paragraph — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
§ 3. On Fraternal Correction
94. Notions. Fraternal correction properly is an admonition of the neighbor made by a private person in order to amend or prevent his sin. The motive of correction can be either that the neighbor be freed from spiritual evil (mercy), or that God supremely good not be offended (charity); its end is the spiritual good of the neighbor, namely his correction or amendment.
a. Correction need not necessarily be made by words, but can also be made by other modes which are judged apt for correcting the neighbor, for example, by a sad countenance,1 by turning conversation to other things, by withdrawing temporal assistance.
b. Fraternal correction must be distinguished both from judicial correction, which proceeds from a judge, has for its end the chastisement of the guilty person, and for its motive the common good, and from paternal or evangelical correction, which indeed intends amendment but is made by a father or superior; on the contrary, fraternal correction can be made even by an inferior, and by a superior not as superior, but as a private person.
1 Eccl. 7:4.
95. On the precept of correction. 1. There exists an obligation of fraternal correction, both natural and positive divine: for the natural precept of charity obliges us to remove from the neighbor the evil by which he is already oppressed or which imminently threatens him. But the positive precept Sacred Scripture inculcates rather often, and especially by these words: If your brother has sinned against you, go and correct him between you and him alone; if he hears you, you shall have gained your brother.1 Correct a friend ... Correct your neighbor.2
a. This obligation indeed rests upon all, even subjects, who are fit for making it, because the precept of charity is universal; but not upon all in an equal way: for superiors are obliged more gravely, since from piety or from office they ought to procure the spiritual good of their subjects. Hence if a superior (likewise if another more apt person) is hoped to correct, the obligation of others ceases; but if others fail in their office, anyone fit is bound to make the correction.
b. Superiors (bishops, prelates, parish priests, parents, masters, magistrates, etc.) are bound to amend and prevent the sins of their subjects, both public and hidden, even with great inconvenience to themselves, because their obligation proceeds not only from charity, but also from justice or piety. For the same reason superiors are bound not only to correct and prevent the sins of subjects, but also to inquire into them, that is, they ought to watch over subjects universally and over a particular person if a special reason compels this.
- The precept of fraternal correction is grave of itself: for if in the grave bodily necessity of the neighbor we are bound under grave obligation to succor him by alms, a fortiori we are bound to aid him in grave spiritual necessity by fraternal correction, which is a spiritual alms.
1 Matt. 18:15.
96. Required conditions. In order that this precept oblige under grave obligation, these four conditions are required:
a. That there be grave matter.
Any mortal sin of the neighbor, since it removes his spiritual life, is considered grave matter, which induces the grave obligation of fraternal correction; therefore he who by fraternal admonition can remove or prevent the mortal sin of the neighbor without any inconvenience, and neglects this from vain fear, sins gravely.
b. That there be hope of amendment: otherwise the end of correction ceases, which is the amendment of the neighbor, and therefore its obligation.
a. Therefore persons of slight authority are excused from this obligation. In doubt whether it will profit, admonition should be omitted; wherefore also with respect to those whose character is unknown, prudence advises that it rather be omitted, lest they become worse by bearing it badly. If greater fruit is hoped for later, admonition can be deferred, even if meanwhile the sin is repeated.
b. Although grave obligation ceases where no hope of fruit appears, nevertheless the obligation remains, and indeed the greater it is, the graver the matter is concerning which there is question, even if a hope that is only more or less probable shines forth. Yet an equal hope of fruit is not required for a superior to be bound to correction and for another to be bound. For a superior is bound to admonish, even if a modest hope of fruit exists; indeed, if scandal of others would follow from omitted correction, he is bound even to an admonition useless with respect to the one to be corrected.
c. Although a sinner, especially if he labors under the same vice from which the neighbor must be corrected, may seem less apt to carry out correction, nevertheless for that reason he is not exempted from the obligation, especially if he is a superior: for on account of his sin no one is exempted from the natural law. The correction of a sinner will indeed be less efficacious, yet not wholly useless, if he corrects the delinquent not by reproaching the sin but by proposing it and admonishing him.1
c. That it can be done without great inconvenience to the one correcting, since charity does not oblige with so great a burden.
Therefore one who because of excessive shame or pusillanimity cannot be induced without great difficulty to make correction is certainly excused from mortal sin, unless he is a superior, who by reason of office is bound to correct subjects. In like manner fear that he may offend the one to be corrected and hold him offended excuses another from making admonition, but certainly does not excuse a superior.
d. That there truly be spiritual necessity of the neighbor, which is judged to be present if these three things concur: a. if it is certain concerning the sin committed or the will to commit it; b. if correction is judged necessary for the amendment of the delinquent: for if he has already amended himself or it is hoped that he will soon amend himself, correction is superfluous; c. that there not be another more or equally suitable person who will correct.
If one or another of these conditions is lacking, the obligation will either be none or only light; wherefore, since rarely do all concur, private persons are rarely bound to fraternal correction (at least under grave obligation), except perhaps with relation to a person with whom they deal very familiarly. But the scrupulous are entirely excused from this obligation, since they are unfit for this duty: both because on account of disturbance of soul they lack the discretion so necessary for correcting, and because they are not able to attend to excusing reasons.2
1 Cf. Castropalao, tr. 6, disp. 3, punct. 7, n. 1 ff.; Ethel-Bierbaum, Theologia moralis, Paderborn: Typographia Bonifaciana, 1894, I, pars 2, n. 311.
2 Gury-Palmieri, Compendium theologiae moralis, Prato: Giachetti, 1898, n. 233.
97. The order to be observed in correction. 1. If the sin is hidden, in fraternal correction the order prescribed by Christ the Lord must be observed: a. that it be done secretly; and if admonition has been applied in vain, b. that it be done before one or another private witness; and if private correction has been applied in vain, c. that it be done publicly by denouncing the matter to the superior, first indeed as to a father, secondarily also as to a judge.1 This precept is founded on the law of charity, which demands both that the neighbor be amended with the least inconvenience to himself, and that the reputation of the neighbor be preserved. And because charity obliges under grave obligation of itself, this prescription also is of itself to be observed under grave obligation.
- From the necessity of observing this order the following cases are to be excepted, in which the matter is immediately to be referred to the superior as to a father: a. if the amendment of the delinquent cannot otherwise be obtained, or at least is more easily and efficaciously obtained through the superior: for in order to procure the spiritual good of the neighbor it is licit to manifest his offense; b. if the sin is public: for in this case the one to be corrected has lost the right to reputation; c. if the sin turns to the damage of the community or of a third party: for the common good is to be preferred to the reputation of a private man, and the good of an innocent person to the reputation of a malefactor; d. if denunciation or public correction is necessary to prevent scandal, as was done by Paul with respect to Peter;2 e. if the one to be corrected has renounced his right, which obtains in some religious communities.
a. Therefore it is so far from being the case that denunciation made to superiors is in every case an ignominious thing, that sometimes it is prescribed even by divine law under grave obligation. Whence the question is resolved whether pupils are bound under grave obligation to denounce hidden corrupters. a. If common damage is feared, as the corruption of several or the infamy of the house, they are bound to denounce even with grave inconvenience: for grave inconvenience does not excuse where common damage is at stake. b. But if only the damage of one or another is feared, they are not bound with grave inconvenience, because charity does not oblige with grave inconvenience where private damage is at stake. Grave inconvenience can be present if the denouncer must confess his own crime, or if he incurs the suspicion of being an informer among others.3
b. In religious communities it will rarely happen that offenses cannot immediately be denounced to the superior, both because the superior is more apt for making correction, and because otherwise there is reason to fear lest denunciation be entirely omitted when it should be made to the superior: for if the private correction which preceded remains ineffective, as usually happens, already few will approach the superior, fearing lest it become known to the delinquent who denounced him.4 But from this secret denunciation alone the superior cannot manifest the defect (for example, in chapter), nor proceed to ordinary penalties, but ought secretly to admonish the subject and correct him by opportune means.5
c. For those who have renounced their right in this matter, two things must be admonished: a. If it is certain that the brother has perfectly amended the hidden sin, and there is no fear of danger of relapse or damage, it is not licit to denounce the matter to the superior unless the brother consents: for although in this case justice would not be injured on account of the renunciation made, nevertheless charity would be injured.6 b. If the immediate superior alone can of himself correct the delinquent, so that danger of relapse or of common damage is not to be feared, it is not licit to manifest the offense to a mediate superior.
1 Matt. 18:15 ff.
3 Cf. Genicot, I, n. 221.
4 St. Alphonsus, bk. 4, n. 245.
5 Sporer-Bierbaum, I, tr. 3, n. 797.
6 Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 234.
98. On the obligation of admonishing a neighbor sinning from invincible ignorance. 1. A strict obligation of admonishing the neighbor does not exist in a private man, whether the neighbor sins against the natural law or against positive law, because the precept of admonition or correction is only concerning the (formal) sin of the neighbor, which brings damage to him.
St. Alphonsus (n. 36), with many others, teaches that one who ignorantly violates the natural law must be admonished, because he does a thing intrinsically evil; indeed several think that even one who sins from ignorance of divine law must also be admonished;1 but they concede that one who sins against human law need not be admonished, as if someone from ignorance violates abstinence. But this obligation is not induced by charity of neighbor, since he undergoes no damage, but by the reverence owed to the law which is materially violated; this, however, does not induce so great an obligation.
But the superior of an ignorant person is bound to admonish or instruct him in all cases, even in those things which are evil only from precept: for the obligation of admonishing and teaching his subjects rests upon him.
Anyone, whether superior or private person, ought to admonish and instruct an ignorant person in the following cases: a. if the material sin of the neighbor harms the delinquent himself, as if it induces a bad habit; b. if it harms another, as if he retains another's property; c. if it gives scandal, as if an unaware priest enters a brothel; d. if it dishonors God, as if someone utters blasphemous words whose meaning he does not know: for in these cases the damage of the neighbor or injury to God must be guarded against. And indeed the superior ought to admonish the one erring, even if fruit is not hoped for, where scandal arises from the material sin of a subject; but a private person, only if fruit of the admonition is hoped for.
1 Cf. Lacroix, bk. 2, n. 214; Castropalao, I, tr. 6, disp. 3, punct. 4.