Case XLVIII: Fraternal Correction

Titius, a young man of otherwise good parts, is becoming very much addicted, of late, to the use of strong drink. His friend Cajus, a young man of the same standing as Titius, perceives this growing habit with alarm, and considers seriously within himself what may be his conscientious duty in the case. Cajus has, on several occasions, taken Titius to task for his excessive drinking, but only in a mild way and with considerable hesitation. Titius' father, a good man, knows that he drinks, and many of Titius' young men friends know it. But they have neglected, up to the present, to remonstrate with him about it, and, in the meantime, the case is becoming more and more aggravated. Cajus is beginning to have qualms of conscience about his duty of correcting Titius, under the circumstances. Is Cajus bound, under pain of mortal sin, to admonish and correct Titius, or may he leave the burden of correcting Titius to Titius' father and friends?

Solution.—Our Saviour imposes on us the precept of fraternal correction, when He says: “If your brother sins against you, correct him” (Matt. xviii.), charity demands of us that we rescue our neighbor from grievous evil whenever we can do so without serious inconvenience or damage to ourselves. There is no question here of obligations arising from justice or piety; as, for instance, between pastor and people, or between parent and child. There is question here of an obligation arising from charity, as between private individuals. Now drinking to excess is a grievous evil and a mortal sin, and although mortal sin can not be committed except by the free will and consent of the sinner, still, 1, it may be difficult for the sinner to reform, if left to himself, either because he does not reflect, or does not realize his condition; 2, the sinner may be led into sin by reason of external causes, from which it may be very difficult for him to extricate himself, unless admonished and assisted by others. There is a graver obligation of saving our neighbor from mortal sin than there is of saving him from serious temporal loss into which he is plunging of his own free will. And yet we are bound, sometimes even under mortal sin, to save our neighbor from worldly loss, into which he is rushing knowingly and willingly, when we can do so, without serious damage to ourselves. By much the more reason, therefore, are we obliged to save our neighbor from serious spiritual injury.

However, in order that there be created a grave obligation to correct our neighbor, the following conditions must exist: 1. We must be sure that our neighbor is committing grievous sin, or at least that he is in danger of committing it. 2. There must be little or no probability that our neighbor, if left to himself, will correct himself. 3. We must have hope of effecting some good by our correction. 4. There must be no one else more fit or equally fit to admonish, and who will, in fact, administer the admonition. 5. There must be no danger of our incurring any serious risk by reason of our admonitions.

If these conditions are verified, then, from the very nature of the case, and according to the unanimous opinion of theologians, there arises a grave obligation of correcting our brother.

However, even here, it must be observed, there is not so much question of correcting a past sin as of preventing a future sin; that is to say, we are obliged to prevent our neighbor committing grave sin or repeating it, and we are obliged to prevent him remaining along time in a state of spiritual damnation. Therefore it follows that we are not obliged to correct our brother as soon as he sins, not only because, as a rule, the above conditions will not be verified but also because the sinner himself is not obliged to repent directly he has fallen, but may wait some time; and therefore neither are we obliged to admonish him immediately upon his fall.

Now, on the other hand, there are circumstances which excuse us from the obligation of correcting our neighbor.

1. If there is hope that our brother will rescue himself, in a short time, or that he will not fall again, our obligation ceases.

2. If our correction would only make matters worse we are excused from correcting, except where damage is being done to others or to religion, etc.

3. If it be probable that parents or superiors will administer the correction, then those who are of equal standing with the sinner are released from the obligation.

4. In like manner, if I can prudently judge that some one else, more fit than I, will admonish the delinquent, I am excused.

It is rare that we are obliged to correct some one whom we do not know, because we can not judge what may be the result of our correction. A private person, of easy-going nature or indolent disposition or who is timid and backward, who thinks himself unfit to administer a correction, and therefore omits it, but who is, nevertheless, willing to act, if he thought it quite necessary or profitable, would commit a venial sin, by not correcting. Indeed, private persons are rarely obliged to administer a correction, unless they be more or less intimately acquainted, because it is rare that all the conditions creating a grave obligation are present. And seldom, if ever is an inferior obliged to correct a superior. Scrupulous persons are, as a rule, exempt altogether from the obligation of administering fraternal correction, because they are incapable of distinguishing when there is an obligation to admonish and when there is none. Moreover, on account of their scrupulous nature, they would commit a great many imprudences and torment themselves beyond measure. As a rule, therefore, it is better that they should not correct others, except in extraordinary and very evident cases.

Here we wish to lay stress on a point of considerable importance, in this matter, and that is that it is neither the duty nor the privilege of private individuals to pry into the lives of their neighbors, with a view to correcting them. All writers on this matter call attention to this point. Even superiors are admonished to be moderate and conservative in their scrutiny of the lives of those under them. We are obliged to administer a correction only in those cases that fall under our notice, without our seeking them.

Let us now apply these remarks to the case in hand.

1. If there is any hope at all that Titius' father or his other friends will administer the necessary correction, then Cajus is not obliged to do so.

2. If there is only slight hope or likelihood that an admonition coming from Cajus will do any good, then there is no obligation to give it.

3. If Cajus is scrupulous or overnervous or inclined to exaggerate, it were better that he abstain from correcting.

4. If Cajus fears harm for himself or for those connected with him, resulting from the correction, as, v. g., enmities, loss of position, breaking of a marriage engagement, then he is not obliged to act.

5. But if Cajus is a prudent man, whose admonitions will likely be heeded, and if he feels convinced that no one else will administer the necessary correction, and if he has nothing to fear from it, except that Titius may feel sore about it, etc., then Cajus is bound in conscience to administer a prudent, earnest, and charitable correction to Titius, in order to save him from the great evil that is destroying him. Cajus must make it evident to Titius that he is acting, not from motives of fault-finding or recrimination or personal indignation, but in a spirit of true, disinterested Christian charity.