§ 2. On Fraternal Correction

490. DEFINITION. Fraternal correction is a suitable admonition, given from charity to one's neighbor, for the end that he may be amended from sin, or removed from committing it (II, 34 and 39, query).

It differs both from judicial correction, which proceeds from a judge, for the chastisement of the guilty, on account of the common good; and from paternal correction, by which a Superior, without the form of judgment, rebukes the delinquent, for amending him and for taking away scandal. Concerning this latter we shall say a few things below; concerning the former elsewhere (n. 2256).

491. PRINCIPLES. I. There is a precept of fraternal correction. 1. For from the law of charity we are obliged to aid the soul of neighbor in need. 2. The evangelical law commands (Matt. 18:15): But if thy brother shall sin against thee, go, and rebuke him. It is said: against thee, that is, against thee, or before thee, or with thee knowing, as St. Augustine explains (Sermo 82, c. 7, n. 10).

This precept obliges under grave or under light sin according to the matter. Grave matter is understood as any mortal sin into which neighbor either is about to fall, or has already fallen and in which he perseveres. In practice, a private person is scarcely bound to take notice in light matter, unless he can do so most easily (II, 34, 35).

But matter in this, as in other precepts, can be GRAVE either of itself or on account of circumstances. Thus, for example, if in some religious order it is foreseen that through light violations of the rules the vigor of discipline will be relaxed, there lies upon one a grave obligation of correction, not only upon prelates and confessors, but also upon private persons (IV, 13).

492. II. The precept of correction obliges all, but Superiors more strictly. For the office of charity, of itself, extends itself to all. Yet Superiors are held more strictly, because a special care lies upon them of providing for the spiritual salvation of their subjects (II, 40).

From these things you will deduce: 1. Even inferiors are held by the obligation of admonishing Superiors; yet with modesty, discretion, and reverence, as the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:1): Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father. Hence children are bound to admonish parents when they notice that they retain another's goods, do not take care of their eternal salvation, etc. 2. Even sinners are held by this precept. For correction, says St. Thomas (2.2, q. 33, a. 5), pertains to someone insofar as right judgment of reason flourishes in him; but this is not destroyed by sin. Yet if he is a public sinner, ordinarily he ought to abstain from correction; for it is said (Rom. 2:21): Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest not thyself; thou that preachest that men should not steal, stealest... For the name of God through you is blasphemed among the Gentiles.

493. III. In order that the precept may urge, it is necessary that the spiritual necessity of neighbor demand it, and that there be a founded hope of amendment, without grave inconvenience threatening. Thus the Doctors commonly.

It is said, 1. That the spiritual necessity of neighbor demand it; for which three things are required: a) That it be certainly established to you concerning the sin of neighbor, or concerning his proximate danger of sinning. For charity is not rash, does not think evil; nor in doubt are you bound to inquire, unless you are a Superior, or unless it is a question of a common evil or of a most grave evil to be averted, for example homicide. b) That correction be judged necessary for the amendment of the guilty party; for if amendment is reasonably hoped for from elsewhere, or if the guilty person has already become wise again, it is clear that no obligation is given. c) That there is not another equally or more suitable person, who is believed about to correct; because then true and absolute necessity is not present.

2. That there be a founded hope of amendment: because, when the end is despaired of, there is no reason for applying the means. Hence you are not bound to correct if the correction will certainly not be profitable.

But in doubt whether it will be profitable or harmful, you are not bound; unless the one to be corrected is in danger of death, or infection of others in faith or morals is to be feared. Prudence generally counsels that correction be omitted of those whose disposition is wholly unknown, lest, receiving it with an unjust spirit, they become worse.

3. Without grave inconvenience threatening. For charity does not oblige with such inconvenience, unless the spiritual necessity of neighbor is extreme, or unless there is added an obligation of justice, as in a prelate, pastor, or magistrate toward subjects (II, 38, 39).

Hence you will resolve: 1. Private persons among themselves are rarely held to correction, at least under grave sin, unless they are familiarly joined among themselves: because rarely are all the required conditions found to be present. Still more rarely toward Superiors, because of defect of suitability. For the same reason the scrupulous also, at least ordinarily, are excused. See also n. 1202, where correction of one detracting is treated.

2. He seems to sin lightly who, from fear, pusillanimity, or shame, judges himself not to be so strictly obliged, or less suitable, for correcting his brother. - But he sins gravely who, although he can easily impede the mortal sin of neighbor, omits to do it on account of a vain fear of temporal evil (II, 37; H. Ap., IV, 21).

494. IV. That order in correction is to be preserved which Christ the Lord prescribed (Matt. 18:15). Whence 1. Let correction be made secretly: rebuke him between thee and him alone. But if this does not profit, let it be made 2. before witnesses: take with thee one or two (witnesses). 3. Let the fault

be referred to the Superior: but if he will not hear them, tell the Church. This order obliges of itself under grave sin, since it is a question of consulting the reputation of neighbor. Nor can a Superior exempt from it, because it is founded in the law of charity (II, 41).

We said of itself: for, per accidens, with previous admonition omitted, the matter CAN immediately be brought to the Superior as to a father: 1. If the sin is public, or soon to be public, because the reason for preserving the delinquent's reputation ceases. 2. If the delinquent's amendment, which is the principal end of the precept, is hoped to be able to be obtained more easily or more efficaciously: which case is more frequent in religious communities. 3. If neighbor has yielded his right, as is the case among certain religious; yet this yielding is so understood that the crime is revealed to the prelate as to a father, but not as to a judge (IV, 240, 245).

But the matter MUST immediately be brought to the Superior if, through this evangelical denunciation, the desired fruit is hoped for, which otherwise either could not be obtained, or only with grave inconvenience. This chiefly holds if the sin of neighbor tends to the harm of a third person or of the community, as conspiracy, heresy, corruption of youths, etc. The reason is that then a remedy is to be applied not only to him who has sinned, but also to others to whose harm the crime tends. Hence, in communities living under a rule, in colleges, seminaries, etc., if it is a question of a matter of great importance, it is generally expedient that correction be made by way of denunciation to the Superior as father.

495. Corollaries. The duties of the one denouncing, the duties of a Superior in general, and the duties of a Superior obligated by stipend are to be distinguished.

1. If it is certainly established that a brother has perfectly amended an occult sin, and from it there is no danger of relapse, or of harm to himself or another, it is not licit to denounce him to a father or prelate, unless the brother expressly consents to that denunciation (II, 42; IV, 244, 245, q. 4).

2. It is not licit to defer the delict to mediate Superiors if the immediate Superior can correct by himself, and there is no probable suspicion that this one will fail in his office; for the reputation of neighbor is to be consulted as far as can be done (II, 42, 3; IV, 247 fin.).

3. A Superior, by force of knowledge obtained through a simple denunciation made to him as father, cannot proceed judicially; because the delict was not manifested to him as judge (IV, 246).

4. Superiors are bound to watch over their subjects, sometimes to inquire into their sins, and to meet their evils even when doubtful; yet not to ask much and curiously concerning some sin in particular, unless someone has given a special sign of it. But voluntary accusers are not easily to be admitted; because they, under the appearance of the common good, often seek themselves (II, 42, 4).

5. They are bound to correct delinquents, even if a small hope of amendment shines forth, whether for avoiding every appearance of connivance, or, if the correction is public, for casting fear into the rest. Yet where no good can be hoped from correction, it will have to be omitted; for the Church tolerates many things which she in no way approves. - Thus similarly preachers are bound to rebuke public sins, by reason of the common good, even if amendment of the delinquents is not hoped for, provided fruit in the people can be hoped for sooner or later.

6. If they are stipendiaries, as Bishops, parish priests, magistrates, they are bound both from office and from justice to correct and admonish subjects, even with danger of life, in their necessity not only extreme but also grave, as is commonly taught with St. Thomas (2.2, q. 185, a. 5).

7. But others, as parents, confessors, masters, husbands, teachers, tutors, curators, are not bound with great detriment to themselves: because they are not obligated from strict justice, but only by the office of piety (II, 40; H. Ap., IV, 22).

496. Questions. Q. 1. Whether he who sins FROM IGNORANCE is to be corrected?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If he sins from vincible ignorance, certainly he is to be corrected, because then he is in bad faith, and is not excused from sin.

2. If he offends from invincible ignorance, he is to be admonished: a) when it is a question of things necessary for salvation, or of avoiding the scandal of others. Nor is correction to be passed over, even if amendment of the delinquent can scarcely be hoped for, lest perhaps others judge that to be licit which is not corrected; b) when, even if only materially, divine law, natural or positive, is violated, and profit from the admonition can be hoped for; for knowledge and observance of a certain law is always a good most greatly to be desired. Thus commonly (Conf. dir., IV, 12).

But whether he who ignorantly transgresses a human law is to be admonished, for example concerning fasting, concerning reciting the Office, is disputed probably on both sides. Yet the affirmative opinion is more probable and more common (II, 36; l. El. qq. ref., 5); because that transgression, although material and not intrinsically evil, nevertheless, the law being posited, is still evil, and easily becomes formal, or induces a depraved habit, and therefore by admonition, if it can be done, is to be impeded. But certainly those who from office are bound to teach subjects, as prelates, confessors, teachers, ought to take notice of such a delinquent (VI, 610, Obj. 1, and 616).

Q. 2. Whether pupils are to be obligated by the confessor under grave sin to denounce occult corrupters?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If the harm of only one or another is feared, the obligation does not seem to be urged with grave inconvenience of the one denouncing, for example if he would thence have to confess his own crime, or incur the infamy of a delator. The reason is that, since there is not extreme necessity of neighbor, charity does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

2. If grave common harm is present, namely the corruption of several or the infamy of the house, the obligation of denunciation is to be urged in almost all cases, notwithstanding the grave inconvenience of the penitent, even if the confessor foresees that his admonition will not be profitable or that the denunciation will be without efficacy. The reason is that here the common good urges. Confer St. Alph., Regole pei Sem., § 1, n. 5; Berardi, de Recid., II, n. 273; Lehmkuhl, I, 971; Genicot, I, 221. Behold the words of the Holy Doctor: "It must be adverted that, since here it is a question of a common evil, many times they would by no means be excused from grave inconvenience or harm."