Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 2. On fraternal correction
599. Notion. Fraternal correction (or correction),85 which is as it were spiritual almsgiving, can be defined: a warning made privately, proceeding from fraternal charity, by which someone tries to turn neighbor away from sin or from the danger of sin. Or, as St. Thomas says: "Fraternal correction is a warning of a brother concerning the amendment of faults, proceeding from fraternal charity."86 This warning indeed can be made not only by words, but also in other ways, e.g. by a sad countenance, by gestures.
Distinctions. A threefold correction is distinguished, namely, 1. fraternal, concerning which something has just been said; 2. paternal, by which a superior, not indeed as judge, but as father (the judicial order having been passed over), corrects a subject, imposing either no medicinal penalty or a light one; 3. judicial or coercive, by which a superior as judge punishes a delinquent subject in order to protect the common good and the injured order of justice. Coercive correction (and sometimes paternal correction) is an act of justice, but fraternal correction is an act of charity.87 Paternal and judicial correction are treated in the Code of Canon Law, c. 2308 sqq.
85 Although correptio and correctio differ - for correptio is a rebuke for the amendment of a brother; correctio is the amendment itself - nevertheless by usage received among theologians, correptio and correctio are taken for one and the same thing.
86 The Angelic Doctor notes beautifully in this place (4, dist. 19, q. 2, a. 1): "Fraternal correction is made known through three things, ... namely, the act itself, when he says a warning of a brother; the end, when he says concerning the amendment of faults; the principle, when he says proceeding from fraternal charity." Then he gives the reason why in the definition the amendment of faults rather than of sins is said (ad 5): "No one is moved by hatred or fear of what is shameful except one in whom there is in some way the will of the beautiful and good; and therefore, since correction proceeds by this way, it properly belongs to him to be corrected who has a purpose of good, from which nevertheless he is turned away through ignorance or through some negligence; and therefore it more properly regards omission, which can be considered in the transgression itself, than the perversity of the transgression: and on account of this, the amendment of faults is more fittingly said than of sins." - Therefore the proper matter of fraternal correction is faults committed from ignorance or negligence; on the contrary, sins perpetrated from certain malice are to be restrained by judicial correction. - Nothing prevents him who prudently applies fraternal correction from also intending, besides the good of neighbor, the honor of God (which is an act of charity) or the common good of society (which is an act of general justice).
87 Cf. S. Thom., S. theol. 2, 2, q. 33, a. 1.
600. 1. The obligation of fraternal correction arises from both natural and positive divine law.
a) This obligation arises from positive divine law, for the precept of correction is had both in the Old and in the New Testament. Thus it is said: "Correct a friend, lest perhaps he did not understand, and say: I did not do it; or if he did it, lest he add to do it again. Correct neighbor, lest perhaps he did not say it, and if he said it, lest perhaps he repeat it."88 But Christ prescribed not only correction itself, but also its order, saying: "But if your brother shall have sinned against you, go and correct him between you and him alone. If he hears you, you shall have gained your brother. But if he does not hear you, take with you still one or two, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. But if he does not hear them, tell the Church. But if he does not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican."89
b) The obligation of fraternal correction also follows from natural law, i.e. from the precept of loving neighbor with effective love. For if from charity we are bound to assist neighbor in his bodily necessities through material almsgiving, a fortiori we are bound to bestow on him the spiritual almsgiving of fraternal correction, since spiritual necessity is harder than bodily poverty. St. Augustine wisely wrote on this matter:90 "For who is easily found who wishes to be rebuked? and where is that wise man of whom it was said: correct a wise man and he will love you?91 Yet surely on that account we ought not fail to rebuke and correct a brother, lest secure he tend toward death? For it is accustomed to happen and frequently occurs that for the moment he is saddened when he is rebuked, and resists and contends, and nevertheless afterward he considers with himself in silence, where no one is except God and he himself, and he does not fear to displease men because he is corrected, but fears to displease God because he is not corrected, and thereafter does not do that in which he has been justly rebuked, and as much as he hates his sin, so much he loves the brother whom he has perceived as the enemy of his sin."
The obligation of fraternal correction is of itself grave. For if the precept of material almsgiving of itself obliges under grave sin, a fortiori fraternal correction obliges, inasmuch as it is spiritual almsgiving.92
88 Eccli. 19, 13 sq.
89 Matth. 18, 15-17.
90 Ep. 210 (Migne, Patr. lat. 33, 957 sq.).
91 Prov. 9, 8.
92 Cf. S. Thom., S. theol. 2, 2, q. 33, a. 2; S. Alph., Theol. mor. l. 2, n. 37.
601. 2. The conditions under which the precept of fraternal correction obliges are two, namely, I am not bound under grave sin to correct neighbor unless:
a) his grave spiritual necessity is established, from which he is foreseen to be unable to be freed otherwise than by my correction;
b) the correction can be made by me without great inconvenience to myself.
As to the first, it is required:
alpha) that it be certainly established concerning a grave sin committed by neighbor or concerning an imminent danger93 of gravely sinning, e.g. concerning adultery committed or to be committed. For if neighbor committed only a light sin, or if he lives in only remote danger of gravely sinning, he is not in grave spiritual necessity, and accordingly I am not bound under grave sin to correct him. For since every correction is burdensome to the one correcting and hateful to the one corrected, and besides venial sins are most frequent, if a grave obligation of correcting them were urgent, the burden would be unbearable both for those correcting and for those to be corrected, so that neither peace nor tranquillity among men could be preserved.94 Thus at least speaking of itself; for per accidens venial sins can be necessary matter of fraternal correction, e.g. if from them there would follow grave scandal, or detriment of discipline in some religious community, or proximate danger of gravely sinning, e.g. for children.
beta) That the neighbor cannot be freed from his spiritual necessity otherwise than through my correction. Wherefore if another is prepared to correct, equally able and willing as I am, e.g. the superior of the delinquent, I am not bound. Likewise if the delinquent is foreseen soon to amend himself; likewise if my correction is foreseen to be useless, indeed rather to be harmful than helpful.95 Hence it is often not expedient to correct an unknown person, since his amendment seems very doubtful. Yet a correction even doubtfully efficacious is to be made if otherwise scandal arises for others, or if neighbor is living in danger of death. Thus, e.g., a Catholic near death ought to be admonished to receive the sacraments, although perhaps he is going to refuse to fulfill this obligation.
As to the second, the matter is clear from the things said above concerning the order of charity. Every correction indeed brings some inconvenience to the one correcting, since it is something burdensome and often tedious and harmful. Hence not just any inconvenience excuses from fraternal correction, but only that which seems deservedly graver than the necessity in which the erring neighbor lives. Wherefore servants and subjects are rarely bound under grave sin to the correction of superiors; nor are the scrupulous bound, since otherwise they would always live in straits of soul, whether in a particular case a true obligation is present for them or not. But superiors are more strictly bound to the correction of their subjects; for not only from charity, but also from their office, they ought to provide for the spiritual good of subjects. Under the name of superiors come especially bishops, parish priests, parents, masters. Hence these are accustomed to sin gravely if they do not correct delinquent subjects and if they are, as it is said, like mute dogs.
Corollary. Since these two conditions rarely concur together, a grave obligation of making fraternal correction is also rarely present for a private man (who is not the superior of the delinquent or very near to him).
93 Certain theologians wish that there is no obligation of fraternal correction if there is question only of the danger of gravely sinning and not of a grave sin already committed or of the danger of relapse into grave sin; in this case, they say there is only an obligation of admonition. But there must be no dispute about words. All admit that in each case there can be present a grave obligation of admonishing neighbor, so that he may rise from sin or may not fall into sin.
94 Cf. Billuart, De carit. diss. VI, a. 2.
95 Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 33, a. 6 and 8.
602. 3. The manner to be preserved in fraternal correction is with great prudence. Hence toward inferiors and equals it is to be made with kindness and love, according to the warning of St. Paul:96 "If a man shall have been overtaken in some fault, you who are spiritual, instruct one of this kind in a spirit of meekness." But toward superiors correction is to be made with reverence and humility. "You shall not rebuke an elder, but entreat him as a father."97
Because fraternal correction can easily injure the reputation of neighbor, hence Christ Himself prescribed this order to be preserved in charity: a) One must begin from a secret admonition: "Go and correct him between you and him alone." For public correction often offends the one to be corrected and renders him more obstinate. b) If secret correction has profited nothing, two or three witnesses are to be brought in, so that in this way the sinner may be more efficaciously induced to amendment. c) If he does not yet wish to be converted, then he is to be denounced to the legitimate superior: "But if he does not hear them, tell the Church." The superior, all circumstances having been considered, can proceed against the guilty person by paternal or even judicial correction.
Exceptions in which this order of fraternal correction is not to be observed:
a) If the sin is public, i.e. already known to the greater part of the community or soon to be made known: for then it is not necessary that a secret admonition precede denunciation, but the sinner is to be publicly rebuked, according to that saying: "Rebuke those sinning before all, that the rest also may have fear."98 But the reason is that when the sin is public, a remedy is not only to be applied to the sinner, that he may become better, but it must also be guarded against lest others take scandal. Besides, in this case the end ceases on account of which secret correction is commanded, namely, the reputation of neighbor to be preserved.
b) If the sin is indeed occult, but tends to the harm of others, which cannot be sufficiently guarded against in another way. For example, if in some college of young men one draws others on to grave sin, such a corrupter is to be denounced to the superior, who can efficaciously avert so imminent a danger of perversion (at least if the imminent evils cannot at once be impeded through secret admonition).99 But if someone knowing such a danger to exist in some community should refuse to denounce the corrupter, sacramental absolution would have to be denied to him.
c) If the delinquent has yielded his right to private admonition, as happens in certain religious societies, in which denunciation of all faults is to be made at once to the legitimate superior. Yet even in these religious societies charity demands that the matter not be denounced to the superior, if it is certainly established that the brother has already amended or within a short time will amend his fault, and that no danger of relapse is present.100
96 Gal. 6, 1.
97 1 Tim. 5, 1.
98 1 Tim. 5, 20.
99 Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 33, a. 7.
100 It is worth the effort to bring forward the opinion of St. Thomas concerning the manner to be preserved in fraternal correction: "I answer that it must be said that correction of this kind ought to proceed from charity; and thence it is that it is called fraternal correction; and therefore it is necessary to take the order of fraternal correction according to the order of charity. But the order of charity is that one prefer the common good to the good of neighbor: likewise that he will the good of neighbor, both of conscience and of reputation; and in these he should will more the good of conscience when both cannot be had. And therefore, with these things considered, I believe that, if there were some carnal or spiritual sin which tended to the harm of the multitude, it must immediately be revealed; since the common good in the order of charity outweighs ... the good of neighbor, whether it be of reputation or of conscience. But when harm to the multitude is not feared, then one ought to guard both, namely, the good of reputation and of conscience, by correcting secretly between himself and him. But if correction does not follow from this, then according to the order of the Gospel he ought to bring another with him, or even refer it to the Church" (Quodl. 11, a. 12).
603. Scholion. On the correction of one sinning only materially. The office of warning or correcting him who from ignorance or inadvertence materially transgresses the law has a similarity with the precept of fraternal correction explained thus far. Hence the question arises whether someone is bound to warn a neighbor who, with ignorance that is not culpable, e.g., eats meats on a prohibited day? To this question the answer is:
Superiors to whom it belongs from office to instruct their subjects are bound (speaking commonly) to warn the erring, if some fruit is hoped for from the warning; but if from the warning material sins would easily be transformed into formal sins, the warning ought to be omitted. E.g. a confessor ought to warn a penitent who from ignorance has transgressed an ecclesiastical law. Only the case is excepted when the penitent from the warning would probably have great spiritual harm. Indeed in this case, if an urgent reason is present, the material transgression even of the natural law can be permitted. Thus, e.g., not once only has the Holy Penitentiary permitted that putative spouses living in good faith, who cannot be separated from each other without the greatest inconvenience, continue to cohabit as though joined in true marriage.
Equals who are private men are commonly not bound to warning, unless otherwise a) harm would arise to the ignorant person himself or to some third person; e.g. if someone wished to destroy the precious thing of another person, whose value he does not know; b) scandal would occur; c) a violation of divine law or of religion would be present, inasmuch as it is intrinsically evil.101 From these things it follows that, e.g., children acting immodestly, although they do not know the sin, ought to be warned that acts of this kind are to be omitted; unbelievers publicly detracting from the Catholic religion ought to be rebuked because of scandal otherwise arising.
101 Thus S. Alph., Theol. mor. l. 2, n. 36.