St. Thomas Aquinas On Correcting Others
May 30, 2018 9:04:37 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski, Pacelli, and 3 more like this
Post by Caillin on May 30, 2018 9:04:37 GMT -5
Here are some teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas concerning fraternal correction and speaking the truth to others. I collected these quotes and bolded, underlined, and highlighted some parts some time ago.
This first quote deals specifically with foregoing correction. Notice how St. Thomas makes the distinction between the corrections of prelates and those who are not.
This second quote, below, is specifically in regard to confessing one's faith and is also pertinent to the quote above about correcting others.
When we think about correcting others, then, we ought to think "what are the most effective strategies and tactics for bringing such-and-such a person closer to the Truth?" The question is directed towards the proper end, i.e. bringing a person closer to Truth, or the amendment of the wrongdoer. Thinking about strategy and tactics in answering that question would not only include a consideration of the truths that would sufficiently address particular errors, but also how to regulate the act of addressing errors so that it is proportionate to the end, and not a hindrance to it; combining our knowledge with wisdom, prudence, and charity.
However, refraining from correcting someone with truth when it's only going to make them angry, or drive them away from the truth, is just one part of the larger strategy and tactics we should be considering. When we do try to correct someone, and speak the truth, we should also be doing our best to do it in a tactful way, with discretion and considerateness, "always in grace seasoned with salt" (Col.4:6).
Here is St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on this passage:
This first quote deals specifically with foregoing correction. Notice how St. Thomas makes the distinction between the corrections of prelates and those who are not.
Summa Theologica
Second Part of the Second Part
Question 33 - Fraternal Correction
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 no 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.
Second Part of the Second Part
Question 33 - Fraternal Correction
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 no 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.
This second quote, below, is specifically in regard to confessing one's faith and is also pertinent to the quote above about correcting others.
Summa Theologica
Second Part of the Second Part
Question 3 - The outward act of faith
Article 2. Whether confession of faith is necessary for salvation?
Objection 1. It would seem that confession of faith is not necessary for salvation. For, seemingly, a thing is sufficient for salvation, if it is a means of attaining the end of virtue. Now the proper end of faith is the union of the human mind with Divine truth, and this can be realized without any outward confession. Therefore confession of faith is not necessary for salvation.
Objection 2. Further, by outward confession of faith, a man reveals his faith to another man. But this is unnecessary save for those who have to instruct others in the faith. Therefore it seems that the simple folk are not bound to confess the faith.
Objection 3. Further, whatever may tend to scandalize and disturb others, is not necessary for salvation, for the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:32): "Be without offense to the Jews and to the gentiles and to the Church of God." Now confession of faith sometimes causes a disturbance among unbelievers. Therefore it is not necessary for salvation.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 10:10): "With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation."
I answer that, Things that are necessary for salvation come under the precepts of the Divine law. Now since confession of faith is something affirmative, it can only fall under an affirmative precept. Hence its necessity for salvation depends on how it falls under an affirmative precept of the Divine law. Now affirmative precepts as stated above (I-II, 71, 5, ad 3; I-II, 88, 1, ad 2) do not bind for always, although they are always binding; but they bind as to place and time according to other due circumstances, in respect of which human acts have to be regulated in order to be acts of virtue.
Thus then it is not necessary for salvation to confess one's faith at all times and in all places, but in certain places and at certain times, when, namely, by omitting to do so, we would deprive God of due honor, or our neighbor of a service that we ought to render him: for instance, if a man, on being asked about his faith, were to remain silent, so as to make people believe either that he is without faith, or that the faith is false, or so as to turn others away from the faith; for in such cases as these, confession of faith is necessary for salvation.
Reply to Objection 1. The end of faith, even as of the other virtues, must be referred to the end of charity, which is the love of God and our neighbor. Consequently when God's honor and our neighbor's good demand, man should not be contented with being united by faith to God's truth, but ought to confess his faith outwardly.
Reply to Objection 2. In cases of necessity where faith is in danger, every one is bound to proclaim his faith to others, either to give good example and encouragement to the rest of the faithful, or to check the attacks of unbelievers: but at other times it is not the duty of all the faithful to instruct others in the faith.
Reply to Objection 3. There is nothing commendable in making a public confession of one's faith, if it causes a disturbance among unbelievers, without any profit either to the faith or to the faithful. Hence Our Lord said (Matthew 7:6): "Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine . . . lest turning upon you, they tear you." Yet, if there is hope of profit to the faith, or if there be urgency, a man should disregard the disturbance of unbelievers, and confess his faith in public. Hence it is written (Matthew 15:12) that when the disciples had said to Our Lord that "the Pharisee, when they heard this word, were scandalized," He answered: "Let them alone, they are blind, and leaders of the blind."
Second Part of the Second Part
Question 3 - The outward act of faith
Article 2. Whether confession of faith is necessary for salvation?
Objection 1. It would seem that confession of faith is not necessary for salvation. For, seemingly, a thing is sufficient for salvation, if it is a means of attaining the end of virtue. Now the proper end of faith is the union of the human mind with Divine truth, and this can be realized without any outward confession. Therefore confession of faith is not necessary for salvation.
Objection 2. Further, by outward confession of faith, a man reveals his faith to another man. But this is unnecessary save for those who have to instruct others in the faith. Therefore it seems that the simple folk are not bound to confess the faith.
Objection 3. Further, whatever may tend to scandalize and disturb others, is not necessary for salvation, for the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:32): "Be without offense to the Jews and to the gentiles and to the Church of God." Now confession of faith sometimes causes a disturbance among unbelievers. Therefore it is not necessary for salvation.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 10:10): "With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation."
I answer that, Things that are necessary for salvation come under the precepts of the Divine law. Now since confession of faith is something affirmative, it can only fall under an affirmative precept. Hence its necessity for salvation depends on how it falls under an affirmative precept of the Divine law. Now affirmative precepts as stated above (I-II, 71, 5, ad 3; I-II, 88, 1, ad 2) do not bind for always, although they are always binding; but they bind as to place and time according to other due circumstances, in respect of which human acts have to be regulated in order to be acts of virtue.
Thus then it is not necessary for salvation to confess one's faith at all times and in all places, but in certain places and at certain times, when, namely, by omitting to do so, we would deprive God of due honor, or our neighbor of a service that we ought to render him: for instance, if a man, on being asked about his faith, were to remain silent, so as to make people believe either that he is without faith, or that the faith is false, or so as to turn others away from the faith; for in such cases as these, confession of faith is necessary for salvation.
Reply to Objection 1. The end of faith, even as of the other virtues, must be referred to the end of charity, which is the love of God and our neighbor. Consequently when God's honor and our neighbor's good demand, man should not be contented with being united by faith to God's truth, but ought to confess his faith outwardly.
Reply to Objection 2. In cases of necessity where faith is in danger, every one is bound to proclaim his faith to others, either to give good example and encouragement to the rest of the faithful, or to check the attacks of unbelievers: but at other times it is not the duty of all the faithful to instruct others in the faith.
Reply to Objection 3. There is nothing commendable in making a public confession of one's faith, if it causes a disturbance among unbelievers, without any profit either to the faith or to the faithful. Hence Our Lord said (Matthew 7:6): "Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine . . . lest turning upon you, they tear you." Yet, if there is hope of profit to the faith, or if there be urgency, a man should disregard the disturbance of unbelievers, and confess his faith in public. Hence it is written (Matthew 15:12) that when the disciples had said to Our Lord that "the Pharisee, when they heard this word, were scandalized," He answered: "Let them alone, they are blind, and leaders of the blind."
When we think about correcting others, then, we ought to think "what are the most effective strategies and tactics for bringing such-and-such a person closer to the Truth?" The question is directed towards the proper end, i.e. bringing a person closer to Truth, or the amendment of the wrongdoer. Thinking about strategy and tactics in answering that question would not only include a consideration of the truths that would sufficiently address particular errors, but also how to regulate the act of addressing errors so that it is proportionate to the end, and not a hindrance to it; combining our knowledge with wisdom, prudence, and charity.
However, refraining from correcting someone with truth when it's only going to make them angry, or drive them away from the truth, is just one part of the larger strategy and tactics we should be considering. When we do try to correct someone, and speak the truth, we should also be doing our best to do it in a tactful way, with discretion and considerateness, "always in grace seasoned with salt" (Col.4:6).
"Walk with wisdom towards them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always in grace seasoned with salt: that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Col. 4:5-6)
Here is St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on this passage:
"187. – Paul says, conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, that is, unbelievers. And do so wisely, with wisdom: “For God loves nothing so much as the man who lives with wisdom” (Wis 7:28). The reason for doing this is that they may be making the most of the time. A person makes the most of his trouble when he overlooks what is owing to him, in order to avoid trouble. Now, they were being troubled by these outsiders. And so Paul wants them to make the most of this trouble by means of wisdom: “Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” (1 Pet 2:12)."
"188. – Paul also instructs them as to their speech. First, it should be gracious; and so he says, let your speech always be gracious; “A gracious tongue multiplies courtesies” (Sir 6:5). Secondly, it should be considerate; and so he says, seasoned with salt. Salt signifies considerateness or discretion, because just as salt makes food savory, so every inconsiderate action is bitter and irregular: “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another” (Mk 9:50). They should do these things so that you may know how you ought to answer every one. For those who have wisdom should be answered one way; and the foolish are to be answered in another way: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself” (Prov 26:4); “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you,” as we read in 1 Peter (3:15)."
dhspriory.org/thomas/english/SSColossians.htm#41
"188. – Paul also instructs them as to their speech. First, it should be gracious; and so he says, let your speech always be gracious; “A gracious tongue multiplies courtesies” (Sir 6:5). Secondly, it should be considerate; and so he says, seasoned with salt. Salt signifies considerateness or discretion, because just as salt makes food savory, so every inconsiderate action is bitter and irregular: “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another” (Mk 9:50). They should do these things so that you may know how you ought to answer every one. For those who have wisdom should be answered one way; and the foolish are to be answered in another way: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself” (Prov 26:4); “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you,” as we read in 1 Peter (3:15)."
dhspriory.org/thomas/english/SSColossians.htm#41