Question II: Whether the order of fraternal correction, even in religious orders, is of precept, so that the correction first be made in secret

WE ASK here: Whether, given the conditions assigned above by D. Bonaventure — that the neighbor has gravely sinned and can probably be amended by fraternal correction — he ought first to be corrected before his sin is reported to the Prelate, even as to a Father, not as to a Judge. I speak, however, of secret sin, not one that threatens public ruin, such as heresy, rebellion, etc.

The FIRST opinion is: If there is hope that the Prelate will be more useful, one is not bound to secret correction; yet so that the Prelate be prudent, discreet; not violent, not hostile to the religious who sinned. They are cited by Caspensis, Tract. 17. disp. 6. sect. 1.: D. Thomas quodl. 11. art. ultimo, Sylvest. v. Correctio, Gabriel. lect. 74. in Can. Antonin. 2. p. tit. 9. cap. 6. Richard. 4. dist. 19. Iulius Calvus in Synaxi cura animarum, Angelus Clavasius in summa, v. Denuntiatio, num. 10. who asserts this to be the opinion of D. Augustine and all the Doctors of the Seraphic Order. Gerson 2. p. Alph. 24. litt. T. Tuttecremata in cap. si peccaverit 2. quaest. 1. Nicolaus Otbellius 4. dist. 19. quaest. 1. Iacob. Graffius lib. 2. cap. 69. who cites many others, and all the Theologians of the Society of Jesus.

He ADDS D. Bonaventure on cap. 19. Lucae, and the General Chapter of Barcelona, and the Constitution of the Fathers the Preachers, cap. 18. lect. 6. Which constitution, he says, is most ancient; for Smaragdus the Abbot, in Regulam S. Benedicti, refers this Constitution at cap. 24. and adds others at cap. 32. He further proclaims it common among the Doctors, and altogether to be held; but we shall soon see the opposite.

OTHER Doctors are reported in favor of this opinion by P. Antoninus Diana p. 2. Tract. 2. resol. 37.; they are Turrianus Tom. 1. in 22. dist. 89. dub. 4. where he cites D. Bonaventure, Angelus, Rosella, and Arauallus. Bictus, de denunt. casus quaest. 16. approves; he also reports D. Thomas and D. Bonaventure, as though truly cited.

ALMOST all, however, warn that this opinion is true provided the superior be prudent, discreet, not violent, or hostile to the religious, as I noted above; otherwise they fly to the second opinion.

The OPPOSITE opinion seems to be that of D. Bonaventure ad 17. Lucae, which passage the adversaries use for these words: Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, increpa illum, where he says: And note that in this rebuke the order must be kept which is expressed there: If thy brother sin against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. And afterwards he adds that witnesses must be called in; then, it must be told to the Church. This order, however, as regards witnesses, he says is a matter of congruity, not of necessity, and especially if it is perceived that the neighbor is incorrigible. There he gives the reason why it can first be told to the prelate; he adds the reason from Prov. 9: Rebuke not a scorner, lest he hate thee; and he adds from D. Jerome: To strive in vain, and by laboring to accomplish nothing else than to seek hatred, is the height of madness; otherwise indeed it is a commandment, he assents in the Speculum animae, cap. 3. see what was said in the previous volume de consentient. dist. 17. quaest. 10. to proposition 5.

From this supposition, indeed, he concludes that the fault of one's neighbor can be told to the Prelate without prior fraternal correction, understanding it when no fruit is hoped for from the correction. The same opinion he plainly indicates in other places cited above quaest. 2., and in the Speculum animae, cap. 1. he expressly asserts, with the majority whose view he subscribes to, the order of fraternal correction under pain of mortal sin. See after the middle of the chapter. The same he gravely asserts absolutely at those words Ecclus. 10. Si mordeat serpens, etc., where he asserts that this very order is a Divine commandment. The same he infers in the Speculum animae, cap. 3.

Of entirely the same opinion is D. Thomas in his last testament 2. 2. quaest. 33. art. 7., where he expressly teaches that this order is under commandment, nor can the prelate invert it, even if he perceived it in virtue of obedience, nor is obedience to be rendered to him; nay, both the one commanding and the one obeying sin against the divine commandment. The same he teaches art. 8. ad 4. Rodriquez de ordine iudiciario, tit. 4. cap. 19. where he reports others: Thomas a Iesu lib. de inst. tract. 1. cap. 9. num. 1. et 6. Lorca 2. 2. sect. 3. disp. 47. Ioan. de Cruz in directorio conscientiae, p. 1. praec. 5. art. 2. dub. 5. conclusione 1. Miranda de ordine iudic. tom. 1. quaest. 11. art. 4. to whom Diana subscribes tom. 1. parte 2. tract. 2. resol. 37. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 33. art. 8. dub. 2. Nauar. in Manual. Lat. cap. 8. num. 14. Petrus Nauar. lib. 1. cap. 4. dub. 13. num. 131. Sottus relect. de tegendo secreto, membr. 2. quaest. 4. concl. 3. disp. 3.

From the Society: Valentia disp. 3. quaest. 10. punct. 5. Tanner. 2. 2. disp. 1. quaest. 5. num. 106. who cites Adrian, Sylvest. Sotus, Bannes, Nauarrus, Valentia, Umbertus, Hugo, Victorinus, and D. Thomas. Becanus 2. 3. cap. 21. dub. 4. Sayrus in Clavi Regia, lib. 11. cap. 4. Fagundez in octavum praeceptum Decal. cap. 8. num. 7. where at num. 8. he carps as almost rash Richardus and others of the first opinion, who say the opposite. And at num. 9. he says that that opinion is in no way probable if one stands on the common law. He admits, however, at num. 13., with other Fathers of his Society, that some Religion could determine otherwise by a particular statute, provided however the religious by their right wish to renounce it, as is done in the Society of Jesus; whose constitution they defend without prejudice to this second opinion: Suarez tract. de fide, disp. 8. sect. 6. Coninch. de act. supersn. disp. 28. dub. 12. num. 121. Layman in Theol. moral. dub. 3. sect. 5. tract. 3. punct. 2. cap. 4. num. 5. Valentia loc. cit. Cantarellus super Decal. lib. 2. cap. 69. num. 111. Rodriquez in exercitiis spiritualibus, Tom. 3. tract. 8. cap. 6. where however he wrongly cites the Seraphic Doctor, whom Suarez and Tannerus also falsely cite super our Rule, Sancius in select. disp. 46. num. 28. Sanchez summa, 1. 2. lib. VI. cap. 18. num. 50. Ribadeneira de Inst. Soc. cap. 34. Becanus 2. 2. cap. 21. dub. 5. num. 33. and others in Diana at the place adduced, Bouerius in direct. p. II. cap. 14. Bictus, de denunc. quaest. 15. et 16. The same opinion hold Octavianus Spatius in Practica, de modo corrigendi Regulares tract. V. cap. 1. num. 4. and cap. 3. num. 4. Petrus a S. Ioseph lib. III. cap. 10. Basilius v. Correptio, num. 11. and our Order in its Constit.

IT MUST BE ASSERTED, with this opinion, that in fraternal correction the order of the Gospel is to be observed by commandment.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure ad locum Lucae, because fraternal correction is commanded by Charity for the salutary remedy of the neighbor; but more sweetly than it can be, out of love: Now love works more with less harm than it can inflict on the neighbor: Therefore.

Whence Caspensis loc. cit. and P. Matthias Bellintanus do not rightly attempt to show that a religious better heals his brother's salvation by reporting to Superiors, so that they may provide a remedy with a strong hand. Surely medicine teaches that iron is not to be applied when lenitives can help, as Fagundez observes num. 7.

IT IS PROVED secondly, because Matth. 18. and Lucae 17. the Fathers cited above quaest. 1. confess to be a commandment issued by Christ, surely also as to the order. This is confirmed by the Gloss there, and D. Augustine in Catena aurea of D. Thomas, where he says: That the one not rebuking in the manner said is a betrayer. The same D. Chrysostom has there, bringing forward the example of the physician adduced above, and homil. 60. in Matth. he teaches the same. And D. Hilary on this passage says: The Lord imposed upon us that order of keeping Charity. So also D. Jerome on this passage: The brother must be rebuked apart, lest if once he lose shame and bashfulness, he remain in sin. But if he will not hear, let a brother be called in. Thus also D. Augustine homil. 2. on this passage: Finally, from these words attend, out of what love you ought to do this. Therefore do it for his sake, that you may gain him. And comparing that saying of the Apostle 1. ad Timot. 5. Them that sin rebuke before all, he says: I say, therefore, let us hear these commandments, brethren, and be prepared between both commandments: it is true in both cases, that sometimes a brother must be rebuked between thee and him alone: Hear, if he sin against thee, because it was secret when he sinned against thee, seek secrecy. Hence you have that D. Augustine is wrongly brought forward by Angelus for the first opinion.

The same has Eusebius Emissenus and others in the Bibliot. homil. feria tertia post Dominicam tertiam Quadragesimae, and other Fathers, brought forward by Lorca disp. 47.

IT IS PROVED thirdly. Religious are not only not exempt from the observance of the commandments of the Gospel — especially the Friars Minor, whose Rule begins: The Rule and life of the Friars Minor is this, to observe the Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ — but are more bound to it. Now that this is a commandment S. Bonaventure asserts in the places cited, quaest. prima. Whence it is wrongly brought forward by Sanchez and Caspensis for the opposite opinion. It is confirmed; for our very Constitutions, which profess observance according to the rule, enjoin at chapter 3. that this ordinance of fraternal correction be kept, so that the brother be first rebuked, and if amendment does not follow, either one tell the sin of the other. I wonder that the Chapter of Barcelona is brought forward to the contrary, which decides this only when they are companions in crime, whence neither, if unamended, can rebuke the sins of the other, lest it be said to him: Said the Thief to the Thief. But concerning brethren outside who sin scandalously, it commands, and only condemns at the end, those who deny that a brother is ever bound to tell the sins of a brother to the Prelate. The same Julius II condemned. Whence that Chapter is not to our purpose.

IT IS PROVED fourthly: for No one is the Lord of another's reputation. Therefore he cannot straightway report to the Prelate, whereby he foully stains his reputation and eliminates the shame first aroused in the subject; for while a Religious is reported before the Prelates, a worse loss is inflicted on him than if it were told to many others. Therefore P. Martinus Rex de Calvasessio, of Brescia, who for nearly 30 years exercised the office of definitor, Provincial Vicar, and Apostolic Visitator in the Missions of the Rhaetians, a man of supreme Integrity and holiness, shining with Zeal and Charity, was wont to say: I would rather that my grave sin (if God suffered me to fall) be known by all the brethren than in the Definitory, where the Fathers dispose of me and govern me at their pleasure. O would that all Prelates would acknowledge this golden sentiment of ours! For very many, once reported to superiors, so collapse in spirit that they rush into reprobation. And if we were lords of our reputation, nor would it be lost by secret report to the Prelate as to a Father: why would the Fathers of the Society of Jesus press it, so that Novices be instructed in that custom of theirs, and, if they wish to profess, renounce their right to reputation in this respect? Why would so many most learned Fathers of the Society labor so hard to defend that constitution of theirs? Surely Lorca 1. 2. quaest. 33. art. 8. sect. 3. disp. 47. num. 12. Ledesma in the summa Tom. 2. tract. 4. cap. 4. concl. 24. and Cosmas Philiareus de officio Sacerdotis, tom. 1. puncto 2. lib. 4. cap. 14., though Jesuits, cry out against such a statute, whose opinion, as the more probable, the Academy of Salamanca has lately followed, as Hieronymus Rodriquez testifies in Compend. regularium quaestionum, resol. 36. num. 13. That Academy, moreover, is that of the Fathers the Preachers.

IT IS PROVED fifthly. The nature of things must be measured from what happens always or for the most part; but for the most part a report to the prelate stirs up hatreds, arouses shame, and afterward eliminates it; he has rushed on to worse things, as the Holy Fathers related above teach: see Diana. D. Bonaventure seems to incline somewhat to that Lucae 17., but because he wished all Prelates to be made like himself, who was famed for outstanding mildness, Charity, and benignity even toward apostates, much more toward the wounded within the secrets of walls, so that all might trust in him wondrously, as is had in his life in the Breviary, and in the first Volume of his works. No one is read to have gone away without consolation, no one without refreshment; all, even those once fallen, he embraced in his benign bosom. Such also was S. P. Francis, who was for him the exemplar of mildness and Charity, of whom it is read that he wished Prelates to be so gentle that if a sinner repented a hundred times, he would always be received, as at first, most benignly, with cheerful countenance. And if the subject would not have mercy; yet the holy Father, most humane even toward little animals — swallows, hares, etc. — wished Prelates to display supreme Charity toward the fallen, and was wont to say that the Prelate who wishes to raise up the fallen must bend himself to the earth, as Christ bent himself when he saw the adulteress drawn to him, whom he would not, according to the law, deliver to be stoned, but said: No one hath condemned thee: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. He bent down, writing in the marble the sins of the Prelates of that Synagogue, who with loftiest brow gaped for the condemnation of the woman. Prelates, therefore, ought to remember, as S. P. Francis used to say, that we shall all have been far worse if God should desert us, nor is it not so because of our merits. Our Constitutions enjoin these things also in that chapter. Therefore that constitution of Barcelona, among the Constitutions of Farinerius cap. 7., either does not touch the matter, or is abrogated. But say, it is not to the point, because they only condemn those unwilling ever to have the sins of a complicit neighbor reported to the prelate, even public ones and pernicious to the body of the Religion; which same Julius II condemned in the Constitutions of the Franciscan family, as Fagundez reports num. 20, and as I noted above.

Give us forever Prelates, holy Francises, Bonaventures, and others according to these exemplars of Charity. But on this well-worn path I cannot fix my steps, nor valiantly sustain the opposite opinion: Yet I do not refuse another point on which our Bouërius speaks learnedly, that some religious are reprobates, who abuse corrections, that they may sin in secret. These, I judge, are to be reported to the Prelate, not only as to a Father; but also as to a Judge. But these, who do not shrink from enormities, you will easily discern from others, who sin from some impulse of passion, or from frailty.

From these things the responses of Caspensis are worn away, who says that the good of the soul ought to outweigh the good of reputation. For we have already seen that the good of the soul is more easily promoted by a good reputation. And indeed I know that some have rushed headlong because of lost reputation. Then, reputation is of the natural law, and must necessarily be upheld, nor are evils to be done that goods may come, as the Apostle says.

The other response also is worn away, that the infamy from the knowledge of the Prelate is slight.

Nay, I have shown it to be the greatest, which will forever stand in the way in governance, dispensations of offices, and the other goods of the Religion; nay, those most expert in religious life judge from this a greater loss of reputation than from the knowledge of other brothers. I have shown sufficiently also that the constitution of Farinerius helps him nothing, where he declares that doctrine, opposed by many, according to the mind of D. Bonaventure.

Surely D. Bonaventure professed the Gospel, and this commandment of the Lord the sacred Canons confess; And at least in that passage of Luke, he admits the admonition: Are then the precepts of Christ pestiferous? Hah, P. Caspensis, professor of the Gospel!

But as to the Constitutions of the Fathers the Preachers loc. cit., I am not moved at all; for they speak of scandalous sin. Then the Theological Fathers of Salamanca, and other Preachers, are with us. Then the Rule of the friars minor is this, to observe the Gospel of the Lord, cap. 1.

As to the rule of S. Benedict, it plainly speaks of him who plots apostasy, and of the scandalous. Whence it is not to the point. I add that our Constitutions, cap. 3., impose the order of correction.

He ADDUCES also Innocent III. cap. 39. Qualiter, et quando, 1. de accusat. But he speaks of a delict already so known to the Prelates that they can proceed. Where he only the more commends providing without the engines of trials, if it can be done, by removing from the office in which the brother sins. Nor does he speak of the Evangelical order. Nay, Innocent himself cap. cum ex iniuncto, says: It is one thing to rebuke secretly a brother sinning in himself, which each is bound to effect, according to the Evangelical rule.

This, however, I warn with Cajetan: one must walk with open eyes, while we see a Religious sinning lethally; and it must be presumed that such a one is with difficulty brought back to penance. See him opusc. primo, resp. 5. ad ultimum dubium, and Durandus in 4. dist. 19. and D. Chrysostom homil. 40. in Matthaeum.

Therefore it is needful that the monitor clothe himself with the bowels of Charity, and arm his heart with Zeal, and neither pander to the curiosity of Prelates, nor indulge the license of subjects; for fraternal correction is the daughter of mercy, the granddaughter of Charity, as all the Doctors, even of the first opinion, confess, in Sanchez num. 46. who adds n. 47. that it is not to be reported to the Prelate if it be doubtful whether the Prelate is more apt for the salvation of the sinner.

But CRIMES, ruinous to the community, especially heresy, are to be reported without correction, as is lately said in the Constitution of the Holy Inquisition of Alexander VII. Among sins publicly damaging, moreover, Caspensis reports fornication, and he reports sixteen Doctors. He adds, however, that those fallen through frailty are to be commiserated, and rather covered with the mantle of Charity.

From what has been said you have that it is mortal to transgress this commandment, or to invert it out of hatred. Whence it comes that it cannot be told to the Prelate before witnesses have been called in, or at least one. So Hugo de S. Vict., who was a second Augustine, as Trithemius says, and he reports the same Augustine. The same affirm Albert. Navar. Valentia, who proves it from D. Basil quaest. 46. and D. Augustine regula tertia.

IT IS PROVED also, because Christ prescribes the sweet manner of Charity in this order of correction: Now surely he supposes that the greater detriment to reputation is if it be reported to the Prelate than if only two subjects know it.

Finally I warn that Christ gave this commandment to the Apostles, religious men; Whence I wonder at those saying that the good of religion requires something else, as though Christ had not instituted the best norm of religion.

MANY, in Diana resol. 38., add that it is a venial sin not to correct one sinning venially: but this displeases; nor does that of Azorius punct. 2. lib. 12. cap. 14. quaest. 4. Angelus, or Sylvestrus, and others there, please. Prelates are excepted, who ought to correct even venial sins. See him. Nay, Fuliensis adds that the Prelate is to be blamed mortally if he omits to correct venial sins gravely noxious, for instance silence; and similar things, which tend to no small detriment of religion.