That We Ought to Beware of Wrangling, Contradicting, and Reprehending

WE must also avoid any wrangling with another or contradicting him, it being a thing very contrary to union and fraternal charity; of which St. Paul gives us warning when, writing to Timothy, he says: Do not contend in words, for it serves for nothing else but the disedification of the hearers. And a little after, he adds: A servant of God must not be contentious, but gentle and peaceful in his behavior to all men (II Tim. ii. 14, 24). The saints much recommend this to us, and from them our Father has borrowed it and inserted it in his Rules. St. Dorotheus says that he had rather things should be left undone than see any disputes or contests arise amongst brethren in doing them, and adds he would repeat this a thousand times. St. Bonaventure also declares that there is nothing more unworthy or misbecoming God’s servants than to insist on getting their own way and to wrangle with one another as market women are wont to do. And St. John Climacus goes on to say that obstinacy in maintaining one’s own opinion, though it be true, is certainly instigated by the devil; and the reason is that that which usually moves men thereto is the excessive desire they have of human honor. To that end they aim at getting their own way, appearing wise and intelligent and coming out conquerors, or, at least, not seeming inferior to others; and thus it is always the devil of pride who is the occasion of this obstinacy.

Now in this, two sorts of faults may be committed. The first and greatest is his who first contradicted the other, because it is his obstinacy that began the dispute and kindled the fire, and so his fault is greater. And though for the most part the subject they dispute about is in reality of so small consequence that it is no matter whether the thing in debate be the one way or the other, yet the loss of peace and charity, which ordinarily are greatly impaired by these disputes, is of much consequence. The other says this in good faith, and understands the matter so. Let him alone in his good faith. There is nothing init. Dispute not about what does not concern thee, says the Wise Man (Ecclus. xi. 9). Even though the thing in hand be of consequence and you imagine that your brother may indeed receive some prejudice by adhering to his opinion, yet it is a good plan, they say, to bear with him for the present instead of contradicting him, but take him apart and tell him the truth afterwards, that he may not remain in error. Hereby the end is gained and unpleasant consequences avoided.

The other fault to observe here is, when it happens that someone contradicts you, you should not insist upon your point nor seek to push your opinion and get the better of him; but as soon as you have laid down once or twice what you take to be the truth, if others do not believe you, let them think what they please. This is done by lapsing into silence as though you knew no more—not, however, with the affected air which some take up as though they did not yield, but desired their opinion to stand and the blame to rest with the other party. He that avoideth contention, gaineth honor, says the Wise Man (Prov. xx. 3). And with reason does he say so. It is the property of noble hearts to bate one’s right in season, and let oneself be beaten in the like contentions and wrangles. He who acts thus, does an act of charity to his neighbor by avoiding the bitterness and irritations that usually follow upon these disputes. He does an act of humility within himself, vanquishing the desire of coming out with the honors of victory. Likewise an act of love of God, cutting off the occasion of many sins that are almost inseparable from a war of words; as the Wise Man says: Abstain from contention, and thou wilt diminish sins (Ecclus. xxviii. 10). On the other hand, he who maintains his view obstinately, besides the disedification that he gives, is the cause of the loss of peace and charity with many unpleasantnesses and rancors that follow therefrom. And instead of gaining honor and esteem, as he thought to do, he loses it because they take him for a “swollen head,” a man who likes coming out “top dog” and will never bate an inch to anybody.

It is said of St. Thomas Aquinas that in scholastic disputations he never peremptorily contradicted anyone, but said what he thought with incredible mildness and temperance of language, throwing no scorn on anyone, but rather paying honor to all, as one whose object was not to come victorious out of a dispute, but to get the truth recognized. The instance is also well known of those two old monks who dwelt together in one cell and never had contention or wrangle between them—how they wished to make trial to see if they could get up a dispute about a brick as to whose it was, and they did not succeed. That is how we should succeed in our disputations.

You should also beware of undertaking to reprehend and correct your brother, though you fancy you could do it with all charity and in the handsomest manner. That is the office of the superior. Now men take it with more or less of good will to have one superior or two to admonish and rebuke them, but they do not take it at all well for one who is not their superior to usurp that office. Men commonly have no mind to be corrected and reproved by their equals. We have also a rule forbidding anyone to command or rebuke another without authority from the superior to do so. As one cannot give an order without authority from the superior, so neither can one give correction. This is not a business to entrust to all. Even the superior himself, when he has to correct another and admonish him of his fault, must first look well about him and wait for his opportunity and measure his words, what he has to say and how he is to say it, in order that the correction and admonition may be well taken, and profit the delinquent, all of which points are necessary. And here is a man who will take upon himself without further ado to tell his brother of his fault on the spot, and often in the act itself, under color of zeal. This is not the zeal of charity, but often a thing very contrary to charity and more likely to do harm than good. Nay, even though there be much justification for what you do, the other is readily tempted to say within himself—and it is a mercy if he does not say it out loud: “Who has made you superior and why do you meddle in the office of another?” Who hath made thee prince and judge over us? If you tell the other that what he is doing is against the rule, he may tell you that your reprehending of him is also against the rule.

It is related of Socrates that one day when he was at dinner with some friends in the house of a leading citizen who had invited them, he smartly took to task one of the company for some fault that he saw him commit at table. Whereupon Plato, who was also present, said: “Would it not have been better to have left this till afterwards and reprehended him in private?” Socrates replied: “And would it not also have been better for you to have told me this afterwards in private?” He cleverly cast back his reprehension in his face, observing that he was doing the very thing that he found fault with in another. That is what these reprehensions serve for. And not only is this no zeal of charity, but often it is bad humor on the part of him who gives the rebuke, and his impatience and lack of self-control, which makes him so offended at the fault of his brother and sometimes with what is no fault of his own at all. He cannot contain himself till he has come out with it, and therein he thinks to have found relief and satisfaction. He cannot, or he will not, mortify himself, and he wants to mortify the other. The spirit of mortification and rigor is very good for each one to maintain with himself, but with his brother he should always maintain a spirit of love and gentleness. This is what the saints teach by word and example, and it helps much to union and fraternal charity. Hence it follows that, if it is not good to rebuke and correct your brother even when you think you are doing it excellently well and with charity and kindness, much less will it be good if you point out to him his fault not so excellently well nor with such excellent reserve.

Thus we should be much on our guard against the practice, and generally against all words that may mortify our brethren.

Cassian relates that one day Abbot Moses, in dispute with Abbot Macarius, happened to say a word to mortify him and somewhat discompose him, and at once God chastised him, permitting a devil to enter into him, and such a foul and filthy devil, too, as to drive him to put into his own mouth ordure and dirt, until by the prayer of Macarius he was delivered therefrom. This shows how much God abhors this fault, since He so chastised it in one who was such a great servant of His and a man of such approved sanctity as we know the Abbot Moses to have been. A chastisement something like this we read of in the chronicles of the Order of St. Francis. An aged friar in presence of a nobleman of Assisi addressed another friar in some rough and harsh words showing some anger. But in the act of saying them he entered into himself, and seeing his brother troubled by the words and the secular disedified, he was kindled to take vengeance upon himself. So taking some dung, and putting it into his mouth and chewing it, he said: “Let the tongue chew dung that has poured out against his brother poison of passion.” And it is said then that that nobleman was greatly edified and almost out of himself, seeing with what zeal and fervor the religious atoned for his fault. In consequence he was more devoted than ever to the friars, offering himself and all his goods to serve the order.