§ II. On Works of Mercy

Works of mercy are some corporal, as to furnish food to the poor, to clothe the naked, etc.; and others spiritual, as to correct those sinning, to teach the ignorant, to console the sorrowful, etc. We shall speak about only two, because they have special difficulties, namely 1st, concerning alms, 2nd, concerning fraternal correction.

I Say 1st. There exists a true precept of dispensing alms to the needy. This is clear both from the general law of charity, by which we are obliged to love our neighbor, and consequently to bring him help in necessity; and from Sacred Scripture, because it is said, Ecclus. iv, 1: "Defraud not the poor of alms"; and Matt. xxv, 42: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire ... for I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink."

I Say 2nd. This precept is hypothetic in two ways, because it supposes not only indigence or necessity in the one receiving alms, but also superfluity in the one giving. Now just as a threefold necessity is assigned by theologians, namely extreme, grave, and common, as was explained above, so a twofold superfluity is distinguished. For some goods of fortune are superfluous to life or nature, because without them some persons, and those whose care they have, can exist or live; others are superfluous to state or decency, when some persons, and those whose care they have, do not need them in order to live honestly or decently according to their state, for example, by supporting servants, receiving guests, and establishing banquets according to custom. - Cf. St. Thom. in 4, dist. 15, q. 2, art. 4, q. 1; and 2-2, q. 32, art. 5. - Baller., note (a), p. 194.

But so that you may apply this doctrine practically, attention must be given to the following rules:

Rule I. In extreme necessity one's neighbor must be succored even and only from goods necessary to one's state; even indeed, because the right order of charity requires that the life of one's neighbor prevail over our good that is far inferior; but only, because our life is nearer to us than the life of one's neighbor.

Rule II. In grave necessity which approaches extreme necessity, one's neighbor must be succored from goods in some way necessary to one's state, or with moderate detriment to one's state. But in that necessity which is not so great, it is enough that he be succored from goods which are superfluous to state or decency. - Cf. Viva, on proposition 12 condemned by Innocent XI, n. 8. - St. Alphonsus, n. 31.

Rule III. In common necessity, although there is no obligation of giving alms to this or that person in particular, nevertheless, by the common opinion of the Doctors, he cannot be excused from sin who, having goods even superfluous to his state, would never wish to bestow any alms. - Cf. Suarez, disp. 7, sect. 3, n. 7.

Question 1. Does the precept of alms oblige under grave sin?

Response. The precept of giving alms is indeed grave of itself, like the very precept of charity; but it must not be said that it always presses under grave sin in every necessity. In extreme necessity indeed, and in grave necessity which approaches extreme necessity, or can soon turn into it, it is commonly taught that it presses under grave sin. But it is controverted among the Doctors not only whether there is a grave obligation of giving alms to some poor man in particular who asks it while he labors under simply grave necessity, but also whether someone is bound under grave sin to relieve the poor in general who are in common necessity. Cf. Baller., note (b), p. 194, note (a), p. 195, and note (a), p. 196.

Question 2. What quantity of goods must be given to the poor?

Response. In extreme necessity, or one so grave that it can easily become extreme, as much must be given as suffices here and now for relieving this necessity, unless there are others who are willing to assist him. Yet no one is bound to dispense a great sum of money to free a poor man from danger of death, or to procure extraordinary and costly remedies for him. But in common necessity a determined quantity cannot be assigned, but it seems more probable that it is enough to dispense the fiftieth part of those things which remain over one's state. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 31 and 32; and Hom. Ap., n. 19.

Fraternal correction, or rather reproof, is an admonition of a brother concerning the amendment of faults, fraternal, proceeding from charity.

I said 1st, rather reproof, because the amendment of a brother is procured not through fear of what is sorrowful, but through hatred and fear of what is disgraceful. I said 2nd, fraternal, because even when it is done by a prelate, it is done outside the order of prelacy. I said 3rd, of faults, and not of sins, because it regards more and properly the omission which is in transgression than the perversity of the transgression. - Cf. St. Thom. in 4, dist. 19, q. 2, art. 1. Baller., note (a), p. 200.

I Say 1st. There exists a true precept of fraternal correction. This is clear both from the law of charity, by which we are obliged to remove the evils of our neighbor, and from Sacred Scripture, for example, Ecclus. xix, 14: "Correct thy neighbor ... lest perhaps he repeat it"; and Matt. xviii, 15: "If thy brother shall sin against thee, go and correct him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother."

I Say 2nd. For the strict obligation of this precept there is required: 1st, that there be certainty concerning the transgression or fault of one's neighbor; 2nd, that there shine forth some hope, indeed a greater probability, of amendment; 3rd, that there not be another equally suitable person who is believed likely to correct; 4th, that the correction can be made without grave inconvenience of the one correcting; 5th, that it is judged necessary for the amendment of the delinquent, and that there be at least no probable hope that he will amend himself of his own accord. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 38 and following.

Question 1. Does the precept of fraternal correction oblige under grave sin?

Response. Affirmatively, if the required conditions are present, and it is a matter of grave matter. Hence he can sin gravely who, from vain fear that his neighbor may be offended somewhat, or that he himself may suffer a slight detriment from it, omits correction in a grave matter, where he thinks that it would truly be useful. Indeed, sometimes it can happen that in religious orders there is a grave obligation, although the matter is light, when namely venial transgressions are of such a kind that they dissolve or even greatly diminish the vigor of discipline. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 33, art. 2. - St. Alphonsus, n. 37. - Baller., note (p), p. 200.

Question 2. Does the precept of correction have place where someone sins from ignorance?

Response. Affirmatively, if it is a question of vincible ignorance, because this does not excuse from sin. But if the ignorance is invincible, it is not so much a question of fraternal correction as of warning by which one's neighbor is taught the truth. Now in the case charity can impel in many ways, namely: 1st, on account of harm to a third party; 2nd, on account of harm to the ignorant person himself; 3rd, on account of scandal; 4th, on account of the honor of God; 5th, on account of irreverence toward religion. But if no harm or inconvenience would follow, there will be almost no obligation of giving warning, except as regards those who by their office ought to teach others, among whom there 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 usually do flow from it.

Question 3. What order must be observed in fraternal correction?

Response. The order assigned by Christ himself is to be observed, unless circumstances advise otherwise. Hence 1st, correct secretly; 2nd, before witnesses, if the first admonition does not suffice; 3rd, refer the matter to the superior. - Sometimes that order can and must be inverted, namely: 1st, if the sin is public or soon to be made public; 2nd, if it is gravely harmful to another; 3rd, if secret admonition is not judged likely to profit; 4th, if it is better to manifest the matter at once to the superior; 5th, if the delinquent has yielded his right, as happens in various religious orders. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 40.

You Will Resolve. 1st. Fraternal correction is to be made with true charity, even as to the manner; therefore it ought to be paternal toward inferiors, kind among equals, and reverential toward superiors.

2nd. Private persons among themselves are rarely bound to correction, at least under grave sin, unless they are joined among themselves familiarly; because rarely are all the required conditions found; still more rarely toward superiors.

3rd. For the most part prudence advises that correction be omitted toward those whose disposition is wholly unknown, lest by receiving correction with an evil spirit they become worse.

4th. The scrupulous are ordinarily excused from the office of fraternal correction, because either they are wearied too much by it, or they are entirely unsuited for it; for, disturbed by scruples and anxieties, they lack the necessary discretion for correcting, and are unable to attend to excusing causes.

5th. 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; nor can members or fellow residents be absolved who do not consent to denunciation of this kind, where it is a question of grave harm to the community or to religion. Likewise, by natural law, corrupting priests who inflict great spiritual harm on the faithful, or are certainly foreseen as going to inflict it, must be denounced to ecclesiastical superiors.

6th. Yet the denunciation which is made to the superior as to a father, and which is called evangelical, must be carefully distinguished from the other which is made to him as to a judge, and is called judicial. The former, which properly pertains to fraternal correction, regards the good of the one denounced; the latter tends to the good of others, especially the common good, or of the denouncer himself. - Now where a denunciation is made to a superior merely as to a father, he can in no way proceed as judge. Cf. Baller., note (b), p. 203.

7th. With relation to those who have yielded their right, let the following things be noted. If it is certain that a brother has amended an occult sin, and there is no need to fear danger of relapse or harm to himself or another, it is not licit, unless he consents, to denounce him to a superior. For although justice would not be injured, charity would certainly be injured, which obliges us to succor our neighbor with the least harm to him, and not to do to another what you do not want done to yourself. Besides, if an immediate superior by himself alone can amend the delinquent so that no danger of relapse or harm to himself or the community threatens, it does not seem licit to manifest the fault to a mediate superior. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 42.

8th. Whenever there is fear that some grave harm will follow from a brother's vice, let the matter be referred to the superior, as to a father, sincerely, from a pure intention, with prayer having been premised; let the bare fact be narrated, without exaggeration, in the manner in which you would wish a similar fact of yours to be narrated. In this way you will often gain your brother for Christ, while on the contrary, if this fraternal disclosure is neglected, it can happen that your brother becomes worse day by day.

9th. It must be noted 1st, that there is in no way an obligation of investigating; for this is the duty only of superiors; 2nd, nor is it lawful for anyone to investigate the deeds of others, Prov. xxiv, 15: "Seek not wickedness in the house of the just and waste not his rest"; 3rd, that such inquiry is vicious, for it generates many harms.

10th. Voluntary accusers not only are not easily to be heard, but rather to be guarded against and even warned that, taking care of themselves, they should forget others. Often such persons are enemies of domestic peace.