Chapter X — On fraternal correction

I. Fraternal correction is described by St. Thomas (II-II, q. 33, art. 1) as a spiritual alms flowing from charity, by which one strives, by a secret admonition, to remove the evil of his neighbour insofar as it is harmful to him. Correction is twofold: fraternal, which I have described; and judicial, which is an act of justice and looks to the good of justice. This correction can be given only by those who are endowed with public authority.

II. Question I. Is there a divine precept of fraternal correction? Response. All affirm it. For it is said (Matt. 18:15): But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. This precept binds both the faithful and unbelievers, because it is divine and natural, included in these words: What thou wouldst have done to thee, do to another.

III. St. Thomas (II-II, q. 33, art. 2) recounts several conditions, which can be reduced to four, for this commandment to bind. 1. Knowledge of a grave sin. 2. That there be hope of amendment. 3. That there be a fit occasion of person and of time. 4. That it can be given conveniently.

IV. The knowledge of the sin that is required must be morally certain; a doubtful or slightly probable knowledge is not enough, unless the danger of grave harm were imminent, or when the sin would turn to the injury of the neighbour and there were hope of amendment: for then a merely probable doubt would suffice for correcting the offender.

V. The sin subject to correction is mortal; otherwise venial — unless venial sins carry with them the proximate danger of falling into mortal ones, for then I judge the precept to oblige. If venial sins are habitual not from infirmity but from malice, the precept obliges under light fault.

VI. Lay Superiors are free from correcting the venial faults of their subjects, since it is theirs to guard the tranquillity and peace of the Commonwealth and the Community; and venial sins do not disturb this peace. Those mortal sins above all they ought to correct which are pernicious to the neighbor. But ecclesiastical Superiors, and especially Regulars, are bound to correct deliberate venial sins which proceed from malice, because these cut short the course of that perfection to which Regulars are held by a special title. Nay, they are bound, and that gravely, to correct the frequent transgressions of the constitutions of their own Order, which inflict grave detriment on the Order and dispose toward the dissolution of regular discipline.

VII. Past sins not yet amended are subject to fraternal correction, whatever certain men say to the contrary: since not only the crime about to be committed, but the crime committed, is matter for correction. For the evangelical text says: If thy brother shall offend [in the perfect tense, not the future], rebuke him.

VIII. Question II. Are sins committed from ignorance to be corrected by force of the precept? Answer. All affirm it, if the ignorance be vincible. Of invincible ignorance there is disagreement among the Theologians. But the more common opinion, and the true one to me, is that the precept presses above all when the neighbor labors under a double misery — both that he has committed a sin, material though it be, and that, wrapped in the gloom of darkness, he is ignorant of the sin. The precept of enlightening the neighbor, then, presses greatly at that time. If the invincible ignorance be only of ecclesiastical law, the precept presses even then — especially if that law regard the universal Church, as does the law which commands Lent, the Ember days, abstinence from flesh on Friday, and things of that kind. For ignorance of these is a grave evil, from which the neighbor must be rescued by the benefit of fraternal correction.

IX. Question III. Who are the persons upon whom the burden of correcting rests? Answer. All are subject to this precept, as has been said above. But of certain persons, and especially of sinners, there is dispute among the Theologians. It is expedient that correctors be just; nay, holy Scripture seems to require this: for St. Matthew, chapter 7, says: Hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thy own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye; likewise St. Luke, chapter 4: Physician, heal thyself; and St. Paul, Romans chapter 2: Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. All these texts require in the one correcting cleanness from crime, and therefore humility, meekness, prudence, and the other virtues which shine in the just. Sinners, for the most part, driven by hatred, pride, and haughtiness, become the reproachers of others' crimes.

X. I answer, nevertheless, that sinners are not immune from the precept of correction, but bound by it, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 33, art. 5: The correction of an offender belongs to someone insofar as the judgment of reason has force in him; and according to this it can belong to subjects to reprove a fault. But nevertheless, through a preceding sin, a certain impediment to correction is brought about, for three reasons. First, indeed, because from the preceding sin he is rendered unworthy to correct another — and especially if he has committed a greater sin, whence he is not worthy to correct another for a lesser sin ... Secondly, the correction becomes undue on account of the scandal that follows from the correction, if the sin of the one correcting be manifest: because it seems that he who corrects does not correct out of charity, but rather for ostentation ... Thirdly, on account of the pride of the one correcting, insofar as someone, making light of his own sins, prefers himself to his neighbor in his heart, judging his neighbor's sins with harsh severity, as if he himself were just ... From these things, then, it is plain that if a sinner corrects an offender with humility, he does not sin, nor does he acquire for himself a new condemnation — although by this he may show himself, either in his brother's conscience or at least in his own, to be condemnable for his past sin.

XI. It is the duty of sinners, before they correct others, to detest their own crimes, and with great humility of soul to rebuke the vices of others. Sometimes sinners endowed with natural prudence and good sense have more energy, persuasion, and efficacy in stirring up a hatred of sin than not a few of the just, who are destitute of the gifts of nature and excessively tiresome. Sinners, then, just as they are bound to corporal almsgiving, are likewise bound to spiritual. It is more probable that ecclesiastical Prelates themselves, stained with sin, do not sin in exercising judicial correction. Yet they do sin, and gravely, when they do not amend themselves, and do not put themselves in a state opportune for making correction. For either they ought to abdicate their prefecture, or to set their own morals in order and remove the impediments that stand in the way of the right and useful administration of their office.

XII. Question IV. Do Preachers polluted with grave fault sin mortally by preaching the word of God from the public pulpit? Answer. Cajetan, Navarrus, Paludanus, Sylvester, and others affirm it. I do not dare to subscribe to this opinion: because when mortal sin is in question, it is dangerous to make a definition unless the truth manifestly lies open. Now if the quality of the ministry be regarded absolutely, it does not seem to require so great a sanctity that a Preacher stained with a deadly fault cannot discharge it without perpetrating sacrilege or a mortal crime. This, however, I say trembling and hesitant, since it is an apostolic and sublime ministry. Wherefore, as to practice, if a Preacher has fallen from infirmity into some crime, and must of necessity give sermons, I would not believe that he sins gravely. But those Preachers who, full of shameful deeds, discharge the apostolic ministry, seem to me more probably to commit a grave profanation, and, so far as lies in them, to render the word of God sterile. Nor is there anything to object, that wicked Preachers sometimes call back inveterate sinners to a better way: since it is hidden from no one that God can use the work of iniquitous Preachers for the conversion of sinners. Does it follow from this that wicked Preachers do not disgrace their ministry? Does it follow that they are exempt from the law of cleansing their own crimes, that they may remove the impediments of their office, and render themselves fit for the holy handling of holy things? Preachers ought to correct public sins, even though they should hope for almost no fruit — which can rarely be presumed, when the reproof is made before a multitude. For contempt of correction is an argument of reprobation. But how can it prudently be presumed that all the hearers are reprobate? Only then can Preachers licitly omit correction, when from it they prudently foresee that a greater evil will follow.

XIII. Question V. Are subjects bound to correct their Superiors? Answer. I propose to discuss a most grave question of the highest moment. All the Theologians to a man champion the affirming opinion, though they treat it in passing, whereas it deserves a severe discussion. If the fear of displeasing, if the hope of worldly things, if self-love, are often the cause why the precept of fraternal correction is neglected, by a stronger right do these and many other things far more remove us from the observance of that same precept when our Superiors, under whose rod we live, are to be corrected.

XIV. St. Augustine, book 1, chapter 9, On the City of God, observes that even holy men themselves for the most part neglect the observance of this precept, saying: For very often it is ill dissembled by them, as to teaching, admonishing, sometimes even reproving and correcting them: whether because we are loath for the labor, or because we are ashamed to offend them to their face, or because we avoid enmities ... lest they hinder and harm us (N.B.) in these temporal things, whether such as our cupidity still desires to attain, or such as our infirmity dreads to lose; so that, although the life of the wicked displeases the good, and therefore they do not fall with them into that damnation which after this life is prepared for such — nevertheless, because for this reason they spare the sins of others more damnably, while they fear them in their own faults, though light and venial, they are rightly scourged with them in temporal things, although they are by no means punished in eternity ... This is culpable: that those who live differently, and abhor the deeds of the wicked, nevertheless spare the sins of others, which they ought to unteach and rebuke, while they guard against their offenses, lest they be harmed (N.B.) in those things which the good and innocent themselves use, but with more cupidity than was fitting for those who are pilgrims in this world and carry before them the hope of the heavenly Fatherland. Correction is omitted, he adds a little after in the same place, because the flattering tongue and the human day delight, the judgment of the crowd is dreaded, and the excruciation or destruction of the flesh — that is, on account of certain bonds of cupidity, not on account of the offices of charity. At last he concludes the chapter, reproaching both Superiors and subjects with the crime of neglected correction: In which matter they by no means have an equal, but a far graver cause, of whom it is said by the Prophet: "He indeed shall die in his sin, but his blood will I require at the hand of the watchman." For to this end watchmen — that is, the rulers of peoples — are established in the Churches, that they spare not in reproving sins. Nor for that reason is he entirely free from a fault of this kind who, though not a ruler, yet among those with whom he is joined by the necessity of this life, knows many things that ought to be admonished or reproved, and neglects it, avoiding their offenses on account of those things which in this life he uses — not undue things, but which he delights in more than he ought. Finally, in book 10, chapter 29, he observes that all the proud despise correction: Or perhaps they are ashamed to be corrected? And this vice belongs only to the proud.

XV. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 33, art. 4, assigns the reason: Correction, he says, is an act of charity. Therefore it extends to all those whom we are bound to pursue with charity. Now Superiors must be loved with a more fervent charity, since, the more they shine in a loftier place, the greater the danger in which they stand, says St. Augustine. Therefore, above the rest, they need the almsgiving of spiritual correction. If all must be corrected with meekness and humility, Superiors above all must be corrected with the utmost reverence and lowliness of soul, as St. Thomas says in the same place. Few Superiors are corrected, because few furnish those proofs of humility whence subjects can presume and hope for the fruit of amendment. Few subjects fulfill the precept of correction, because few are found free from fear and hope, few so unstained by faults that they cannot be reproved by their Superiors. Let Superiors consider that they will render an account to God for all the sins committed by their subjects on account of their own negligence in correcting. Let subjects turn over in their mind that they are by no means free from correcting their own Superiors in a spirit of humility, if a hope of profit shines forth — a precept which presses above all those who assist Superiors by office in the government of subjects.

XVI. Question VI. Who are the Superiors bound by a peculiar right to correction? Answer. Prelates their subjects, Parents their children, Masters their servants, Husbands their wives, Guardians their wards, Parish priests their people, Confessors their penitents, Curators their minors, are bound by a peculiar right to correct. These are bound to correct their inferiors not only by the title of charity, as all the rest are, but also by the law of justice. For Superiors, besides the bond of the common precept, are bound by the tie of their office. Prelates, moreover, ought to perform a twofold correction — one judicial, the other fraternal.

XVII. Question VII. What hope of profit must be conceived, that the precept of fraternal correction may oblige? Answer. That four conditions must precede fraternal correction has already been indicated above. Their meaning must now be briefly discussed. Of judicial correction, which must be made even without hope of profit, there is no discourse now, but of fraternal correction. The end of this correction is the amendment of the offender. If the hope of this amendment be wanting, the precept does not oblige, as the Angelic Doctor teaches, II-II, q. 33, art. 6. For fraternal correction, whose end is the amendment of the offender, has no coercion, but simple admonition. And therefore where it is probably reckoned that the sinner will not receive the admonition, but will slide into worse things, one must desist from correction of this kind: because the things that are for an end must be regulated according as the reason of the end requires.

XVIII. It is agreed among all that a certain hope is not required, but a probable one suffices. Frequently men violate the precept of correction because they despair of the profit of amendment. Iniquity lies to itself. Sometimes men say that all must be judged well of, and the salvation of all must be hoped for. Sometimes, when they ought to fulfill the precept of correction, they judge rashly of everyone, and say that they are not bound by such a precept, because no hope of profit shines forth. These do not perceive that they are judging as proud and reprobate those whom they conceive will scorn correction. Rare is the amendment of offenders — not so much on account of their malice, as on account of the defect of correctors. I do not deny that many sinners are stubborn and obstinate, and unwilling to understand so as to do well. But it is also true that correctors are wanting who either are willing to fulfill the precept, or are endowed with charity, prudence, meekness, and true zeal. As for me, I have found more who have received correction than who have scorned it. If the first correction does not profit, it must be repeated as often as hope of amendment is conceived. Repeated blows often break hardness. When it is doubted whether the correction will bring forth more evil than good, one must abstain from it. But if the doubt is not of a greater evil, but only of the profit, correction must be made. In gaming, if you do not doubt loss but only gain, you cast the die. In extreme necessity, correction must be made, even though you doubt whether it will harm rather than profit.

XIX. Question VIII. Must correction be deferred, that it be performed at an opportune time? Answer. The other condition which ought to accompany correction is the opportunity of time. Correction must be hastened or deferred, according as, the circumstances weighed, it is judged that correction at this or that time will profit more. We are not freed from the precept of correction because we foresee it will be made by others: since the precept binds all and each. And he gave a commandment to every one concerning his neighbor: Ecclesiasticus 17.

XX. Question IX. What order must be kept in correction? Answer. This order is prescribed in chapter 18 of the Evangelist Matthew: If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

XXI. Three things are commanded to be observed. 1. That the correction be made secretly. 2. That if the correction is useless, witnesses be summoned. 3. That the offense be reported to the Superior, when the two aforesaid do not profit. This order is not of counsel, but of precept, as the Theologians commonly teach with St. Thomas, II-II, q. 33, art. 7. For the Angelic Doctor shows that this order is consonant with the law of nature. For this order regards first eternal salvation, then the reputation of the neighbor. This order must be kept in the best manner. Witnesses are not to be summoned if private and secret correction profits; if one witness suffices, two are not to be summoned. In keeping this order the kinds of crimes must be regarded. If the sin is public, or inflicts damage upon a neighbor, it must be publicly reproved, as St. Paul teaches, 1 Timothy 5: Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear. It must then also be reported to the Superior.

XXII. Question X. Does the precept of keeping this order oblige, when it is reckoned safer that the Prelate will correct the offender? Answer. The Theologians dispute on both sides. Some defend the position that the crime should be reported to the Superior, as to a father, when it is foreseen that correction will be better made by him.

XXIII. The more probable opinion to me is that this order must commonly be kept: because the precept of keeping the order is both natural and divine; and because it rarely happens, all things weighed, that it is done better by the Prelate than by a private person. Opponents concede that correction can be well made by a private man, and therefore say that it is done better by the Prelate. The sinner is certainly rendered infamous before the Prelate, while the sinner's crime is revealed to him. Now this defamation disturbs the offender, and renders him unfit for the fruit of correction. If this greater fitness of the Prelate be compared with the disturbance of the one being corrected, the latter commonly overcomes the former. The efficacy of correction depends very much on the disposition of him who must receive the correction. But who is there who would not rather wish to be corrected by his own brother, conscious of the sin, than by a Prelate, who is ignorant of the offense? The one to be corrected undergoes two burdens. One, that his sin, known only to a private man, be manifested to another. The second, that this manifestation be made to a Prelate, whose favor is commonly of more account than that of many private persons. Therefore men commonly desire to be corrected rather by private brethren than by Prelates. Therefore private persons are commonly fitter than Prelates, as fathers, for correcting, for the reason that the efficacy of correction depends on the greater disposition of those to be corrected; and these, as I have said, more willingly receive the correction of private persons than of Prelates. Wherefore Christ the Lord absolutely, and without limitation, prescribed that this order be kept.

XXIV. St. Thomas luminously teaches our opinion, II-II, q. 33, art. 7, ad 5: It must be said that the Prelate is not to be obeyed against the precept of the Lord, according to that of Acts 5: We ought to obey God rather than men. And therefore when a Prelate commands that whatever anyone knows deserving of correction be told to him, this precept must indeed be understood as safe, the order of fraternal correction being preserved — whether the precept is made commonly to all, or to someone specially. But if the Prelate should expressly command against this order instituted by the Lord, he himself would sin in commanding, and one obeying him, as it were acting against the precept of the Lord. Whence he would not have to be obeyed: because the Prelate is not the judge of hidden things, but God alone. Whence he does not have the power of commanding anything concerning hidden things, except insofar as they are manifested through some indications — for instance, through ill repute, or through some suspicions: in which cases the Prelate can command in the same way as a secular or ecclesiastical judge can exact an oath of speaking the truth.

XXV. If, in the judgment of St. Thomas, not even a Prelate commanding the reporting of a hidden crime, the order of secret correction being omitted, is to be obeyed, by what reason can a private man spontaneously omit this order? The precept of this order is divine; therefore, unless an evident and manifest necessity shows that correction will be better performed by the Prelate, the order must always be kept. Rarely, however — nay, most rarely — is this correction better performed by the Prelate, for the reasons which I touched on above; therefore the precept must be fulfilled. What they object from Quodlibet II, article 13 [recte question 8, article 2] of St. Thomas is of no weight. For we too concede that, the case being admitted in which the Prelate would correct more efficaciously than a private person, the order can be omitted; but we repeat that this rarely happens, and that private men very easily deceive themselves and feign this greater efficacy at their pleasure.

XXVI. Question XI. What sins ought to be reported to the Superior, the order of correction being neglected? Answer. Sins known and public ought to be reported to the Prelate as judge. Sins are said to be known either by notoriety of law, when they have been reported to the tribunal, or by notoriety of fact, when the deed happens before many. If a sin is committed before two or three witnesses, it cannot be called public. It can indeed be proved in judgment, and become public; but before it is reported to the tribunal, it is not public: therefore correction must be sent ahead, if there is hope of amendment, provided the sin is not to the harm of a third party. For the brother must be gained with the least detriment to himself.

XXVII. Public sins must be reported to the judge, as St. Paul commands, 1 Timothy 5: Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear. He who sins publicly offends against the common good. If, however, someone should sin publicly from a sudden impulse, and a most probable hope of amendment were present, then he should be corrected secretly, scandal being removed. Then indeed someone is presumed to sin from a sudden impulse, when he is a man of good repute in public estimation, and from some unexpected event falls into some sin which does not redound to the harm of a third party or of the Community. For the precept of the order prescribed by Christ must always be kept before the eyes.

XXVIII. Offenses of heresy, of the betrayal of a city, and the like, must be denounced to the Superior as judge. The opposite opinion was condemned by Alexander VII in this thesis: Although it be established for you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him, if you cannot prove it. Although the crime of heresy be hidden, it must be denounced to the judge — not that he may punish the offender, but that he may take precaution for the public good, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 33, art. 7. For there are certain hidden sins which are to the corporal or spiritual harm of one's neighbors — for instance, if someone secretly plots how a city may be handed over to enemies, or if a heretic privately turns men away from the faith. And because he who sins in secret sins not only against himself, but also against others, one must proceed at once to denunciation, that a harm of this kind be prevented. There is added the precept of Alexander VII, who in his Bull given in the year 1660, whose beginning is Licet alias, commands that the crime of heresy, even hidden, be reported to the Tribunal of the holy Inquisition. Of the obligation of denouncing heresy to the Superior, then, there exists an ecclesiastical precept. Of manifesting the crime of betrayal there stands no precept of the Church. Wherefore if certain arguments of amendment occurred, secret correction could be sent ahead. But solid arguments of amendment rarely occur for those crimes which redound to the harm either of the Community or to the detriment of a third party; therefore these sins must commonly be reported to the Superior, that the innocent may be preserved. Sometimes it suffices that the innocent be warned to guard against snares laid for them, the guilty party not being manifested, when the circumstances permit this.

XXX. Of carnal faults which can be committed by Religious, the Theologians dispute whether, the order of fraternal correction being neglected, crimes of this kind ought to be reported to the Superior. A certain and general rule cannot be designated. When a probable hope of amendment can be conceived, the divine precept must always be observed. In a doubtful cause, one must stand for the precept. Those who, fired with the spirit of charity, study to obey Christ and to preserve their neighbor's reputation embrace the safer part.

XXXI. I would wish that Christians and Religious were more courageous in reproving public sins, in modestly and reverently reproving the deadly indolence of those Superiors who permit crimes to rampage. In reporting to the Superior the hidden faults of the brethren, emulation, envy, and hidden hatred can often have a place. But rarely is there sin in admonishing those Superiors who neglect openly and before all the offices of government. For from this correction all human respect and political considerations withdraw men: since commonly all subjects can hope or fear something from their Superiors. How can the spirit of evangelical charity be presumed, if the hidden crimes of private persons are reported to the Superior, but the public dissimulations, the indolences and negligences of Superiors, whence innumerable evils, ruin, and the desolation of the Community proceed, are covered over with silence?