able to require an oath, in the process of denunciation or of investigation or of indictment, there a religious superior too is allowed to bind his subordinates under a precept of obedience.
() Justice is said to be the brightest of the virtues because of the beauty of its order; a part of this is that secret things are kept secret.
() Those who sin in secret merit losing their reputation, but they can only be punished in a way that repays what they merit by the one who is judge of what is secret, that is God; as Corinthians :puts it, 'He who will illuminate what is hidden in the darkness and reveal the plans of our hearts.'
() (i) 'Do not ask for your own things back' counts as a precept if it is taken to refer to an attitude of preparedness not to do this, as Augustine explains [SermMount ..]. For we are obliged to be prepared not to ask for our own things back in cases where that is required by faith or by charity; we are also obliged in such a case to give in the first place out of what is ours.
(ii) In cases apart from this, however, 'Do not ask for your own things back' can be a counsel applicable in appropriate circumstances, just as it is a counsel that we give what is our own to whom, and when, we should.
Now brotherly correction does not contradict either the counsel or the precept in question. For someone can warn a brother who has taken what is someone else's in order to make him ashamed of his sin and ready to make up for it, even where the other person is willing to give up what is owed, thinking that expedient.
() Someone who rebukes an offender in the proper manner and order returns good for evil. Someone who overlooks the proper manner and order by rebuking hidden sins in public does not return good, but evil, for evil.
() It happens only rarely that secret sins are made public, and that is why it is rare for this to be dangerous. But if secret sins were frequently made public, then we would discover through experience that dangers would arise from this.
() Where the sin is secret and there seems to be no immediate reason for publicising it, and where the sinner has promised to reform, one would
Article be violating the Lord's precept by reporting an errant colleague, whether to a superior or to anyone else.
() It is not up to us to judge whether to forgive the penitent who has sinned against God, but it is up to us to judge whether to preserve the order established by Christ when we correct such sins.
() We should take it that the sinner has listened to the rebuke when he stops doing what he was doing and does anything else he needs to do for his salvation, such as confessing or making up for his sins. Then, however serious the sin was, you will have gained your brother, if he listens in that sense of the word.
() When we hear a word against a brother, it ought to die in us in the sense of not escaping from us to damage his reputation. However, we are not forbidden from proceeding further in order to reform him.
() When the Lord says, 'Rebuke him between the two of you alone', we should not take this to mean only once, but two or three times, or even more, as long as there is still plausible hope that he may be corrected in private. However, when we can take it that it is no longer likely that he can be reformed in this way, then we can consider that he has failed to listen.
() Witnesses are brought in either (i) to show that what someone is being reproved for actually is a sin, as Jerome says [CommMatt , on :]; or (ii) to provide evidence about their actions if they repeat them, as Augustine says [Let .; Rule .]; or (iii) to witness that the brother who gives the warning has done what he can, as John Chrysostom says
[CommMatt ].
()Wedonotneedwitnessestoreformourownsins.Wemay,however, needwitnessestoreformsomeoneelse's,inthethreewaysjustmentioned.
That is why the reasoning is different in the case of one's own sin and of that of a brother.
() When Augustine says that you should tell a superior before you tell witnesses, he is thinking of the fact that a superior has a specific role, which enables him to help even more than others can. In this sense telling a superior is not the same as telling the church. That would only be the case if you told him publicly, say, when he was sitting as a judge.