Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

Christ handed down this order, Matt., XVIII, 15-17, in these words: If thy brother shall sin against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, take with thee yet one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. But if he will not hear them, tell the Church; and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and publican. There are therefore three grades in the order of fraternal admonition: first, to admonish secretly; second, to admonish before one or two witnesses; third, to tell the Church or the prelate. The question is whether this order is of precept as regards all its grades¹ .

I say 1°: If the sin be public, that is, known to the greater part of the community, secret admonition ought not necessarily precede denunciation, but he is to be reproved publicly, according to that word, I Tim., V, 20: Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear; which Augustine understands of public sins, Serm. 822, concluding: « Therefore those things themselves are to be reproved before all which are sinned before all; those themselves are to be reproved more secretly which are sinned more secretly. »

The reason is² : 1° Because, when sin is public, a remedy is not only to be applied to him who sinned, that he become better, but also to others into whose knowledge it comes, that they be not scandalized. 2° Because the end on account of which secret admonition should precede, which is preservation of reputation, ceases when through the publicity of the sin the reputation of the sinner has been lost.

I say 2°: If the sin be hidden, but tending to the harm of others, whether corporal or spiritual — say if someone secretly treat of betraying his fatherland, if a heretic privately turn men from the faith, if a magician or sorcerer secretly act to the destruction of others, if an apothecary sell pernicious drugs, etc. — one must proceed straightway to denunciation, secret admonition not having preceded, so that such harm may be impeded³ : partly because then the words of the Lord have no place, for the brother sinning does not sin against thee only; partly because we ought rather to care that an innocent neighbor not be injured in body or soul than that the sinner's reputation be lost.

Except, unless perhaps someone firmly judge that he could straightway impede evils of this kind through private admonition⁴ . But this scarcely holds place with heretics, who are unwilling to hear even the Church herself, and with magicians and sorcerers, on account of their obstinate will in evil.

I say 3°: If the sin be hidden and harmful only to the sinner himself and to him against whom it is sinned, speaking per se, a secret warning must necessarily precede denunciation⁵ .

It is proved. 1° from the words of Christ: If thy brother shall sin against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. 2° By natural law we are held to cure our neighbor with less, so far as can be done, damage to his reputation; for reputation is useful both in temporal and in spiritual things: just as a physician confers bodily health upon the sick man, if he can, without amputation of any limb; but if he cannot, he cuts off the less necessary limb, that the life of the whole be preserved. Therefore the reputation of the sinning brother ought not to be diminished before a superior when amendment is hoped for through private correction. 3° Because immediate denunciation without secret warning often moves the neighbor to indignation against the denouncer, and to further fall, according to that word of Jerome on the cited words of Matt.: « The brother must be rebuked apart, lest, if once he lose shame or modesty, he remain in sin. » For many are withheld from sin by fear of infamy who, when they see themselves defamed, sin unrestrainedly.

I said, « speaking per se; » because per accidens secret correction is not to precede denunciation in certain cases. 1° It is not to precede if it be solidly presumed not profitable⁶ . 2° If the one about to correct be less fit for correcting, and it appear that it will be done better by the prelate, inasmuch as the prelate is pious, discreet, spiritual, not bearing rancor or hatred against the subject, and able to impede the sin in many ways, although delation be made to him at once. He says the same concerning some other pious and prudent man.

Nor is this to tell the Church; because it is not said to the prelate as to a judge and superior, but as to a person profiting toward the correction and amendment of a neighbor, and quasi as a brother.

Nor even thereby is the precept of the Lord violated of secret warning preceding denunciation; because, since it is affirmative and directed to the good of correcting, it ought to be observed insofar as the circumstances of places, times, and persons indicate it ought to be observed. Nor can the corrected one complain of his defamation before a superior; for this defamation is light, attending to the prudence, probity, and benevolence presupposed in the prelate, and he ought to endure it for obtaining a better manner of his salvation.

I say 4°: If after secret admonition applied several times fruitlessly there be hope that, proceeding further, the brother will amend himself, we ought to proceed further, bringing in witnesses, then denouncing the prelate as a father, however hidden the sin be. But if there be no hope that, proceeding further, the brother will amend himself, one must not proceed beyond private warning⁷ .

It is proved as to the first part: 1° from the law enacted by Christ. 2° By charity we are held to consult the reputation and salvation of our neighbor, salvation however more than reputation, if both cannot be had. Therefore if the introduction of witnesses or denunciation be necessary to the salvation of our neighbor, the light injury to reputation from the introduction of witnesses or from the denunciation made to the prelate as to a father ought to be neglected, that salvation be obtained; just as a prudent physician, for preserving the life of the whole, cuts off the less necessary member, as we said above from the Author.

It is proved as to the second part. Fraternal correction and its whole process are ordered to the good and amendment of the brother; wherefore, when the amendment of the brother is not hoped for from proceeding to the introduction of witnesses and to denunciation, one must abstain from these.

I said, « denouncing the prelate as a father; » because, if the hidden sin of the brother be harmful only to himself, nor such that the common good requires its being brought to judgment, it is not licit to denounce by juridical denunciation the prelate as judge, but only as father; nor can the prelate, to whom this sin becomes known by way of fraternal correction, proceed judicially against that brother, nor punish him with public excommunication or other defaming penalty: because fraternal correction itself and its whole order and process are ordered to the good alone and amendment of the brother, but judicial process to the common and public good only. Add that the brother through his hidden sin has not lost his right to reputation, nor does the good of the republic require that he be defamed. Therefore the delinquent subject-brother is to be denounced fraternally to the prelate as father, so that the prelate cannot chastise him with public excommunication or with other defaming penalties of law, but before the denouncer and witnesses, or a few grave men, reprove him and chastise him with moderate private penalties, as flagellation, fasting, and the like, and forbid him under penalty of excommunication lest he relapse into such sin. But if he obey not, he shall be excommunicated, and thus as a heathen and publican, as the sentence of Christ declares, yet not publicly, but privately; nor can he be denounced as such while the sin remains hidden.