[De veritate dicenda aut tacenda]

admonition, and by omitting it immediately runs to public denunciation in a visitation or chapter, he ought to consider himself suspect of omission and the loss of charity. Because when he could have amended his brother through an easier way, to choose a more difficult and more shameful one appears to be a desire for the brother's disgrace. For in every way it must be guarded against that a brother be scandalized or provoked to anger, if the salvation of the soul can otherwise be achieved through secret admonition. But if he does not admit it, but rather opposes the shield of the defense of the fault, and persists, being unheeding, then he can be well denounced to the prelate, so that public punishment may proceed against him. Likewise, the same is felt by Thomas, in Quodlibet 18, art. 2. If he proceeds by way of an inquisition, infamy ought to precede; if it has not preceded, he sins by publishing the fault of another. If he proceeds by way of accusation, it must proceed in writing to retaliation, and then the prelate ought, as a judge, even with an oath, to demand a confession of the truth, and the subject is bound to obey him, just as if infamy had preceded. If, however, he proceeds by simple denunciation, the subject is not bound nor ought he to obey the prelate so as to publish the fault of another without admonition, according to the teaching of Christ in Matthew 18, because a prelate cannot command that the order of the Gospel be perverted. This is what Thomas says there.

On fraternal correction.

The eighth proposal: To pass over the fault of a brother in silence, or through fraternal correction, sometimes happens without sin, sometimes with sin. For the declaration of this proposal, it is to be noted that this proposal touches upon the matter of fraternal correction, concerning which there is an extensive treatise in Holy Scripture and in canon law, which I wish were as frequently exercised in practice and accepted as it is known and read. And yet today few