175. When it’s right to correct your clergyman
175. WHEN IT’S RIGHT TO CORRECT YOUR CLERGYMAN
Is it my place to correct my priest when he clearly sins or teaches error?
(1) A subject is (a) not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment; but (b) 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. . . .
(2) 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. . . .
(3) To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then (Gal 2:11), unless he were in some way his (apostolic) equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: Say to Archippus: Fulfill thy ministry.
(4) 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. . . .
(5) 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 (II-II, 33,4).
(6) 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 . . . correction becomes unseemly . . . when . . . a man thinks lightly of his own sins and in his own heart sets himself above his neighbor (II-II, 33, 5).
In St. Thomas’ day clergy were no more perfect than they are today and sometimes needed “correction”. The difference today is that it is sometimes theological correction as well as moral: the congregation sometimes believes more than the preacher does!
(1a) A priest can be punished only by his pastor, a pastor by his bishop, a bishop by the pope. But (1b) any Christian can fraternally correct any other Christian, if it is done out of charity (all charityless motives are suspect), but only if the correction is objectively correct and necessary and (2) if it is done with respect for the office and with gentleness to the person (honey gathers more flies than vinegar), and (3) in private, (4) unless innocent people would be harmed if not done in public; (5) and it must be done without presumption and pride (for one can be in the right about one particular thing—the error or sin of the other—without being in the right about everything else); (6) and it must be done without the hypocrisy of being guilty of the very same sin or error oneself.
Notice how much moral common sense St. Thomas has. He constantly avoids easy opposite errors, e.g., laxity or judgmentalism.
Notice how intuitively we say “Aha! That’s obviously the right answer!” when we read St. Thomas. There is in each of us a little St. Thomas, sitting there at the heart of our reason, conscience, and common sense, that recognizes right reason, good conscience, and common sense when we find it. We wouldn’t have come up with his answers ourselves, yet when we hear his, we instantly say “Of course!”