point — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Point II. On Fraternal Correction
Fraternal correction is an admonition by which someone from Charity tries to call another back from sin 1.
1 Fraternal correction, or rebuke (as St. Thomas prefers, 4. Dist. 19. q. 2. art. 1.), properly regards the amendment of a past fall. But the Holy Doctor defines it thus (ibid.): Fraternal rebuke is an admonition of a brother concerning the amendment of faults, proceeding from fraternal charity..., and it is made known by three things which are put there, namely the act itself, when he says admonition of a brother; the end, when he says concerning the amendment of faults; the principle, when he says proceeding from fraternal charity.
Why it is called fraternal, even when it is made by a prelate, the Holy Doctor excellently explains thus (ibid.): Someone departing from the way of rectitude can be led back to the way in two ways... In one way through fear of the shameful thing or hatred of the thing itself, as when someone abominates the shamefulness of sin and the confusion following from it. In another way through fear and hatred of the sorrowful thing, as when someone recoils from sin on account of penalties inflicted for sins, or which he fears will be inflicted. And after he notes that the first way is more properly called rebuke, but the other correction, he continues: The second way belongs only to prelates, whose words have coercive force through the infliction of penalties; but the first way does not require the order of prelacy: although even the order of prelacy requires it, because the second way ought not to be employed, except where the first has no place, even by prelates. And therefore rebuke, when it is done outside the order of prelacy, is called fraternal.
The Holy Doctor also beautifully gives the reason why amendment of faults, rather than of sins, is said (ibid. ad 5.): No one is moved from hatred or fear of the shameful thing except he in whom there is in some way the will of the beautiful and good: and therefore since rebuke proceeds by this way..., it properly belongs to him to be rebuked, who has a purpose of good, from which nevertheless either through ignorance or through some negligence he is turned away; and therefore it more properly regards omission, which can be considered in the very transgression, than the perversity of transgression: and for this reason it is more fittingly called amendment of faults than amendment of sins.
- Principles. - I. There is a true precept of fraternal correction. This is clear 1º from the natural law of Charity, by which we are obliged to remove the evils of the neighbor. - 2º From Sacred Scripture, Eccli. 19.14: Rebuke the neighbor... lest perhaps he repeat it; and Matt. 18.15: If your brother has sinned against you, go and rebuke him between you and him alone. If he shall hear you, you will have gained your brother.
II. For the strict obligation of this precept there is required 1º that the sin of the neighbor, or the proximate danger of sinning, be certainly clear 2. - 2º That some hope, indeed a greater probability, of amendment shine forth. - 3º That there is not another equally suitable person who is believed likely to rebuke. - 4º That the correction can be made without grave inconvenience to the one rebuking. - 5º That it be judged necessary for the amendment of the delinquent, and there be not at least probable hope that he will amend himself of his own accord. - St. Lig. n. 38 et seq., and others commonly.
2 It has already been noted that the duty of fraternal rebuke properly regards not the warding off of future faults, but the amending of past ones.
Moreover the matter of rebuke can be not only mortal sins, but also venial ones. But the reasons why the obligation is rarer with regard to venial sins, see in Laymann (Lib. 2. Tr. 3. Cap. 7. n. 3.). Yet Diana deservedly (Tom. 7. Tr. 4. Res. 8.) adds an exception, if the discussion is about religious Orders. For if through venial sins the vigor of discipline seems either to be dissolved, or even greatly diminished, the obligation can be grave not only in prelates, but also in private persons, since each is bound from charity to avert this most grave evil of religion.
- Questions. - Q. 1º Does the precept of fraternal correction oblige under grave obligation?
Resp. Affirm. per se, if the required conditions are present, and it is a matter of grave matter. Hence he can sin gravely who, from vain fear lest the neighbor be somewhat offended, or lest he himself suffer a slight detriment from it, omits correction in a grave matter, where he thinks it truly will profit. - Yet he sins lightly who from pusillanimity and shame reckons himself less suitable for rebuking. - St. Thom. 2. 2. qu. 33. art. 2. - St. Lig. n. 37.
Q. 2º Does the precept of correction have place where someone sins from ignorance?
Resp. 1º Affirm., if it is a matter of vincible ignorance, because this does not excuse from sin, according to what was said, n. 14.
Resp. 2º But if the ignorance is invincible, it is not so much a matter of fraternal correction as of warning, by which the neighbor is taught concerning the truth; since correction is an admonition of a brother concerning the amendment of faults. Now in the case Charity can impel in many ways, namely 1º on account of damage to a third party; 2º on account of damage to the ignorant person himself; 3º on account of scandal; 4º on account of the honor of God; 5º on account of irreverence toward Religion. But if no damage or inconvenience would follow, there will be almost no obligation of making the admonition, except with regard to those who from their office ought to teach others, among whom is also the Confessor. But they are to be taught both because ignorance is an evil of the ignorant person himself, and because other inconveniences can and are accustomed to flow thence.
They add generally that although fruit is not hoped for, and ignorance is invincible, nevertheless admonition still ought to be made if it is a matter of things necessary by necessity of means, or of those which furnish public scandal, namely lest others think that what is not corrected is lawful. - Scavini.
- Q. 3º What order is to be observed in fraternal correction?
Resp. The order assigned by Christ himself is to be observed, unless circumstances suggest otherwise. - Hence 1º Rebuke secretly: Rebuke him between you and him alone. - 2º Before witnesses, if the prior admonition does not suffice: If he shall not hear you, take with you one or two. - 3º Bring the matter to the Superior: Tell the Church (Matt. 18.15 et seq.).
Sometimes that order can and ought to be inverted, namely 1º if the sin is public or soon to be made public; - 2º if it is gravely harmful to another; 3º if secret admonition is not judged likely to profit; - 4º if it is preferable to manifest the matter at once to the Superior; - 5º if the delinquent has yielded his right, as happens in various religious Orders 3. - St. Lig. n. 40, etc.
3 This yielding of one's own right, so that it is lawful to bring the matter to the Superior without the delinquent being forewarned, is very opportune and nearly necessary for both the common good and the good of private persons. For private rebuke among brothers often involves many difficulties, and the hope of amendment is not rarely uncertain. Now either the omission of rebuke or the uncertain outcome of the same brings grave harm both to the guilty and to the common good: but, on the contrary, by the work of the Superior a result both more certain and more efficacious can be hoped for.
- Resolves. - 1º Fraternal correction must be made with true Charity also as to the manner; therefore it ought to be paternal toward inferiors, benign among equals, and reverential toward Superiors 4.
4 ** To this it pertains that time, place, and other circumstances be opportunely chosen. Therefore he does not sin who defers the matter to another time, when he can rebuke either more conveniently or just as conveniently, unless perhaps grave danger threatens from delay. Appositely St. Thomas (2. 2. q. 33. art. 2. ad 3.): Fraternal rebuke can be omitted... meritoriously, when someone omits correction from charity. For Augustine says in I. De Civ. Dei: If anyone spares those acting badly from being reproved and corrected for this reason, because an opportune time is sought, or he fears concerning the very same persons lest from this they be made worse, ... it does not seem to be an occasion of cupidity, but a counsel of charity.
2º Private persons among themselves are rarely bound to correction, at least under grave obligation, unless they are joined familiarly among themselves; because rarely are all the required conditions found 5; still more rarely toward Superiors because of unsuitability.
5 To this pertain the things which grave Doctors hand down concerning him who does not restrain detractors. Concerning this matter St. Thomas (2. 2. q. 73. art. 4.): If the sin does not please him, but from fear or negligence or even a certain shame he omits to repel the detractor, he indeed sins, but much less than the detractor, and for the most part venially. But in this matter the Confessor must use much discretion. For he cannot require that someone forestall detraction, when he does not even sufficiently know where the speech of the other tends: for this would both be injurious to the other, and too liable to scruples. But if detraction has manifestly come forth, the damage indeed is already scarcely reparable, but fraternal rebuke at that time is much more difficult, and more often will be found more apt for stirring up the heat of anger than for amending the detractor.
3º For the most part prudence counsels that correction be omitted toward those whose disposition is wholly unknown, lest receiving rebuke with an unjust mind they become worse.
4º The scrupulous are ordinarily excused from the office of fraternal correction; because either they are too much wearied, or they are unsuitable; for, disturbed by scruples and anxieties, they lack the necessary discretion for correcting, and are not strong enough to attend to excusing causes.
5º Prelates, Bishops, Pastors, Magistrates are bound, even with great inconvenience, to impede both public and occult sins of their subjects 6, because from justice they are obliged to procure and protect the common good.
6 ** Yet this office, as is plain from the preceding definition, does not properly pertain to fraternal rebuke.
6º Superiors are bound from office to keep watch over subjects, and to inquire into their sins, yet not very much concerning some certain person, unless some particular reason moves them to this 7. Nor ought they easily to admit spontaneous accusers, and much less immediately to give faith to them, because sometimes these, under the appearance of the common good, seek themselves.
7 The duty of investigating pertains to Superiors insofar as they bear the special care of individuals and besides of the whole community; but by no means to the office of fraternal correction, which, as we said above with St. Thomas, per se is made outside the order of prelacy. St. Thomas well says (2. 2. q. 33. art. 2. ad 4.): Those benefits which are not owed to a certain person, but commonly to all neighbors, whether they are corporal or spiritual, we ought not to seek those upon whom we may bestow them, but it suffices that we bestow them on those who occur to us... And on account of this he says (Augustine) that our Lord warns us not to neglect our sins mutually, not by seeking what you may reprehend, but by seeing what you may correct. Otherwise we would be made spies of the life of others, contrary to what is said, Prov. 24: Do not seek impiety in the house of the just man, and do not devastate his rest.
Besides the fact that such investigation would become an intolerable burden, as indeed those who preside feel, it is vicious and reprehensible (as Diana well warns, Tom. 7. Tr. 4. Res. 25. n. 3.); because it generates scandals and furnishes occasion for hatreds and dissensions. For men bear with annoyance that their deeds are scrutinized by others, and by its very nature such inquiry inflicts an injury on the neighbor, whose honor and esteem it opposes, which all desire to have best concerning themselves.
7º In communities living under rule, in colleges, seminaries, etc., it is for the most part expedient that correction be made by way of denunciation to the Superior, either by oneself or through another 8; nor can members or those living together be absolved if they do not consent to a denunciation of this kind where it is a matter of grave damage to the community. Likewise by natural right corrupting Priests, who inflict or seem likely to inflict great spiritual damage on the faithful, are to be denounced to ecclesiastical Superiors. - Thus commonly.
8 Denunciation, which is called evangelical, is to be carefully distinguished from another, which is called judicial. The former, which is proper to fraternal correction, is made to the superior as to a father, and per se first tends to the good of the one denounced. But the other is made to the superior as to a judge, so that he may proceed from a known cause, and tends to the good of others, especially the common good or that of the denouncer himself. Now where denunciation is made to the superior merely as to a father, he can in no way proceed as judge.
Concerning this St. Thomas says (Quodlib. XI. art. 13.): If I know that a brother will be corrected through me, then I ought not to denounce this to the prelate. But if it seems that this may be better done through the prelate, and the prelate nevertheless is pious, discreet, and spiritual, not having rancor or hatred against that subject, then he can lawfully denounce this to him; and then he does not tell the Church, because he does not tell him as prelate, but as a person profiting toward the correction and amendment of the neighbor.