ST. PETER, ST. PAUL AND ST. THOMAS

HE following extracts from the Suszma Theolo- T g i c a of St. Thomas may be of interest and value to our readers. They are found in the Secunda Secundae.

Question 33. Article 4. WHETHER A MAN IS BOUND TO CORRECT HIS PRELATE.

Obj. 2 . A gloss on Gal. 11, 1 1 : ' i withstood him to the face adds : as a n equal. Therefore since a sub- ject is not equal to his prelate, he ought not to correct him. . . .

. . . . I answer that a subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punish- ment.

But the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within t6e competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires cor- rection.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit. Thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circum- stances, 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. Hence the Apostle says (I Tim. v, I), An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat as a father. Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with Demophilus, a monk (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence by striking and turning him out of the church.

3 56

St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Thomas

Reply, Obj. 2. To withstand anyone in public ex- ceeds the mode of fraternal correction; and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defence of the Faith.

But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle, in writing to the Colossians (iv, 17), tells them to admonish their prelate : Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry.

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, re- buked him in public on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith; and as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 11, I I , Peter gave an ex- ample to superiors that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.

# # # w Question 43. ArticLe 6 .

WHETHER ACTIVE SCANDAL CAN BE FOUND IN THE PERFECT.

Obj. 2. Peter, after receiving the Holy Ghost, was in the state of the perfect. Yet afterwards he scan- dalized the Gentiles; for it is written (Gal. 11, 14): When I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas-ke., Peter- before them all : If thou being a /ew livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the l e w s do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as the jews? Therefore active scandal can be in the perfect. * # j(: j(r

Reply, Obj. 2 . In the opinion of Augustine (Ep. xxviii), and of Paul also, Peter sinned, and was to be blamed in withdrawing from the Gentiles in order to avoid the scandal of the Jews, because he did this

357

somewhat imprudently, so that the Gentiles who had been converted to the Faith were scandalized. Never- theless, Peter’s action was not so grave a sin as to give others ‘sufficient ground for scandal. Hence they were guilty of passive scandal while there was no active scandal in Peter.’

I . It will readily be admitted that if St. Thomas Aquinas is characteristic of his century, then his cen- tury has a breadth of outlook almost without parallel. On the other hand, if St. Thomas is not characteristic of his century, then his century has a breadth of toler- ance almost without parallel.

In saying this we beg our readers to pardon our use of the adjectives broad and tolerant, as if breadth and tolerance were inherent attributes of truth. Truth is true and catholic rather than broad. Moreover, although truth is neither tolerant nor intolerant, but opposite, of untruth, men who have the truth must often be tolerant, not of untruth, but of men ,who yield fealty to untruth merely because they think it true !

2 . If St. Thomas seems to take a broad-that is, a Catholic-view of St. Paul’s reproof of St. Peter, it is through no lack of loyalty to Peter but through a greater love of truth, of faith, of charity. Few men of the thirteenth century had more intimate or lasting relations with the successors of St. Peter than this fearless teacher, who began life as a god-child of one Pope and died when on his way to a General Council at the command of another Pope. The human side of the supreme ecclesiastical authority was not unknown to this profound thinker whom Popes took into their counsels.

The medieval gibe, ‘ Romae omnia venalia,’ re- ceived a perhaps unconscious commentary in these words of his : ‘ The Pope can be guilty oi the vice of simony like any other man; since the higher a man’s

* t * *

St. Peter, St. Paul and St . Thomas

position the greater his sin. For although the pos- sessions of the Church belong to him as dispenser in chief, they are not his as master and owner. There- fore were he to, accept money from the income of any Church in exchange for a spiritual thing he would not escape the vice of simony’ (ibid. Qu. 100, Art. 1,7). No man saw more clearly than St. Thomas saw the wounds of the Church. Yet no man gave it more wor- ship of loyalty and faith. This loyalty and faith have received tense expression in his brief commentary on our Blessed Lord’s words to another Thomas : ‘ Be- came thou had see% me, Thomas, thou hasi believed ’ (Jo. xx, 29). One thing he saw; another, he believed. He saw the wounds; he believed in God ’ ( 3 4 Qu. 5 5 , Art. 5, 30).

j. The admissions of St. Thomas are sometimes provocative of that passive scandal of the ignorant to which no active scandal corresponded. Thus St. Thomas bluntly admits that in the famous Antiochene incident St. Paul’s reproof of St. Peter was justified because St. Peter had sinned. The question of St. Peter’s sin was hardly disputable, in face of the fact that it was proved by the authority of St. Augustine and St. Paul.

4. Moreover, this sin of St. Peter was a sin, not in- deed against faith, but about faith. St. Peter’s public line of action was causing ‘ imminent danger of scan- dal concerning faith ’ (Imminens periculum scandali circa fidem).

5 . Moreover, though St. Paul was the subject of St. Peter, yet with regard to the defence of the faith St. Paul was in some way the equal of St. Peter (aliquo mod0 par esset quantum ad fidei defensionem).

6. From all this St. Thomas concludes that St. Paul’s reprehension was justified, and indeed obliga- tory, on two counts: (a) St. Paul was acting in this

3 59

matter, not so much as the subject of St. Peter, but as the equal of St. Peter.

One who was merely a subject and not in some way an equal of St. Peter could have reproved St. Peter privately, but not, as St. Paul had reproved him, publicly.

Nevertheless ( b ) even if St. Paul had nowise been the equal, but only the subject, of St. Peter, he would have been bound to reprove St. Peter-not merely privately, but publicly. St. Peter’s sin was a public (though not grievous) sin, causing imminent danger of scandal concerning faith. Now, according to St. Thomas, ‘ if the faith is endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly’ (ubi immineret periculum fidei etiam publice essent praelati a sub- ditis arguendi). This councillor of kings and popes undertook his task with a fine sense of responsibility. But how blessed was the century whose kings and popes could choose such outspokenness for giving counsel. I t is to their everlasting credit that, in their difficult, necessary, regal task of applying principles to human affairs they sought wisdom from the man whose principles are, in these days, almost dangerous to enunciate because so difficult to apply.

VINCENT MCNABB, O.P.