Volume III, Treatise VIII, Chapter VI

Of the Rule that Obliges Us Presently to Discover to Our Superior the Faults of Our Brethren

Tue ninth rule of the summary of our constitutions, says, that for our greater spiritual advancement, but more especially for our greater humiliation, we ought to be content that all our faults and imperfections, and even whatsoever we have done that is known out of confession, should be discovered to our superiors. Here it will be much to the purpose, for the better establishing what has been already said upon this matter, to know that not only all our constitutions have been approved of and confirmed by the Apostolical See, and that Gregory the Thirteenth, in the Bull whereby he approves them, has expressly put this clause, “out of my own proper motion”, but that this very rule which I just now cited, has also been particularly approved of, even by a particular sentence and decree, after its having been called in question, which renders it more authentic. I shall here set down how the thing happened:—A priest who had been of our society, and who had been dismissed as one of a turbulent spirit, caused to be printed one part of the sum of Cardinal Toletus, and joined a chapter thereunto, in which he said, that in a certain order, for which otherwise he had a great deal of respect, by reason of ‘the many learned men that were in it, there was a certain rule which obliged all the religious, that as soon as they knew any fault of their brethren, they should immediately advertise the superior thereof, without saying anything to the person that had committed it; and he added, that great inconveniencies might spring from this rule, and that it was quite contrary to the gospel. Father Everardus Mercurianus, who was the general of the society, complained to the Pope of this calumny; and the Pope desiring to see the book and the rule, and being informed after what manner it was practised _in the society, did not only declare that it was not contrary _to the gospel, but that it was so far from deserving any just censure, that it truly contained evangelical perfection; and moreover ordained, that that part of the book in which it was so injuriously spoken of, should be forbidden, as afterwards it was by Cardinal Sirlet, by virtue of the power which the office of inquisitor-general gave him.

Although this rule has been hereby sufficiently justified, I shall endeavour to prove, first, how important and necessary this rule is; and secondly, how just and reasonable it is; and in this I shall not rest upon the subtleties of the schools, but will endeavour to give palpable and convincing reasons for it. As to the first point—i.e., the importance and necessity of this rule—this may be seen by recurring to the very important rule of giving an account of conscience to our superior, of which I have spoken elsewhere. For all the reasons which our holy founder alleges in his constitutions, to show of how great importance and necessity it is to give an account of conscience to our superior, concur to prove the importance and necessity of the rule of which I now speak. I have already treated these reasons very fully, but they may be reduced to two: the first is, that superiors may the better know how they ought to govern each religious, and the second, that the general superior may the better provide for the good of the whole society in general. Now, it is for these very reasons that St. Ignatius judged fit that our superiors should be advertised of our faults and defects by any one that should know them out of confession. And he would by this precaution be assured of a thing that was of so great consequence both for your own good and for the good of the whole society, that in case you should neglect your duty, your brother might on this occasion do what you ought to have done yourself, had you been faithful in the observance of your rules. He does it only to pay your debt, and all is done for your greater good and for the better good of religion, and that superiors, for want of knowing the strength and capacity of each, may not expose any one to the danger of ruining himself.

Now as to what belongs to the second point, which regards the Justice and equity of this rule, it may be maintained by many reasons and authorities, of which the first is, that the same thing is practised in the most ancient religious orders. It is in use no less in the order of St. Francis than in ours, that when any one knows a fault of his brother, he goes presently to advertise the superior thereof, without saying anything beforehand to the person that committed it. One of the books of this order, entitled ‘Serenity of Conscience”, expressly takes notice of this practice in the hundred and fortieth question. And in other general statutes of the order, entitled those of “Barcelona”, because they were made in a general chapter held there in the’ year one thousand four hundred and fifty-one, it is expressly said, that when the religious shall be out of their monasteries, they must, at their return home, make known to their superior all things of consequence that happened to their brethren abroad; and whosoever shall fail to do this shall be punished by fasting on bread and water, or by such other penance as the superior shall think fit to impose upon him. The same thing is also ordained by the statutes that were made at the commencement of this order, in the fifth general chapter; and it was confirmed in that also which was held when St. Bonaventure was general, where it was resolved that the contrary opinion should be banished the whole order as an enemy to religious discipline, and that he that should teach it should have all his books taken from him, be deprived of active and passive voice, and even be put in prison.

But farther, to show how ancient this doctrine is, and how it has been approved of by those who have embraced angelical perfection, I will here set down an ancient decree, made by the abbots Stephen and Paul, and related in these terms by the abbot Smaragdus, “If any sees or hears another do or say anything that is not of edification, and does not presently tell it to the superior, let him know that he foments the sin, and that he entirely renders himself as guilty thereof as he that committed it, and that, in a word, he is a cruel enemy both of his own soul and of his also whose defects he endeavours to hide. But if any one”, says another decree, afterwards set down by Smaragdus, ‘should know that one of his brethren, finding a monastic life too hard, should have a design to run away, and does not go presently to discover it, let him not doubt but that he is in part the cause of his brother’s perdition, and is to be separated from the conversation of his brethren till he that is run away be brought back”. Here then we perceive that this rule is no new thing, nor in use only in our society, but was an ancient practice and observed in other orders. Moreover this custom is founded upon the end of the precept of fraternal correction, 7. ¢., the amendment of our brother, which, as it is ordinarily hoped, we may more easily compass rather by means of his superior than of any other particular person.

The reason that justifies this rule, and makes it appear to be neither so hard nor so rigorous as some imagine, is, that all it’ ordains and all that is practised amongst us upon this subject, is to tell the fault of our brother to our superior as to a spiritual father; that by reprehending him for it with the charity and tenderness of a father, he may by this means hinder him who was ready to fall, from doing so; or if he be already fallen, will preeently help him up again. It is in this sense that the twentieth of the common rules says, that he who shall know any considerable fault of his brother, ought to advertise the superior thereof, that he may by his prudence and fatherly care procure a convenient remedy. So that when one discovers his brother’s fault to his superior, he does not do it as to a severe judge that has a right to punish him for it, but as toa father, who cannot do but what is best for him, and to whom it belongs to apply a remedy, and to avoid such inconveniencies as might happen if nothing were known of it and if no step were taken on it.

Father Natalis, a man very distinguished both for his piety and learning, adds in the third place a very good reason: We see, says he, that both in the ecclesiastical and secular government, when they are about to seek out any person for an employment, they are wont to make secret inquiries into the life of those who aspire to it; yet this isnot done with a design to punish any one whom they shall find to have deserved punishment, but only because they wish to be very well informed of those whom they trust with such offices of authority, in which the good of their order in general, or the spiritual good of particular persons, is concerned. Now, all subjects of the society may be chosen for missions, which is one of the ends for which it was instituted, and which requires persons of very solid virtue, and not such weak and frail ones as by their fault would ruin the good reputation of the society. So that the superior has consequently right to inform himself, and to desire to be informed, even of the most secret things, and even to establish a rule thereupon, that the light he shall thereby receive may better help him to know those subjects he should make choice of, and hinder him from being deceived in a thing of so great importance, both to the good of particular persons, and to that of the whole society in general@

In the fourth place, to show how much this rule is founded upon reason, let us put into the scales, on the one side, the prejudice you receive by having your fault told to your superior as to a father; and in the other, the inconvenience of its not being told, either by ourselves or others, and see which is of greater weight. Allthe prejudice it can do us is reduced to the little confusion we receive, and the little esteem that we think we lose; but the inconvenience that may happen by not having your fault discovered to your superior, either by yourself or another, is far greater. For the superiors, through want of a knowledge thereof, can apply no remedy to it, and a distemper to which no remedy is applied, ordinarily augments, and easily communicates itself to others. Moreover, this would afterwards infallibly turn to your own shame and confusion, and to the discredit of your order; because, “‘thert is nothing hid which is not revealed” (Luke 12:2) Sooner or later, by one means or other, all things come to light, and a distemper, which at first might easily have been cured, if it had been then told the superior as it should have been, cannot afterwards be cured without applying fire and lance. All this, without doubt, brings along with it far more prejudice than the little confusion you would have undergone, or the little esteem you think you should have lost, by the discovery of your fault to your superior. Wherefore I say, that nothing is done against charity by discovering the fault of our brother to the superior, but that we are even obliged in charity to do so, and that we ought to have a great scruple not todoit. For this omission may sometimes happen to be a mortal sin—not by virtue of the rule—because our rules, as I have already said, oblige not under pain of mortal sin, but by virtue of the importance of the matter, and because of the great inconveniencies which may result from it, wherefore we render ourselves culpable, when we might have remedied and prevented them by giving notice in due time to our superior, which we neglected to do, and which we are obliged to perform.

St. Basil says upon this subject, “‘ that to conceal the sin of our brother from our superior, is to accelerate the death of a sick person, and to push a man down a precipice, who is already running to it himself”. For a sin which is concealed, is like an imposthume or gangrene, which daily augments, and at last gets to the heart, and brings death along with it. Hence, as it is to render great service to a man, to lance or cut the imposthume or gangrene, what pain soever the operation should give him; and on the contrary, as it would not be the part of a friend, out of compassion to hinder such an operation, though ever so painful —so, it is not to exercise the office of a friend, to hide from your superior the fault of your brother; but on the contrary, it is to contribute to his death, not to discover his infirmity to a physician able to cure it. ‘Do not think”, says St. Austin, treating on this matter, “that it is any hurt to reveal the fault of your brother. There is far more in letting him perish by your silence, whom you might have cured by discovering his fault. For if your brother had any dangerous infirmity which he would keep secret, fearing the pain of incision, would it not be a great cruelty in you to say nothing of it, and a great charity to speak of it? With how far greater reason ought you then to discover this spiritual wound, which he has a mind to hide, which may occasion the death of his soul?”

The silence, therefore, which some observe from motives of honour and friendship, as they erroneously pretend, is a thing quite contrary to the duty and obligation of charity. They imagine that it is friendship and a point of honour to hide the faults of another from the superior, and therefore they feel great repugnance to mention them, because they fear they shall upon this account be less esteemed; and therefore, as they say, they will not at all interfere in carrying reports to the superior, as they wish not to hurt any one, or lessen his esteem with his superior. This is not the spirit of religion, and far less that of the society. They are worldly maxims, and such precautions as these are very dangerous for any one to have in religion. For it is not to carry stories about, nor to hurt your brother, that you discover his faults; it is, on the contrary, to do him good, and not to discover them is both to do him and religion a prejudice. Where have you learnt that, not to displease a particular person, you may neglect the fidelity you owe to a whole body? To whom have you a greater obligation, —to your whole order or to a particular religious? It is very ill to hide the faults of another; it is as if one had intelligence, or were partakers with him that committed them; and it is for this reason that one ought to be ashamed of not being faithful to religion and of not observing its rules. “Wherefore”, St. Basil concludes, “let there be no one that helps to hide the faults of another, lest, instead of showing his affection to his brother, he procure his death”. - Hide not the disease of your brother, but discover it to the physicians before it becomes incurable, and before he is forced to suffer both fire and the lance; and this will be to perform the office of a true friend to your brother: for by this means you will save him; and, had you done otherwise, you would have been the cause of his perdition, All these, and many other reasons which are adduced both by saints ag well as divines, are sufficient to prove that this rule is both just and holy, even though a religious, in making his profession, should not expressly renounce, as we do, to the right he may have against this rule; because, in effect, there is no order in which they do not in this manner renounce to it. But we have, moreover, a reason which is peculiar to ourselves, namely, that when any one wishes to be received amongst us, the rules are given him, and a summary of the constitutions which he ought to observe, in which the rule we speak of is contained, and it is asked of him whether he be content to submit to these rules. This rule also is particularly specified unto him, and his express consent is again asked; and during the two years of his noviceship, before he can be received to his vows, every six months the same proposition is made to him. But there is still yet more, the master of novices is obliged, by a particular rule, to advertise the novices of those things which may afterwards give them any pain, amongst which this is particularly set down for one, and in effect he never fails to advertise them of it; and what removes all doubts on this matter, they answer according to the terms of the rule, that they voluntarily submit hereunto for their greater spiritual advancement, and that they may have greater occasion to humble and debase themselves. For it is very certain that there is nobody who may not, at his entrance into religion, renounce his own right upon account of greater perfection, and give his consent that, without being advertised, his faults may directly be discovered to his superior. For every man is master of his own reputation, and it is lawful for him, for his greater good, to be content to lose it, either with his superior or with any one else, so there be no particular circumstance that obliges him not to permit himself to lose it, as in effect there is not in the matter of which we speak. For as every religious may lawfully discover his sins to his superior, how great or secret soever they be, so he may lawfully give permission to another to do the same. And this is what all the religious of the society do by the express consent and approbation they give to this rule, as I have already said, and whereby they do nothing else than renounce the right they might have to the contrary. For if any one should reveal to me in confession, under the promise of secrecy, some great sin which he may have committed, and should afterwards give his consent that for the better judging what remedy he ought to apply thereunto, I might consult and advise with my superior about it, it is certain that by the consent he gave he renounced the right he had to hinder me from discovering his fault to any one, and, at the same time, I have gained a right to discover it to my superior to have his advice. Moreover, the novices see this rule practised for two years before they make their vows, which is sufficient to give them occasion to suppose, that when they afterwards make them, they tacitly renounce the right they may have against this rule, though they say not in express terms that they renounce thereunto. It is as a Carthusian does, when he makes his profession, who knows, that in the order to which he engages himself, perpetual abstinence is observed, which is never broken, upon any account whatsoever; and therefore by engaging himself he renounces the natural right he has to preserve his life by eating flesh, though he renounces it not in express terms, yet this right of his is much to be preferred before that of our preserving reputation. It is also in the same manner, that he who takes holy orders renounces the right of marriage, and remains strictly obliged to observe chastity all his life long, though he make no vow of chastity. Moreover, St. Francis Borgia being general, and being consulted about this matter by some provincial congregations of Spain, answered, that those who entered into the society were judged to have renounced all the right they might have had against this rule. It is moreover certain, both by the tenor of our bulls and by the privilege which the general of the society has, to declare the true sense of our constitutions, that we give up our right. To conclude, this rule having been afterwards discussed also in the sixth general congregation, all things were decided therein in the same manner; and a general congregation of the society, as it is noted in the same place, has authority from the Holy See to decide all doubts which may arise concerning the rules of our institute. It was also declared in the sixth general congregation, that these words of the rule, “by any one whomsoever that has had a knowledge of them out of confession”, ought not to be understood, but of the faults which another has notice of, and not of those which may have been told him in secret by any one by way of asking his counsel and advice.

All the difficulties that may arise about this matter are hereby entirely taken away, and hereby all subjects of complaint cease, it being an undoubted maxim of the law, “that no injury is done to him who knows and consents to it”. You were informed of this rule when you were first received, and then you signified that you were content to submit thereunto; if you are angry afterwards, that your faults are told to the superior, be angry, not with the rule that ordains it, nor with your brother that observes the rule, but with yourself, who ought now be more confirmed in the spirit of mortification and humility than you were in the beginning, and yet you are far less, because you are not now in the same disposition you were then in. It is from this the pain that this rule gives to any one proceeds, and our holy founder also knowing very well that pride and want of mortification were the only things that could render it troublesome, tells us that the spirit of humility and the desire of greater perfection ought to be the foundation thereof. If then we have this spirit and this desire, we shall be glad when they come to know our defects, that they may esteem us the less; and with how far greater reason ought we be glad that they are known, that hereby we may be reprehended and corrected for them! He that has not sufficient humility to desire his fault should be known upon this account, has scarce the spirit either of humility or of mortification.

About ReligiousBookshelf.com · A Supernerd Media project