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.

2. 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.

² Ecclus. 19:13-14.

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.

2. 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.

² Gal. 2:11, 14.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

By fraternal correction is meant a brotherly admonition given out of charity to a sinner to induce him to amend his ways. If such brotherly admonition is likely to do good and have its effect in procuring the amendment of the delinquent, charity requires that it should be given; for if charity obliges us to assist our neighbour when he is in temporal need, much more does it oblige us to do what we can for one who is in spiritual necessity. Our Lord, too, insisted on the fulfilment of this duty: ‘“‘ But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee thou shalt gain thy brother.”¹ ‘This obligation is of itself grave, as it belongs to the grave precept of charity, and like charity it binds all men. However, as we shall see, there are several conditions to be fulfilled in order that this precept may oblige in the concrete, and in practice private persons are rarely compelled under grave sin to exercise fraternal correction. Bishops, parish priests, and others who have the cure of souls, as well as parents, are more frequently obliged under pain of mortal sin to admonish those committed to their charge.

¹ Matt. xviii 15.

Theologians enumerate the following conditions as requisite in order that there may arise an obligation of giving fraternal correction:

(a) It must be certain that a grave sin has been committed and that the delinquent has not corrected and will not of himself correct his fault, ‘There is no general obligation to correct the venial sins of another according to a very probable opinion; in religious communities, or in other circumstances where uncorrected venial sin might lead to serious relaxation of discipline or other harm, superiors are sometimes bound under grave sin to correct venial faults, or even faults against the rule which are not necessarily sinful. The grave sin must be certain without the necessity of making inquiries, which would be unwarrantable in a private person.

(b) If there is someone else who can and will give the necessary admonition, the obligation will not rest upon me.

(c) There must be a reasonable expectation that the admonition will do good; there is no obligation to do what is useless, Neither should it be given if it is doubtful whether it will do good or harm.

(d) As charity does not bind with relatively serious inconvenience to one’s self, there will be no obligation to correct another if this cannot be done without serious inconvenience. This rule applies to such as are bound only out of charity to correct others fraternally; Bishops and priests are bound to do so also in justice, which obliges more strictly than does charity.

Our Lord not only inculcated the duty of fraternal correction,¹ but he taught that in the first instance it was to be done in private, then in the presence of witnesses, and finally the delinquent was to be denounced to the public authorities in order that public morality might be safeguarded and the sinner more effectually corrected. This order should, of course, be followed per se, for charity and justice demand that our neighbour’s secret fault should not be made known to others except in special cases and for good cause. However, cases are not infrequent in which it is lawful to denounce a delinquent immediately to the superior without first attempting to correct him fraternally. Such cases are the following:

(a) If the sin be public, the sinner’s reputation is not injured unjustly by at once informing the superior, which accordingly may be done.

(b) If the paternal admonition of the superior will in all likelihood be more sure and efficacious than the fraternal correction of a private person, the superior may be immediately informed as a father, whose duty it is to correct his children for their good, not as a judge, whose duty it is to safeguard public interests by punishing crimes.

(c) If harm threatens the community from the action of the delinquent, and it can only be effectually prevented by the intervention of the superior’s authority.

(d) If the delinquent be one of a religious community whose members have voluntarily renounced their rights in this matter, and agreed that anyone who becomes aware of their faults may straightway inform the superior, such a one suffers no injury if the rule be acted on. However, even in this case there must be good reason for making the fault known to the superior, such as the sinner’s correction, the good name of the community, the preservation of discipline. If the sin was committed in the past, and there is now no good reason for making it known to the superior, it would be sinful to make it known to him. Religious have a right to their reputation.

Sometimes members of communities, and boys or girls at school, who know that serious harm to morals is being done by a black sheep among the flock, are bound under penalty of grave sin to give information to superiors so that the suitable remedy may be applied. Such cases require careful treatment from the confessor, who is bound to instruct his penitents concerning their obligations, and to refuse them absolution if they are not prepared to fulfil those obligations which bind them under penalty of grave sin. On the other hand, the seal of confession must be safeguarded at any cost.

¹ Matt. xviii 15

It is the better opinion that private persons are not regularly obliged to admonish another for committing a material sin through ignorance or inadvertence. Sometimes, however, harm would follow even if material sin were to go uncorrected and, inasmuch as charity requires that we should prevent harm when we can, in these cases, admonition should be given. Those also who are placed in authority and have the duty of instructing their subjects, preventing scandal, and maintaining discipline, are bound to correct even the material sins of those under their charge.

I. Notion. "Fraternal correction is the admonition of a brother for the amendment of delicts by fraternal charity" (St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 19, q. 2, a. 1). The matter of fraternal correction is formal sins which are feared to be committed again, or those in which one's neighbor is feared to be dying or not going to do penance at the due time. Material sins are matter for instruction (n. 540); formal sins only to be committed, that is, not to be committed again, are matter for admonition (n. 541).

Fraternal correction differs from judicial and paternal correction. Judicial correction is that which is done by a superior as such; its primary end is the common good. Paternal correction is that which is done by a superior not as such, but because he is such, or because he is more suitable for correcting.

II. The obligation sometimes to correct one's neighbor is clear: 1. from Sacred Scripture: "Correct your neighbor, lest perhaps he did not say it: and if he did say it, lest perhaps he repeat it";¹ "If your brother has sinned against you, go and correct him";² 2. from reason, namely from the fact that, if I can conveniently do so, I ought to draw my neighbor away from evil, such as sin is.

The obligation is grave from its genus, and binds even subjects with respect to superiors. But it is an obligation of charity; for parents with respect to children, for spouses with respect to the other spouse, for superiors with respect to subjects and vice versa, an obligation of special charity; for children with respect to parents, an obligation of piety; for pastors of souls, an obligation of justice (St. Alphonsus, II, 40; III, 360).

¹ Ecclesiasticus 19:14.

² Matthew 18:15.

III. The conditions of grave obligation are:

1. That it be morally certain that a grave sin has been committed, because correction is something odious. Probability suffices exceptionally if it is a question of great danger and there is no fear of exasperating one's neighbor (St. Alphonsus, II, 38). Yet of itself only a Superior can and sometimes ought to inquire into the sins of others (St. Alphonsus, III, 360, doubt 20). By reason of charity, one must properly inquire into the necessity of one's neighbor when one prudently suspects it; but by reason of the common good, inquiry into another's life is prohibited, since this is apt to disturb public peace.

2. That correction seem necessary. Hence it can be omitted if the neighbor has amended himself, or will amend himself, quite certainly (St. Alphonsus, II, 39, 2).

3. That another more suitable or equally suitable person be lacking who will quite certainly correct the neighbor (St. Alphonsus, II, 39, 3).

4. That there be great hope of fruit, now or later (St. Alphonsus, II, 39, 4). Now, the greater the hope is, the more opportune time and place should be chosen; indeed, it is sometimes lawful to await repetition of the sin if hope of fruit is thereby increased.

5. That the correction can be made without relatively grave damage (St. Alphonsus, II, 39, 5), for example without damage to life, honor, goods, and sometimes friendship. Yet those who are bound from special charity, such as husband, wife, and parents, are excused with more difficulty; Superiors, with attention to their office, and those who are bound from justice, are excused with greatest difficulty, that is, only on account of very grave inconvenience. Moreover, even the gravest inconvenience does not excuse if someone is in extreme or quasi-extreme spiritual necessity.

Corollary I. Private persons are rarely bound under grave obligation to correction, either because some condition is lacking, or because there is an excusing cause, if not from the whole then at least from so much. But scrupulous persons commonly are immune from every obligation, both because they lack the necessary discretion, and because they would be pressed by continual anxiety if they judged themselves to be obligated.

Corollary II. Although even venial sins can be matter for correction, in practice there is almost no obligation among private persons, for there would be grave inconvenience, since one's whole life would be consumed in corrections, unless either the venial sins proximately dispose to mortal sin, or it can be done very easily; the latter sometimes has place if someone uses familiarity with the one being corrected. But for a superior by reason of office the obligation more easily falls, and sometimes even a grave obligation, for example if from uncorrected venial sins relaxation of regular discipline were imminent (St. Alphonsus, II, 34, 35).

IV. Mode of correcting. 1. "The order must be observed in correction which Christ prescribed, namely: first, that you correct privately; then before witnesses; then that you refer the matter to the prelate of the Church, or to a superior"¹ (St. Alphonsus, II, 41). The reason for this order is taken from the fact that, as far as can be done, one's neighbor's reputation must be considered. Denunciation here is understood as evangelical, that is, that which is made to a superior as judge, so that he may publicly judge and punish the guilty person for the sake of the common good.

2. The order prescribed of itself need not be observed: 1. when the sin is public; 2. when the sin tends to the damage of the community or of another innocent person and a private person cannot quite certainly avert it; 3. when the first and second mode of correcting do not seem sufficiently secure, for example because a private person is less suited for making the correction; 4. when the one to be corrected has renounced his right, as has place among certain religious (St. Alphonsus, II, 41). Yet in this case, although the obligation of justice is lacking, charity nevertheless prescribes that the order be observed if private correction is judged quite certainly effective.

Corollary I. "If the crime of one's neighbor is pernicious to the republic or to the community, although it is hidden, it must be denounced immediately to the prelate, with no fraternal correction having been made first; as the Doctors commonly teach with St. Thomas" (St. Alphonsus, IV, 242). Note besides that in this case denunciation must be urged even with grave inconvenience to the penitent; apply this, for example, to corrupters in colleges, seminaries, and boarding-schools. If only damage to one or another is feared, denunciation cannot be urged with grave inconvenience, for example if the penitent cannot carry out the denunciation without confessing his own crime; yet it should be advised.

Corollary II. For it to be lawful to refer a hidden sin immediately to a superior as father, it suffices that this seem more expedient; and this commonly has place in religious communities. "The reason is clear, because the end of this precept of fraternal correction... is nothing other than charity toward the brother; but this end of charity is twofold, one principal, the other less principal. The principal end is that the brother be amended, and therefore correction is prescribed; the less principal end is that the reputation of the brother be preserved as much as can be done, and therefore the order of secret correction to be made first is prescribed. Therefore, when it is believed to be more expedient for the principal end, namely for the amendment of the brother, that correction be made immediately by the prelate, the less principal end ought to cease; and therefore the order of secret correction is rightly to be omitted" (St. Alphonsus, IV, 243; St. Thomas, Quodlibet 11, a. 13).

Corollary III. A superior to whom denunciation has been made as to a father should proceed thus:

1. "Before he proceeds to correction, he ought: a) to consider the character of the informer, whether and to what extent he is worthy of trust; b) patiently to hear the very person denounced, for defense is due to each one by natural right; c) commonly to beware lest the one denounced be able to recognize his informer, unless necessity demands otherwise.

2. For the sake of correction he will be able: a) to impose moderate penances on the delinquent, which neither induce infamy nor manifest the delict, if it is grave; b) to remove a subject from office or from place, if this can be done without infamy; c) to manifest the delict to one or several consultors, if he judges this necessary for applying the remedy with greater fruit and security; d) to reprehend him gravely before two or three witnesses, for his greater confusion and commotion; e) to designate a faithful companion who may investigate the actions of the guilty person and report them to the Prelate, if the Prelate, after correction has been made, judges vigilance necessary; for this end he will be able to indicate some suspicion to the same companion concerning the brother entrusted to him; and other things of this sort. None of these things exceed the limits of paternal correction."

¹ Matthew 18:15-17.

Fraternal Correction.—Fraternal correction is defined: “An act of charity and mercy by which one uses suitable words or other means in order to convert one’s neighbor from sin to virtue.”

(a) Thus, it is an act of charity, for it is a love of our neighbor and the desire of his spiritual welfare that prompts this correction. Hence, the admonition of a sinner for his own good differs from a correction administered to a wrongdoer for the good of another or of the public; the former is fraternal correction and is an act of charity, while the latter is judicial correction and is an act of justice.

(b) Fraternal correction is an act of mercy, for, just as feeding the hungry and other corporal alms remove bodily misery, so does admonition of sinners remove spiritual misery.

(c) Fraternal correction uses suitable words or other means, for while it proceeds from charity and mercy, it must be regulated by prudence. It is not an easy matter to correct another successfully, and hence the need of good judgment as to the means to be employed, whether they shall be words or equivalent signs (e.g., sad looks, a gesture of disapproval, a change of subject of a sinful conversation, or refusal of help), and whether one shall use reproof, instruction, counsel, or warning.

(d) Fraternal correction aims at turning a neighbor from sin to virtue. It is the proper remedy for sins of negligence, as judicial correction is for sins of malice. It is applied, also, chiefly to the cure of sin that has already been committed; but it should be extended so as to include the prevention of sin in the future, since there is no less an obligation of preventing than of removing sin. Hence, those who are in dangerous occasions receive fraternal correction when a charitable warning is given.

(e) Fraternal correction is given to a neighbor (i.e., to an individual), and so it differs from the general censure of vice that is given by preachers, whose duty it is to correct sins that are prevalent, provided this be done prudently, in such a way as to effect good and not harm. Unpopularity or other such handicaps do not excuse a preacher from the duty of correction.

Fraternal correction is a grave duty, and more important than that of almsgiving. (a) The natural law requires that a person should do unto others as he would wish them to do unto himself, and everyone ought to wish that, if he needs correction, it will be given him. Even the pagans proclaimed the need of correction. Seneca desired to have a monitor who, by advice and reproof, would guard him against the dangers of evil examples and conversations; and Plautus said that a friend who refuses to chide the faults of his friend is himself worthy of blame.

(b) The divine positive law also commands that one should correct one’s brother in order to save him from another offense (Ecclus., xix. 13, 14), and to win him back to good (Matt. xviii. 15), that the spiritual should instruct with mildness those who have committed some transgression (Gal, vi. 1), that a sinner should not be treated as an enemy, but admonished as a brother (II Thess., iii. 15).

Does the duty of fraternal correction oblige one to go out and seek a person who is living a life of sin? (a) If the sinner is under one’s care, so that one is responsible for him, there is a duty to seek him as long as there is hope of amendment; for the good shepherd goes after the lost sheep (Matt., xviii. 12, 13). Hence, parents, pastors and superiors must try to win back their subjects from the ways of sin. (b) If the sinner is not under one’s care, there is no duty to seek him out; for obligations that are owed to our neighbor in general, but not to any determinate person, do not require that we go out to look for the persons to be aided, but only that we aid those whom we meet. Hence, a private person is not obliged to frequent the haunts of vice and crime in order to reform those who are there; but the community at large has duties regarding such cases.

Since the precept of fraternal correction is affirmative, it does not oblige for every time and place; acts of virtue must be so performed that not only the object and the motive shall be good, but the circumstances also should be suitable. But the object and motive of correction (viz., the conversion of a sinner) are primary, and the circumstances of time, place, etc., secondary considerations. (a) Hence, correction is good and a duty when it will serve to convert or improve a sinner, now or later, although it may be imperfect as to some of the circumstances. (b) Correction is not good, nor a duty, when it will not serve to convert the sinner, even though other circumstances would seem to call for it (Ecclus., xxxii. 6). Consequently, a person ought not to correct when either he or the other person is under the influence of anger, lest matters be made worse. This, of course, is said of fraternal, not of judicial correction; for a judge or other superior must condemn even when the culprit will not be made better, in order to restrain him from evil and to provide for the common good, the protection of justice, and the avoidance of scandal.

In the following cases fraternal correction defeats its own purpose: (a) when the sinner will not be bettered by the correction, for his continuance in sin will become graver by reason of his rejection of the admonition; (b) when the sinner will become hardened and embittered by correction, and as a result commit more numerous or more serious sins. Thus, if one knows that a blasphemer is only made worse by scolding or remonstrances, it is a sin to attempt to correct him as to those ways: “Rebuke not a scorner lest he hate thee” (Prov., ix. 8).

The duty of fraternal correction depends, therefore, on the knowledge or opinion one has about the success it will have. Hence, the following cases may occur: (a) If one is certain that the correction will be beneficial, one should give it; if one is certain it will not be beneficial, one should omit it. (b) If it is likely that the admonition will be profitable, and certain that it will not be positively harmful, it should be given, for a physician in order to help a sick person should give a remedy that is harmless, even though only probably beneficial, if there is nothing else that can be done. (c) If it is doubtful whether the admonition will do any good, and also doubtful whether it will do harm (e.g., when one is dealing with a stranger, whose character one does not know), one should weigh the good and the evil and decide accordingly, as will be explained in the next paragraph.

Cases of doubt concerning the advantage of a fraternal correction may occur as follows: (a) If the good expected is superior to the evil that is feared, one should give the correction. Example: If it seems that a sinner, if admonished, may suffer great confusion or be for a time estranged, but may also be finally converted, the good result of conversion is to be preferred to prevention of confusion or estrangement. If it seems doubtful whether correction will help or hurt a dying man, the good of his salvation should be preferred to the good of freedom from a new sin. (b) If the good expected and the evil feared are about equal, the correction should be omitted, since the negative precept of not injuring a neighbor outweighs the affirmative precept of doing him a service.

When is sin committed by omitting fraternal correction? (a) If the correction is omitted out of charity, the omission is good and meritorious. Example: Titus omits to correct Sempronius, because he thinks the reproof would do harm to the latter or to others, or because he awaits a more favorable occasion. (b) If the correction is omitted contrary to charity (i.e., because a person hates his neighbor or disregards his spiritual welfare), the omission is a mortal sin. Example: Caius neglects to correct Sempronius, because he prefers to see Sempronius go to ruin rather than lose his friendship or incur his enmity. (c) If the correction is omitted in spite of charity, the omission is a venial sin. Example: Balbus, who is not a superior, fails to correct Sempronius, because through frailty he fears to give offense, or to be considered over-bold, but he prefers the latter’s spiritual welfare to his own human fears and interests, and would give the correction, if he felt that it was absolutely necessary.

The sin committed by delaying fraternal correction is to be judged according to the rules just given about omission of correction. But is it lawful to put off correction in the hope that the sinner, through experience of the evil effects of sin, may become more tractable? (a) If there is hope of present amendment through correction, this should not be delayed; otherwise, one is careless about the honor of God, the edification of others, and the possible hardening of the sinner or his death in the midst of his sins. (b) If there is no probability of present amendment through correction, one can only wait in the hope that the experience of the evils of sin may bring the prodigal back to God.

It is not often necessary for one who is not a superior to make fraternal correction, since there are many conditions that must exist before one is obliged to it. These conditions include the purpose to be attained, of which we have just spoken, and the proper circumstances, which are as follows: (a) the fault to be corrected should be a known and serious sin; (b) the person to give the correction should be one who has the right and duty to correct; (c) the manner of giving the correction should be such as will promote the end in view.

One should not attempt to correct a fault, unless one is morally sure that a fault has been committed, or is about to be committed. For this reason the scrupulous, who are inclined to suspect or see evil where there is none, are generally excused from the duty of making corrections. Reasons why doubt, fear, suspicion or rumor do not suffice, are: (a) correction is not pleasant to the one corrected, and, if his guilt is not provable, he will be able to argue with the corrector, and so quarrels and enmities will result; (b) charity bids us to give the benefit of the doubt to a neighbor, and, if this is not done, the one who is being corrected will be able to correct the corrector on account of uncharitable suspicions.

Is one obliged, therefore, to make inquiries into the conduct of those whom one suspects of wrongdoing?

(a) If there is question of judicial correction, the public authority is bound in justice to examine juridically into matters of doubt before acting.

(b) If there is question of fraternal correction, a parent or other superior is bound in charity to make paternal inquiries into the conduct of his subjects; for, as a father does not wait until his children ask for corporal goods but inquires about their needs, so neither should he wait until their spiritual distress is brought to his attention. The superior here should avoid the extremes of suspicion, on the one hand, which will lead him to act rashly and win for him the hatred of his subjects, and of over-trustfulness, on the other hand, which will foster all kinds of secret irregularities. Likewise, he should not betray a special watchfulness about one individual that will be harmful to the latter’s reputation.

(c) If there is question of fraternal correction, private individuals should not inquire into the affairs of others. Those who go about spying on or shadowing others, even if their purpose is to reform, are acting against charity to themselves and to the persons they wish to improve; their own affairs will suffer, since the number who need reformation is large, and the person who is being investigated will be annoyed or otherwise injured: “Lie not in wait, nor seek after wickedness in the house of the just, nor spoil his rest” (Prov., xxiv. 15).

The kinds of faults that call for fraternal correction are as follows: (a) grave sins should be corrected, for otherwise one allows a soul to perish that might have been saved (Matt., xviii. 14, 15), (b) slight sins or transgressions of rules should also be corrected, when they are the occasion of grave scandal or disorder in a community, and superiors who are negligent about this commit mortal sin; (c) slight sins or transgressions should not be corrected in ordinary cases, for these faults are so numerous that, if one had to correct them, an intolerable burden would be laid on everyone, Persons who scold and lecture over every trifling misdeed are regarded as pests and do more harm than good.

The purpose of fraternal correction is to save one who is in danger of losing his soul. Hence, it should not be restricted to those sins that are an offense to the corrector, but it should extend also to sins that are against God, the neighbor, or the offender himself.

Since fraternal correction is given for the purpose of converting a sinner from the evil of his ways, it is not called for when one’s neighbor is not a sinner, strictly speaking, or has already reformed. Thus, there is no need of this correction in the following cases: (a) when a person sins through ignorance and is not guilty of formal sin; (b) when a person who was a sinner in the past has given up his old ways.

A person who sins from vincible ignorance should not be corrected unless the two following conditions are present: (a) there must be hope of amendment, otherwise the admonition would only aggravate the sinner’s guilt; (b) there must be no greater evil that will result from the admonition and correction.

A person who sins from invincible ignorance is not guilty of formal sin, and hence, as said above, he is not a subject for fraternal correction. But charity often requires that he be instructed especially by superiors, confessors, etc., with a view to the prevention of various evils. These evils are of the following kinds: (a) injury to God, as when a person unacquainted with the language uses expressions that are blasphemous; (b) injury to self, as when a child not understanding the power of liquor becomes intoxicated; (c) injury to the neighbor, as when a person who does not know that it is a fast day causes scandal by not keeping the fast.

If there is hope that the instruction will have a good result, one should instruct the invincibly ignorant in order to prevent injury to God, themselves, or their neighbor; but, if it seems that an instruction will do only harm or more harm than good, it should be omitted. The duty of instruction rests especially on superiors, such as parents, teachers, confessors. These principles are applied to various cases as follows:

(a) A material sin may have been committed in the past. Titus through inadvertence ate meat on a day of abstinence, but gave no scandal; Balbus did the same thing, and this caused considerable scandal. Now, there might be an obligation of telling Balbus what he did in order to repair the scandal, but no such obligation would exist in the case of Titus. Sempronius and Caius both married invalidly, but are in good faith. If Sempronius is told about his marriage, matters can be easily rectified; but if Caius is informed that his marriage is null, he will abandon his putative wife and his family, and there will be serious discords and scandals. Hence, Sempronius should be told, but not Caius.

(b) Material sin may be about to be committed against the natural or divine law. Titus is about to destroy what he thinks is an abandoned and useless picture, but which is in reality a very valuable work of art belonging to Balbus. Caius is going to the altar to be married; Claudius knows of a diriment impediment to the marriage, but cannot make it known without causing a scene and giving great scandal. Titus should be instructed, but it is a duty to say nothing to Caius.

(c) Material sin may be about to be committed against human law. Sempronius sees Claudius and others eating meat on a day of abstinence, which they have forgotten. He also sees Father Balbus, who has forgotten to put on an alb or a chasuble, going to the altar to say Mass. There is no obligation to call the attention of Claudius to the day of abstinence, but for the sake of respect to divine worship the attention of Father Balbus should be directed to the missing vestments.

Certain past sins do not demand fraternal correction: (a) those sins that have been repented of, especially if there is no danger of a relapse (e.g., a wife should not be always reminding her now sober husband that he was addicted to drink before he met her); (b) those sins that will in all probability be remedied shortly without one’s intervention. Hence, it is not necessary to reprove Titus because he drank too much, if he is not careless about his salvation and will soon approach the Sacraments, or if his parents or wife are better fitted to make the correction and will not fail to do so.

To what persons may correction be given? (a) Judicial correction can be given only to one’s subjects, since it supposes authority; (b) fraternal correction can be given, not only to inferiors and equals, but also to superiors. For charity should be shown to all those who are in need of assistance, and, the higher the office, the greater the danger. Superiors who are giving scandal or doing harm to others should be remonstrated with by their equals, or, if need be, by their subjects. Fraternal correction among the clergy is especially advantageous.

When fraternal correction is given to a superior: (a) the superior should take a proper correction with gratitude and humility, imitating St. Peter when reproved by St. Paul (Gal., ii. 11); (b) the inferior should give the correction without boldness or harshness, but respectfully and mildly: “An elderly man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father” (I Tim., v. 1). It is better that the person giving the correction be himself of some standing, lest the act seem to proceed from contempt, and so only embitter the superior who is at fault. Example: Children should plead with parents who steal, get drunk or neglect religion, to mend their ways.

What persons may administer correction? (a) Judicial correction as just said can be given only by a superior; (b) fraternal correction may be given by any person who is not so unfitted that a correction from him will necessarily be useless or harmful. It is not required, however, that one be immaculate, for if immunity from all sin were necessary in a corrector, who could reprove delinquents (I John, i. 8)?

The fact that a person is known to be a sinner, or not in the state of grace, or guilty of the same things he reproves, does not unfit him for giving a fraternal correction; because, in spite of his own sinfulness, he may retain a right judgment and so be able to correct wrongdoing. In the following cases, however, correction made by a sinner is reprehensible, on account of circumstances other than that of the person: (a) the motive of the correction is sinful, when the sinner corrects only in order to distract attention from himself, to conceal bad deeds by good words, to practise revenge, etc.; (b) the mode of the correction is sinful when the sinner corrects with pride, as if he himself were above correction: “Wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself, for thou dost the same things which thou judgest” (Rom, ii. 1); (c) the consequences of correction made by a sinner are an evil circumstance, as when scandal results. Thus, if a person who is guilty of far greater sins corrects his neighbor, this has a demoralizing effect, when the impression is given that good words rather than good deeds are important.

One who prefers his neighbor’s conversion to his own deviates from the right order of charity, since he should love himself more. But a person may without any transgression against the precept of fraternal correction seek to correct his neighbor before he has corrected himself.

(a) Thus, from the nature of correction itself or from the provisions of the commandment, there does not seem to be any obligation of correcting self before correcting others; for a humble correction made by a sinner with acknowledgment of his unworthiness to censure others, or by a sinner who is thought to be good or to have reformed, may be just as efficacious as a correction made by a truly virtuous man. But it is of counsel that one correct oneself as a means towards the better correction of another.

(b) Because of special reasons, a person may be otherwise obliged to correct himself before he attempts to correct another, as when self-correction is the only means towards obtaining some necessary end. Thus, a superior who cannot enforce discipline because he is unobservant himself, the friend of a dying man who cannot convert the latter unless he gives evidence of his own conversion, a person who cannot repair the scandal he has given unless he manifests repentance—all these should begin by correcting themselves. One should take the beam out of one’s own eye, if otherwise one cannot remove the mote from a neighbor’s eye (Matt, vii. 5).

All suitable persons, then, are bound by the duty of fraternal correction: “He gave to every one of them commandment concerning his neighbor” (Ecclus., xvii. 12). But the duty rests more heavily on some than on others. (a) Thus, bishops and other pastors are held out of justice to fraternal correction, and even at the peril of life. (b) Other prelates, confessors, parents, husbands, masters, teachers and guardians, are held to fraternal correction from charity and by reason of their office; but they are not held to this duty when there is grave personal danger to themselves. (c) Private persons are held out of charity, but their obligation is less than in the case of those whose office requires them to make corrections.

A person is not bound to make a correction for the sole reason that he is able to make it successfully. For he is excused: (a) if correction by him is not necessary, as when parents or others better able than himself will attend to the matter; (b) if his correction will bring on himself evils which he is not obliged to incur.

An obligation of making a correction even when this will cause an injury to the corrector, exists in the following cases: (a) If the correction is necessary to avert extreme spiritual evil (i.e., damnation), one should be prepared to make a sacrifice, even of life itself, to give the correction (see 1165). Example: Titus is dying of a contagious disease, and will lose his soul, if Balbus does not come to advise him. (b) If the correction is necessary to avert grave spiritual evil, a pastor should be willing to risk his life, and another person should be willing to risk the loss of money, and even some injury to health. But a subject is not bound to correct his superior, when this will bring on him persecutions; a scrupulous person is not bound to correct, for this would cause him worries and suffering.

The manner of making a correction is as follows:

(a) The internal dispositions should include charity towards the one corrected and humility as regards one’s own fitness. For fraternal correction is not opposed to the commands of bearing with the weaknesses of others (Gal, vi. 2), and of not proudly preferring self to others (Philip., ii. 3). One should correct inferiors paternally, equals kindly, and superiors respectfully. In every correction there should be seriousness mingled with mildness.

(b) The external order to be followed is that given by our Lord in Matt., xviii. 15-18, namely, that, when possible, admonition should be given privately, and that one should not proceed to accusation before superiors until other means, such as the calling in of witnesses, have proved unavailing. The order to be followed in fraternal correction is not only of the positive divine law, but it is also of the natural law. For the natural law requires that we do for others what we wish done for ourselves, and there is no one who does not desire that correction be given him in such a way that the least possible injury be done to his feelings and to his good name.

In what cases should secret admonition be used?

(a) For public sins (i.e., real sins known or soon to be known to the larger part of the community), no secret admonition is required, since the guilt is already publicly known; a public correction, on the contrary, is necessary to remedy the scandal: “Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear” (I Tim., v. 20).

(b) For occult sins that are against the common good or the good of a third person no secret admonition is required, but one should denounce them immediately; for the spiritual or corporal welfare of the multitude or of an innocent private individual is a greater good than the reputation of the guilty person. Exception should be made, however, for the case in which one is certain that by a secret admonition one can correct the sinner and prevent the harm that threatens others. Examples: If Titus knows that there is a plot to rob the house of Balbus, and that any effort to dissuade the criminals would only bring him into danger, he ought to warn Balbus or the authorities. If Claudius knows that in his school a certain student is teaching the other boys to steal and become drunk, he should make this known, and hence cannot be absolved if he refuses. But the seal of the confessional must be observed.

(c) For occult sins that are not against the common good or that of a third person, one should have recourse to secret admonition before making the sins known. This will save the sinner from loss of reputation and from consequent hardness in sin; it will also save others from a share in his infamy, or from the scandal caused by publicity.

What is the obligation of reporting an occult sin that is doing harm in a community, when the person who reports will suffer for telling what he knows? (a) If harm to the community will result from silence, one is obliged even at the cost of great inconvenience to speak (see 1284). Example: Claudius knows that a fellow-student has a bad influence over his companions, and is leading more and more of them into stealing, with the result that a large number will be corrupted and the institution disgraced. But he cannot speak without serious harm to himself, because he also has been implicated, or because informers are regarded and treated as traitors. (b) If some private harm will result from silence, one is not bound at the cost of great inconvenience to speak. Example: If Claudius knows that only one or two are being led astray, he is not bound to implicate himself or to incur the ignominy of being regarded as a spy.

There are exceptional cases in which occult faults, not injurious to others, are reproved publicly, without previous private admonition. (a) God as the supreme ruler has the right to publish hidden sins, although He admonishes men secretly through the voice of conscience or through external preaching or other means. St. Peter, in making known the sin of Ananias and Saphira, acted as the instrument of God’s justice and in virtue of a revelation given him (Acts, v. 3, 4, 9). (b) Members of a society who are agreed to remind one another publicly of transgressions of their regulations, do not violate the order of fraternal correction given by Christ, if there is nothing defamatory in these reminders. Example: The proclamations made in the chapter of faults in religious orders.

May a prelate (e.g., in a visitation) oblige his subjects to carry to him, without a previous secret admonition of the person to be accused, information about the secret sins of fellow-subjects that are not harmful to others?

(a) If a sin is entirely secret, and the subjects have not renounced their right to reputation in the sight of the prelate, the latter has no right to give orders that he be informed at once, since the rule given by Christ requires that a fraternal correction be first given. A subject would be bound, therefore, if such orders were given, to obey the divine injunction, rather than that of the prelate (Acts, v. 3, 4, 9).

(b) If a sin is entirely secret, but subjects have renounced their right to receive first a private admonition, a prelate may require that information be brought to him at once. This is the rule in certain religious societies; but even in them a sin should not be reported to the prelate if the sinner has already amended, nor should the higher superior be informed if the immediate superior can take care of the matter sufficiently. These religious have a right to their reputation.

(e) If a sin is not entirely secret, because there are some indications (such as ill-repute or grounds for suspicion), a prelate may require that information be brought to him immediately.

If, after several private admonitions have been made, there is no hope of success by this method, what should be done? (a) If it appears that the other means prescribed by our Lord will be successful, they should be tried, just as a physician has recourse to new remedies when old ones have failed. (b) If it appears that any further efforts will do harm rather than good, the attempt to correct a private sin that harms only the sinner should be given up.

The order to be followed in fraternal correction, after personal reproof or remonstrance has failed, is as follows:

(a) One should enlist the services of one or two others to assist in making the brotherly correction. The conversion of the culprit is more important than his reputation with these others; whereas their knowledge of the matter safeguards the corrector from the charge of being a mischievous talebearer, should things go further, and it should arouse the culprit to the need of correcting himself, before his case is brought before the superior for correction.

(b) When other things have failed, recourse should be had to the superior of the person at fault, if there is hope that this will prove successful. If the superior is imprudent or given to wrath or is known to dislike the person to be corrected, or if the latter would only be enraged by a reproof from this superior, charity would urge one to say nothing about the matter. Example: Titus makes himself intoxicated from time to time. Balbus is the only one who knows this, and he tries to correct Titus. But, as the latter denies the accusation, Balbus asks Caius and Sempronius, friends of Titus, to be witnesses; and all three of them make an effort to convert Titus. This correction also has no effect, and so Balbus and the other two make the matter known to the parents of Titus, that they may watch their son more carefully and keep him away from occasions of drink.

What are the duties of a superior to whom a subject has been reported for fraternal correction? (a) He should try to discover the truth of the matter. Means to this end are a consideration of the character and motives of the accuser, the reply which the accused makes in his own defense, and in case of necessity a confrontation of accuser and accused, a cross-examination, etc. (I Cor., i. xi; Dan., xiii. 5). Those who make a practice of gladly carrying tales to superiors are disturbers of peace, and they should be given to understand that their accusations are not wanted, and that they should mind their own business.

(b) If the superior has reason to believe that the accusation in question is true, he should use moderate remedial measures, while at the same time preserving the good name of the person to be corrected. For the information has been brought before him, not as judge, but as father of the person accused, and hence public punishments or corrections injurious to reputation must be avoided. Removal from an office, a change of place and special vigilance may be used, when this can be done prudently.

Cases in which a subject may be reported to his superior for fraternal correction without previous admonitions are not impossible; for the law given by Christ concerning the order to be followed is affirmative, and hence obliges only under the proper circumstances. (a) Thus, if previous admonitions would be harmful, whereas an admonition by the superior will be beneficial, recourse should be had at once to the superior. (b) If an admonition by the superior will be more advantageous, the other admonitions may be omitted. Thus, if the superior is more revered by the person to be corrected and will be listened to more readily, or if there is danger of delay in making previous admonitions, it is better that the matter be brought before the superior at once. What is said of the superior can be applied also to some other pious and prudent person from whom a correction would be better received.

The obligation of fraternal correction by private individuals may be summed up as follows: (a) One is bound to correct when one is certain about a grave sin which will not be corrected except by oneself, and when one has good reason to hope that the correction will be profitable to the sinner and not unreasonably harmful to the corrector. Those who interfere when these conditions are not present are meddlesome or imprudent, rather than charitable. (b) One is bound to report to a superior when one is certain about a grave sin which is harmful to the community or which cannot be corrected so well by private admonition, if one believes that it will not be reported except by oneself, and that one’s report will be for the good of others and not an undue detriment to oneself. Those who report of their own choice when these conditions are not existent, are malicious tale-bearers or rash news-carriers, rather than charitable accusers.

What is fraternal correction? - Fraternal correction is an admonition by which someone from charity tries to recall a neighbor from sin, insofar as this is a spiritual evil of the one sinning himself. Therefore the end of this fraternal correction is the amendment of the delinquent. Whence fraternal correction is an act of charity and mercy. It differs from judicial correction, because this is done by public authority, and chiefly for the good of others, especially the common good, and at the same time for that of the delinquent himself, and is an act of justice; but from paternal correction, because this is done by the authority of a superior, chiefly for the private good of the delinquent himself, and at the same time of others and the common good, and can be an act of charity and justice. These belong only to particular persons over their subjects, namely Prelates, who not only must admonish, but also correct by punishing; the former belongs to all, since it arises only from the motive of charity, which obliges all. Ecclus. 17:12. Hence, if in a Prelate himself something correctable is found, he too would have to be rebuked charitably and reverently by an inferior fit for this. 1 Tim. 5:1, 2. When denunciation has been made to a prelate as to a father, and as to a person who profits toward the good of neighbor and his amendment, he cannot afterward proceed as judge. S. Th. Quodl. 11, a. 13. - Struggl, q. 4, nn. 52, 60; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 32, a. 2; q. 33, aa. 1-4; 4, D. 19, q. 2, a. 1; L. 34; E. M. 409.

Is there given a true precept of fraternal correction? R. Affirmatively. Proof 1. from natural law, by which the members of one body by force of charity are bound to help one another mutually. 2. From positive law, Matt. 18:15: If thy brother shall sin against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone; Ecclus. 19:14: Correct thy neighbor... lest perhaps he repeat it. Therefore it must be done secretly, lest perhaps, reputation being lost, by which he was held back from sin, someone become worse. - Struggl, q. 4, n. 53; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 33, a. 2.

What is the matter of this precept? Every mortal sin of neighbor per se is sufficient matter, so that this precept obliges under mortal sin. Proof 1. from the common opinion of theologians. 2. Because since mortal sin removes the spiritual life of neighbor, it induces sufficient necessity of correction. Hence he who can easily impede a mortal sin of neighbor through correction, and neglects it because of vain fear of some temporal evil, sins mortally. Every mortal sin; because although venial sin is matter for correction, nevertheless it does not oblige gravely, nor except if you can do it very easily. Yet except if the speech is about religious orders. For if through venial sins regular discipline seems either to be entirely dissolved or notably diminished, there can be a grave obligation both in Prelates and also in private persons, since each is bound from charity to avert this most grave evil of religion.

Except also if someone through venial sin is constituted in proximate danger of sinning mortally, etc. Per se, because if someone because of fear, shame, pusillanimity, thinks himself not so strictly obliged or less suited for correcting, he seems to sin only venially. - S. Th. 2. 2. q. 32, a. 2; q. 33, a. 2; L. 34, 35; l. 4, n. 13; Diana, t. 1, tr. 4, r. 8; Struggl, q. 4, nn. 55, 56. Every mortal sin; therefore the obligation of correction is absent if someone sins from invincible ignorance. Yet an obligation of warning can be present per accidens, by reason of charity, because of damage to be averted from the ignorant person himself, or from a third party, or from the community. Cf. 423.

When does the aforesaid precept oblige? - This precept obliges when these circumstances concur: 1. If the sin of neighbor is certainly established for you; but only a superior is bound to investigate. Prov. 24:15. 2. If it is not established that he has amended himself, nor established that he will amend himself, but that he will relapse; because alms must be made only to the needy. - 3. If another equally suitable is not present, who is thought likely to correct. 4. If there is hope of fruit, because, when the end is despaired of, the means cease; unless public damage follows from omitted warning, as, for instance, if others think what is not corrected is licit, or if scandal of others follows.

Public; for if the damage is private, of a third party, although there is no strict obligation of warning, nevertheless it can be done if he is not bound from charity to suffer that damage. For if he can vindicate his own thing for himself, another can warn the possessor about its being restored; for the obligation of charity is equal toward the owner and toward the possessor. And practically some hope is regularly always present that this person may wish to restore another's thing, moved by the obligation of conscience. - 5. If there is a good occasion, a suitable place and time, and you can do it without your grave harm, unless nevertheless someone is bound to correct by reason of office. - But if any one of these is lacking, the precept does not oblige. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 33, aa. 2, 4-6; L. 36, 42; Struggl, q. 4, nn. 54, 57; E. M. 412.

Resolves: Private persons among themselves are rarely bound to correction, at least under grave sin, unless they are familiarly joined to one another, because rarely are all the required conditions found; still more rarely toward superiors because of unsuitability. Prudence generally persuades that correction be omitted toward those whose character is wholly unknown, lest, receiving the correction with an unjust mind, they become worse. Scrupulous persons are ordinarily excused from making fraternal correction, because either they are too greatly wearied, or are unfit; for, disturbed by scruples and anxieties, they lack the necessary discretion for correcting, and are not able to attend to excusing causes.

Does the aforesaid precept oblige all equally? - Although the precept of correction obliges all, even subjects, nevertheless it obliges Prelates more. The reason for the first assertion is that all are members of the same body and are bound to furnish external offices of charity to one another. The reason for the latter is that subjects are bound only from charity, but Prelates also from office and justice. - S. Th. 2. 2. q. 33, aa. 3, 4, 5; L. 40.

Resolves: Prelates, Bishops, pastors, magistrates, are bound, even with great inconvenience to themselves, to impede sins both public and occult of their subjects, because they are obliged from justice to procuring and protecting the common good. - "Correction of the delinquent... pertaining to Prelates, which is ordered to the common good and has coercive force... is not to be dismissed because of the disturbance of him who is corrected: both because, if he does not wish to be amended of his own accord, he must be compelled through punishments to desist from sinning; and also because, if he is incorrigible, through this provision is made for the common good, while the order of justice is preserved, and others are deterred by the example of one." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 33, a. 6. Superiors are bound from office to watch over subjects and inquire into their sins, yet not greatly concerning some certain person, unless some peculiar reason moves them to this. - Struggl, q. 4, nn. 55, 57, 58; Diana, t. 7, tr. 4, rr. 24, 30; L. 40, 42; E. M. 415.

What order must be observed in correction? - The order to be observed in correction is that which Christ prescribed, Matt. 18:15-17, namely that you correct secretly, then, if secret admonition has profited nothing, before witnesses; then, if the second admonition has not profited either, that you refer it to the Prelate of the Church or superiors. Nor is this licit before, even if the superior has commanded it, because it would be against charity. - Yet except: 1. Unless it is better for the matter to become known to a superior, a good and prudent man, than to other witnesses. 2. Unless the sin is public; for then it can be corrected publicly. 3. Unless it tends to grave damage of the community, if it does not immediately become known to the superior, e.g., if someone is plotting betrayal, or secretly spreading heresy; for then it must immediately be indicated to the superior, because the common good is to be preferred to private good. 4. Unless it tends to grave damage of a third party; for that order of correction yields to a greater obligation of the same charity. - 5. When the one to be corrected is content that it be immediately signified to the superior, as among certain religious, who as to this have renounced their right. - L. 41; l. 4, nn. 242-247; S. Th. Quodl. 11, aa. 12, 13; 2. 2. q. 33, aa. 7, 8; Suarez, d. 8, s. 6; Struggl, q. 4, n. 59.

Note: If it is certainly established that a brother has perfectly amended an occult sin, and there is no danger of relapse or harm from it, either to himself or to another, it is not licit to denounce him to a father or Prelate. The reason is that the motive of charity ceases, and accordingly the reason of denouncing, and therefore it is a sin, indeed mortal from its genus. For the end of fraternal correction is the amendment of the delinquent himself. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 33, aa. 2, 3, 6. If the immediate superior himself alone can amend the delinquent, so that no danger of harm or relapse is imminent to himself or to another or to the community, he seems to sin by manifesting the delict to the mediate superior. Likewise he sins when he corrects by publicly manifesting the occult delict of a subject which he can amend secretly and paternally. In communities living under a rule, in colleges, seminaries, etc., it is generally expedient that correction be done by way of denunciation to the superior, either by oneself or through another; nor can members or fellow residents be absolved if they do not consent to such denunciation, where grave damage to the community is involved.

Likewise, by natural right, publicly corrupting priests must be denounced to ecclesiastical superiors, who inflict or seem likely to inflict great spiritual damage on the faithful. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 33, a. 7. Correction must be applied not always immediately, but when greater fruit is hoped for; hence sometimes a repetition of sin can be permitted, so that someone may come to his senses more fervently. Nor does it suffice that correction has once been made, but it must be done again and again when fruit is hoped for. "To detain a man for an hour from some illicit work to be perpetrated immediately is licit for anyone, just as when someone detains someone lest he throw himself down, or lest he strike another. But simply to shut up or bind someone belongs only to him who has the power to dispose universally concerning the acts and life of another, because by this he is impeded not only from doing evil things, but also from doing good things." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 65, a. 3 ad 3; Mol., d. 755, n. 4; Lugo, de Iust. et Iur., d. 21, n. 34; Struggl, q. 4, n. 59.

What about warning to be done? - To the precept concerning fraternal correction for the amendment of delicts must be added the precept concerning warning, by which neighbor is taught about truth.

It is commonly asserted that one sinning from invincible ignorance must per se be warned if the matter concerns a transgression of natural or divine law. L. 36. Yet this obligation, as to private persons, does not proceed from charity, since there is no spiritual damage in the case. It is asserted from reverence owed to the aforesaid law, and because that transgression is evil in itself. And more probably, from St. Alphonsus, l. c., the same must be asserted concerning a transgression of human law, because, the law being posited, that transgression is still evil. La-Croix, l. 2, n. 214. It does not proceed from charity, unless namely the matter concerns preventing harm to the ignorant person himself or to others. But from religion an obligation can proceed, if irreverence toward God must be impeded.

But what has been said concerning warning the ignorant person also holds concerning counseling one who is doubtful. From charity; but from obligation of office, there is a special obligation of warning for the superior and confessor of the ignorant person. Cf. v. 2, n. 814. Besides correction of the sinner, warning the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, there are four other works of spiritual mercy: forgiveness of offenses, concerning which it has already been said; prayer for the living and the dead, concerning which it must be said in the first Precept of the Decalogue; to console the afflicted; to bear troublesome persons patiently. For these there is not always grave necessity, nor does a grave obligation always urge for private persons, who cannot exercise these works without difficulty.

1. Calpurnia, a mother, sees her daughter Lucina given too much to vanity. But since at the same time she sees that she herself is given to vanity, although she would wish to admonish her daughter for her good, nevertheless she does not dare to admonish.

2. Catharina, a maidservant, notices that Olympia, daughter of the household, admits her lover Damian alone, at night, into her bedroom. Hence she prevents his entrance into the house by various devices. Olympia, discovering this, who seems to have the governance of the house, very angry, rebukes Catharina and threatens her that she will treat her harshly and will even cast her from the house, if either she attempts anything similar thereafter or manifests the matter to anyone.

Q. 1. Is there a precept of fraternal correction? - 2. What as to the cases?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 409 seqq. As to the statute of Religious Congregations in this matter, cf. I. M. 416, 417; Elbel 314; St. Thomas, Quodlibet 11, a. 13. To the second: Calpurnia indeed is less apt for making an efficacious correction, since she herself is subject to the same vice. Nevertheless, she is not therefore exempted from the obligation of correcting her daughter, because on account of sin no one is exempted from the divine law. But correction is owed by superiors to inferiors by natural and divine law. Wherefore let Calpurnia first precede her daughter by example, so that afterward she may correct her daughter more efficaciously, if she is not first moved by the mother's example. Elbel 311.

If Catharina cannot prevent the aforesaid meetings without grave detriment to herself, as in fact appears from the case, she can with a safe conscience dissemble the whole matter and behave permissively. The reason is that charity does not oblige one to impede the sins of others, unless this can be done without grave inconvenience. Besides, admonition in the case can in no way prudently be estimated as going to be profitable. Nevertheless Catharina will in no way be able positively to concur in fostering those little meetings. Elbel 301; G. 225.

3. Xaverius, a missionary, knows well that those celebrated eight permissions of the Patriarch of Alexandria, Apostolic Visitor General in the kingdom of China, in which prostrations and ceremonies toward the dead, with some cautions, were permitted, had been condemned by Benedict XIV in his Constitution Ex quo singulari, and their practice execrated as superstitious. But since he sees that several of the neophytes still perform superstitious rites of this sort from ignorance and in good faith, and that, if they were admonished, no fruit of the admonition would follow, except that formally they would be sinning in the same rites, he remains altogether silent and abstains from making any admonition.

Q. Does Xaverius act rightly?

R. Negatively. This is established from the Instruction of the Holy Office, 14 Jan. 1753, given to the Bishop of Coricus, Apostolic Vicar of Eastern Tonkin, and approved and confirmed by Benedict XIV. "As regards the controversy... whether the confessor is held to admonish and teach penitents who invincibly are ignorant of the prohibition of certain superstitious rites, or of the condemnation of the Alexandrian permissions, when he foresees that the penitents, admonished and instructed, will not amend themselves, or whether he ought to leave them in good faith; the Supreme Pontiff considers that to leave such ignorant persons in their own ignorance concerning the cases of which there is question is not only the same as to close every entrance to all those Christians, lest they furnish uniform obedience to the Apostolic Constitution, the same as to elude the mind of the Holy See, which prudently commanded that the declarations narrated concerning the aforesaid rites be notified to all Christians; but also that the omissions of such instruction tend to grave scandal of the gentiles, and to public harm of the Christian name in those parts. His Holiness furthermore declares that, even if in some cases... confessors can omit the instruction of penitents... nevertheless in the present case this doctrine has no place... therefore confessors and missionaries ought to admonish and teach not only penitents, but also other Christians, who invincibly are ignorant of the prohibition of certain superstitious rites and of the condemnation of the Alexandrian permissions, even if no fruit from such admonition were hoped for; for the instruction of such ignorant persons is incumbent upon evangelical workers as the proper duty of their office enjoined on them by the aforesaid Apostolic Constitution."

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.

230. 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.

231. 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.

232. • 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.

233. 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.

796. The precept of charity extends not only to corporal works of mercy, but also to spiritual ones, which are commonly counted as seven:¹³ to teach the ignorant, especially as regards things necessary for salvation; to give counsel to the doubtful; to console the sad; to forgive an injury received; to tolerate the troublesome patiently; to pray for the living and the dead; to correct those who offend. Here only fraternal correction must be treated, since it alone carries before itself a special difficulty.

¹² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 33; Suarez, disp. VIII; Billuart, diss. VI; St. Alphonsus, n. 34-42; Bouquillon, n. 462-477; Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 216-239.

¹³ "Counsel, reprove, teach, console, forgive, bear, pray."

This is usually defined as a warning made privately to an offending neighbor, for his correction. - It therefore differs from judicial correction, which proceeds from a judge, in order to punish the offender on account of the common good.

797. (A) Concerning the obligation of fraternal correction. There is a natural and divine precept, grave of itself, of making fraternal correction to a neighbor gravely offending, when certain conditions have been posited.

(a) This precept Ecclesiasticus already inculcates:¹⁴ "Reprove a friend, lest perhaps he has not understood, and says: I did not do it; or, if he did it, lest he add to do it again; reprove thy neighbor, lest perhaps he has not spoken; and if he has spoken, lest perhaps he repeat it." But Christ prescribes not only the correction itself, but also the order to be followed in it thus:¹⁵ "But if thy brother shall sin (against thee), go and reprove him between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them, tell the Church; but if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican."

¹⁴ Ecclus. 19:13-14.

¹⁵ Matt. 18:15-17. - The words against thee are lacking in the Vatican and Sinaitic codices. - Cf. 2 Thess. 3:14-15.

Augustine lucidly explains these words:¹⁶ "Therefore we ought to correct by loving, not with eagerness of doing harm, but with zeal for correcting... If you have neglected (to correct), you are worse. He has done an injury, and by doing the injury has struck himself with a grave wound: do you contemn the wound of your brother? You see him perishing, or having perished, and you neglect him? You are worse by being silent than he by reviling."

¹⁶ St. Augustine, Sermo LXXXII, P. L., XXXVIII, 506-514.

798. (b) Natural reason persuades the same. For, if by the law of charity we are bound to aid the bodily misery of the neighbor, a fortiori his spiritual infirmity, since wounds of the soul are much worse than wounds of the body. Wherefore, if we see a brother gravely wounded by sin and lying in the way, ought we not, adhering to the footsteps of the good Samaritan, to heal his spiritual wounds, and to exhort him with gentle admonition, so that, the blindness of the intellect having been driven away and depraved passions overcome, he may turn aside from the mire of vices and return to the path of virtue?

Hence certain persons among the pagans had recognized the necessity of a spiritual guardian, especially for conquering the corruption which is born from depraved examples and conversations. Hear Seneca:¹ "And therefore in individuals there are the vices of peoples, because the people gave them. While each one makes another worse, he has been made worse: he learned worse things, then he taught them; and that immense wickedness was effected, by gathering into one what is known to be worst in each. Therefore let there be some guardian, and let him from time to time pull the ear, and drive away rumor, and cry out against peoples praising. For you err if you think vices are born with us: they have come upon us, they have been brought in. Therefore by frequent admonitions let the insults which resound around us be repelled." Plautus likewise poetically teaches the same:²

¹ Seneca, ep. to Lucilius, XCIV; cf. ep. XXII, LII.

² Plautus, in Trinummus, Act 1, sc. 2, v. 95-97.

"But you, from certain friends, are most certain to me;
if you know that I have done anything foolishly or basely,
if you do not accuse me of it, you yourself are to be rebuked."

799. (B) Concerning the conditions required for correction. The precept of correction does not oblige under grave obligation unless certain conditions have been posited, namely:

(a) That it be morally certain concerning a grave sin committed, or concerning the will of committing it. For if there is question of a sin light in itself and in relation to the person, there is no grave obligation of warning the neighbor, unless it is certainly foreseen that grave fault will follow from it; for if it were necessary to correct light offenses, the whole life would be consumed in admonitions. - Likewise, if the sin is not certain, there is no strict obligation of diligently inquiring concerning it, unless there is question of superiors, who have care of the community and ought to watch over the morals of subjects.

800. (b) That there be truly probable hope of correction for the offender, or at least for others, whether immediately or after some time; for no one is bound to what is useless.

Correction therefore does not oblige when it is foreseen that it will be harmful, by driving the offender to new and graver sins, or at least will be useful to no one. Hence generally it is not expedient to correct an unknown person, because scarcely in this case can correction be hoped for. If it is foreseen as useless as regards the sinner himself, but useful to others, who otherwise would be induced to grave sin by depraved examples or counsels, it is not licit to neglect it. - But if it remains uncertain whether it will be useful or harmful, one must abstain from it.

Therefore, if the sinner has already been corrected, or is about to be corrected shortly, it is not necessary to correct him.

801. (c) That it can be done without great inconvenience of the one correcting; for if, for example, a servant or inferior seriously fears that from the admonition some grave damage will happen to himself, he is not bound to make it: for the law does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

Wherefore inferiors are very rarely bound to it; equals, however, only when superiors or friends are lacking: for these furnish it more opportunely and efficaciously, and also with less inconvenience. Otherwise, although all are bound of themselves to make correction, nevertheless primarily superiors,³ who from office have spiritual care of inferiors, such as pastors, rectors of communities, magistrates, etc.

³ "For to this end watchmen, that is, prelates of peoples, have been constituted in churches, that they should not spare, by rebuking sins." (St. Augustine, De Civit. Dei, l. I, c. 9, P. L., XLI, 23).

The scrupulous are generally exempted from this office, both because they easily exaggerate their obligation in this matter, and because they seem less fit for this office: for, on account of anxiety and disturbance of mind, they usually lack the necessary discretion.

802. (C) Concerning the order to be observed in correction. Fraternal correction must be made with kindness and sincere humility, since we too remain liable to temptations and sins: "Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual instruct such a one in the spirit of mildness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."⁴ This indeed is more necessary if in fact we have fallen into the same sins: for then the admonition will not profit unless before God we acknowledge our own fault, and at the same time sincerely will our correction.

⁴ Gal. 6:1.

Therefore the reputation of the neighbor is to be spared when the sin is hidden, and therefore in making correction the order prescribed by Christ must be followed (n. 797). (a) One must begin from a secret admonition: "Go and reprove him between thee and him alone"; for perhaps, if you accuse him publicly, "through shame he begins to defend his sin, and him whom you wish to make more corrected you make worse."⁵ (b) But if private correction has not profited, let two or three witnesses be taken, so that they too may exhort the offender to repentance, and, moved by the authority of several, the sinner, shame or salutary fear having been cast in, may betake himself to better fruit. (c) If he is not yet willing to be corrected, let him be denounced to the Church or superior, so that the latter, with greater authority, may gravely reprove the sinner, inflict a moderate punishment, remove him from a place or office, or watch over him especially. Yet the superior will not furnish this unless after he has given the accused an opportunity of knowing the facts alleged against him and of defending himself: for experience shows that offenses are sometimes greatly amplified by informers. (d) If the guilty party has not been sufficiently corrected by paternal and secret correction, and, on account of the public good, it is necessary that the offense be publicly punished, the legitimate superior will be able to proceed judicially, and, the order of law having been observed, pronounce a public sentence and public punishment: this last degree is not fraternal, but judicial correction.

⁵ St. Augustine, Sermo LXXXII, P. L., XXXVIII, 509.

803. Exceptions. Yet there are cases in which one licitly departs from this order, by immediately denouncing the offender to the superior:

(a) If the offense is public, because in this case the sinner has lost his right to reputation, and otherwise the public good immediately demands correction; (b) if, by reason of the public good, effective correction is immediately required, and cannot be obtained without recourse to the superior, for example, if there is question of grave damage to be incurred by the community as regards faith or good morals;⁶ (c) if, all things considered, correction is foreseen to be ineffective unless it is made by a superior; (d) if the offender has renounced his right in this matter, for example, freely entering a religious order in which, according to the rule, denunciation of offenses is to be made directly to the superior. Yet, even in this case, if it is certain that the brother has perfectly corrected his offense, and danger of relapse is not to be feared, charity demands that the matter not be denounced to the superior: for then, from the principles set forth above, n. 800, there is no place for correction; charity always obliges us to aid the neighbor with the least damage to him.⁷

⁶ To the point Lehmkuhl, n. 614: "In communities, when there is question of a harmful offense, especially if there is danger of perverting several, or there is question of grave common damage: private admonition is generally dangerous and ineffective, but immediate report of the matter to the Superior is required, who will see whether he should rather avert the evil by paternal admonition or by punishment." Cf. Muller, § 31, n. 6.

⁷ Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 233-234.

804. Corollary. When a neighbor, from invincible ignorance, commits some material sin, charity sometimes demands that he be warned, namely:

(a) If such a sin gravely harms the offender himself, or another, for example, by giving scandal, by retaining another's thing; (b) or if it dishonors God, for example, if someone utters blasphemous words whose meaning he does not know. Yet this must be done opportunely and prudently, that is, with the conditions set forth above being posited, where warning was discussed, especially provided there is hope of correction: otherwise the merely material sin would become formal.

3. Other spiritual works of mercy are instruction (doctrina, consilium) and fraternal correction (correctio fraterna). a) The duty of instructing the ignorant rests principally upon the learned and educated. b) By fraternal correction is meant a brotherly admonition given to a sinner in order to persuade him to mend his ways.¹⁷ Divine Revelation inculcates this as a duty of charity and describes its performance as a highly meritorious work.¹⁸ Fraternal correction is a grave obligation, as it forms part of the precept of charity which binds all men.¹⁹ Private persons, however, are ordinarily not obliged sub gravi to exercise fraternal correction, except when there is immediate danger to the spiritual welfare of others, that is to say, under the following conditions: (a) The matter involved must be grave (res gravis) and it must be certain (notitia certa) that a grievous sin has been committed or there is real and proximate danger that it will be committed; (B) There must be a reasonable expectation (spes plena) that the admonition will be heeded; (y) He who is about to administer a fraternal correction must be the proper person to do so and have no reason to fear serious inconvenience to himself (grave incommodum) or greater injury than that which he is trying to prevent.

¹⁷ St. Thomas, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 19, qu. 2, art. 1: "Fraternal correction is an admonition of a brother concerning the amendment of faults, proceeding from fraternal charity."—Cfr. Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 33.—Slater, Mor. Theol., Vol. I, p. 194.

¹⁸ Lev. XIX, 17; Ecclus. XIX, 14; Matth, XVIII, 15 sgq.; Gal, JI, I; 1 Thess. V, 14 sq.; 2 Thess. II, 14 sq.; 1 Tim. V, 20; Jas. V, 9 sq.

¹⁹ Slater, Mor. Theol., Vol. I. p. 194.

With regard to the manner in which the correctio fraterna should be administered, certain rules can be deduced from the utterances of Jesus Christ. "If thy brother shall offend against thee," He says, "go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." ²⁰ It may not always be wise to carry out this injunction literally, but every correctio fraterna should be dictated by a pure motive, and inspired by charity; it should be fatherly when administered to subjects, mild when addressed to equals, and respectful when addressed to superiors.

²⁰ Matth. XVIII, 15–17: "If your brother sins against you, go and correct him between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more, so that every word may stand in the mouth of two or three witnesses. If he does not hear them, tell the Church. But if he does not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and the publican."—Cfr. St. Jerome, In Amos, l. II, c. 5: "It is a great sin to hate the one correcting you, especially if he corrects you not out of hatred but out of love: whether alone with you alone, whether after taking another brother, whether afterward in the presence of the Church, so that he may appear to charge you with the fault not from zeal for detraction but for your amendment." (Migne, P. L., XXV, 1044).—St. Augustine, Serm. LXXXII (al. XVI De Verbis Domini), n. 9–10 (P. L., XXXVIII, 510).—Constit. Apost., l. II, c. 38 (ed. Funk, I, 125).—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. II, n. 41–42 (ed. Gaudé, I, 334).

St. Paul earnestly warns the faithful against uncharitable harshness towards the erring when he says in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians: "If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed: yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." ²¹ St. Augustine says that fraternal correciton is an act of charity, of which we must not deprive our fellowman when he is in need of it, for if any one were to die in mortal sin through our failure to administer a fraternal warning, his damnation would be imputable to us.²²

²¹ 2 Thess. III, 14 sq.: "But if anyone does not obey our word by this epistle, mark him, and do not associate with him, that he may be ashamed; and do not regard him as an enemy, but correct him as a brother."

²² St. Augustine, Serm., V (al. I ex Sirmond.), n. 2: "Correction is, as it were, love.... As He [God] loves and corrects, so also do you, if you have anyone under your authority: although you preserve the affection of love, do not nevertheless withhold the scourge of correction. For if you withhold it, you will not preserve love, because that man dies in sins which, perhaps, if corrected, he would abandon, and true hatred is imputed rather to you." (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 54).

According to St. Alphonsus ²³ bishops and pastors are bound to correct their subjects, even at the risk of life, whenever there is hope of betterment, because their office obliges them to succor their subjects in distress. Those who are ex officio called to preach must censure mortal! sins, even when there is no immediate expectation of amendment; first, because it is their duty to stand up for the divine commandments and to combat evil; secondly, because there is nearly always reason to hope that the word of God, no matter where sown, will bear fruit, some time and in some way. They must do their duty even at the risk of personal inconvenience if there is reason to expect good fruit and no greater evil need be apprehended for the community.

²³ Theol. Mor., 1. II, 8. 40, 42.

Private persons, as we have seen, are but rarely obliged under pain of mortal sin to administer fraternal correction, because the conditions enumerated above, as a rule, are not verified in their case. Not to correct those whose state of mind is unknown to us, is a dictate of simple prudence.

It is the more probable opinion that private persons are not, as a rule, obliged to admonish others for committing a material sin through ignorance or inadvertence, though if harm were apt to follow in case such a sin went unreproved, admonition should, of course, be given, for charity requires that we should prevent harm whenever we can.²⁴

²⁴ Slater, Mor. Theol., Vol. I, p. 197.

Gury excuses scrupulous persons from the duty of administering the correctio fraterna because they usually lack firmness of judgment, being swayed to and fro by uncertainty or fear.²⁵

²⁵ Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 213.

Göpfert says that the duty of administering the correctio fraterna rests in a special manner upon priests in relation to their fellow priests, and adds: "Many a grave scandal could be prevented, many an erring brother could be saved, and much good could be accomplished, were the correcio fraterna promptly applied by clergymen to one another."²⁶ Closely connected with the duty of administering fraternal correction is the obligation of denouncing a delinquent to his superior without first attempting to correct him secretly.²⁷ This duty binds in the following cases: (a) If the sin is public: (B) If a paternal admonition by the superior will in all likelihood prove more effective than fraternal correction by an equal; (y) If harm threatens a community from the conduct of the delinquent and can be effectually warded off only by the intervention of the superior; (8) If the delinquent belongs to a religious community whose members have voluntarily renounced their rights in this matter and agreed that any one who becomes aware of a fault in another may straightway inform the superior.

²⁶ Moraltheologie, Vol. II, p. 45.

²⁷ Matth. VII, 1-5.—St. Augustine, Epist., CCXI (al. CIX), n. 11 (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 962).

However, even in this case, there must be a good reason for disclosing the fault to the superior; such as, for example, the correction of the delinquent, the good name of the community, or the preservation of discipline.²⁸

²⁸ Slater, Mor. Theol., Vol. I, p. 196.

St. Paul, when informed by members of Chloe's family that contentions had arisen among the Christians of Corinth,²⁹2º significantly revealed the source of the "denunciation." The so-called Apostolic Constitutions prescribe that the judge (i. e., the bishop) shall not give credence to those who denounce others, but shall institute a careful examination, because "some falsely accuse their fellowmen out of zelotry or envy." ³⁰ An effective means of denouncing public evils and helping to correct them is the periodical press, which should therefore be granted a rea- sonable measure of liberty. But a journal, to live up to its mission, should be edited by responsible persons, who are willing and able to use their influence at all times for the good of the community. A conscientious editor will not lend his co-operation to the spread of denunciations or scandals and will not publish complaints until he has ascertained that they are justified and that there is good reason to expect that the evil can be cured by publicity. It is wrong to print serious complaints without having made an investigation and still more so to accompany them by offensive or insulting remarks.³¹ It is worse to publish unfounded rumors for political ends or to satisfy a sensation-loving public, or worst of all, to corrupt the masses and incite them to revolt.

²⁹ 1 Cor. I, 11.

³⁰ Const. Apost., l. II, c. 37 (ed. Funk, I, 123).—Of anonymous denunciation Pliny says (Epist., l. X, 63): "To compel unwilling persons to accept something that may perhaps be useless to them is not in keeping with the justice of our times." Again (ibid., 98): "Documents presented without an author ought to have no place in any accusation. For that is both of the worst example and not in keeping with our age."

³¹ F. X. Linsenmann, Schriftstellertum und literarische Kritik im Lichte der sittlichen Verantwortlichkeit, Tübingen 1884.

— Human society brings it about that we can help or impede the actions of others by words or admonition, by example, and by physical or moral participation.

According to the varied kind of action, charity will counsel or command one or the other. Hence we must treat, in order, of fraternal exhortation and correction; of edification and scandal; and of cooperation in the good and evil action of neighbor.

The Good and the Modes of Fraternal Exhortation. — Since we are all weak in performing a good work, a most suitable exercise of spiritual mercy consists in the pious exhortation by which neighbor is stimulated to good actions. Pious exhortation of this kind can be common and public, in sermons directed to the people or in addresses to some community; it is most usefully made privately, whether in the sacrament of penance or outside the sacrament. Charity will move the confessor not to neglect in the least the most favorable occasion of spiritual counsel which the spontaneous accusation of the penitent offers him, especially when there is question of those who, rarely approaching the sacraments, would scarcely ever otherwise hear the spiritual counsel of a friend. Yet even with pious persons that method is usually not to be omitted. It is wont to be pleasing to penitents, especially if the exhortation is not general and indefinite, but adapted to the proper soul. And even in merely private conversation, how often have prudently persuasive words been the fruitful beginning of great good! Indeed this kind of apostolate among men of the same condition is proclaimed as most efficacious. Further, with attention to the object, exhortation is of a twofold kind: one, directed to the intellect, rather teaches, instructs, indicates or recalls the opportunity of spiritual gain; while the other, acting upon the will, moves more and adds courage for doing good. With attention to time, one again precedes a good action, urging it on, while the other approves and praises it when it has been well done. By sincere and temperate encomium, alien from flattery, men are wonderfully stimulated to attempt better things, while many are gravely chilled by the silence of others and almost lose heart.

— Fraternal reproof or correction denotes an admonition by which someone, moved by fraternal charity, tries to call neighbor back from sin. It is an exercise of spiritual mercy attempted in a spiritual necessity of the common grade. And both by the person correcting and by its end it differs from admonition and from authoritative and judicial correction, which only a public person performs, whether secretly or publicly, for the public or in some way common good to be guarded after a delict has been avoided. In the canonical forum this is ordered by cc. 2307-2309. Its use is rarer in the civil forum, where for the most part only vindicative justice is exercised, and correction consists in the very imposition of the penalty.

Interpreters commonly read the precept of fraternal correction in the place of St. Matthew 18, 15: "If thy brother shall sin against thee, go and reprove him, etc."

It is established by reason itself: we must from charity, apart from grave inconvenience, avert grave evil from neighbor. Nor is it an obstacle that no one sins unless willing, nor that alms are owed to him who labors under voluntary poverty. For the man whom an unhealthy desire agitates is to be compared with one raving, who without another's help will scarcely abstain from inflicting evil upon himself; and there are besides ignorances to be driven away, and also involuntary dangers to be removed.

Matter of Correction. — 1. Every mortal sin of neighbor is per se sufficient matter that this precept oblige under mortal sin. For that which takes away spiritual life induces a sufficient necessity of correction. Venial sin begets no grave obligation of correcting, nor even a light one unless you can do it most easily. And only venially does a private man sin who, on account of fear, shame, or pusillanimity, thinks that he is not so obligated, or is less fit for it. For to such a one, from an affection of this kind, there generally arises a grave inconvenience with which charity obliges less. But judgment must be made more severely concerning a Superior, to whom it pertains from office to correct. He, for guarding the strength of discipline, must easily correct even venial faults and transgressions of rules under grave obligation (not, however, in individual cases).

2. What has been said thus far holds also concerning sins already done or to be done from vincible ignorance, especially gravely culpable ignorance. But if the ignorance has been invincible, the very foundation of correction properly so called, that is, delict, is withdrawn. Yet correction more broadly so called enters in, which is imposed by the office of teaching the ignorant. This office is more proper to Superiors; yet the obligation also affects others because of the harm which an uncorrected defect may bring either to the ignorant person himself, whether there is question of points necessarily to be believed for salvation, or of lust which from custom would become tyrannical, or of other matters; or to others, whether they suffer scandal thence, or are harmed in goods of fortune, reputation, or body; or to the very honor of God.

On this matter these things are to be observed. Transgression of the natural law is always harmful; wherefore there is at least a light obligation of warning him who materially violates that law. - When there is question of goods of fortune which, by a correction made, merely change possessor, but not of harms which bring no equivalent profit to anyone, correction does not oblige under grave sin unless the legitimate possessor is pressed by grave want or, for another cause, ought to be preferred by you. For it matters little per se to the common good that exterior goods be detained by this one rather than by that one; and good faith per se takes away every scandal.

But if someone by accident, for instance from forgetfulness of the day, and without scandal, violates some human precept, for example of fasting or abstinence, no one contends that there is a grave obligation of warning; and not a few deny every obligation.

Persons Obligated. — Private persons are obligated from charity alone; parents also by piety; Superiors and Prelates from strict office. This office is of religion or quasi-piety, indeed of commutative justice, if it is part of an office undertaken.

And although piety obliges no less than justice, the common good to be cared for brings it about that Superiors are held with a graver inconvenience than parents themselves.

Conditions of the Obligation. — The conditions of the obligation are gathered from the necessity of correction, from the probability of effect, so that in doubt you are excused, and elsewhere from the inconvenience which correction brings with it. That these may be explained more fully:

1. Only a Superior must investigate. Nor must he do this indiscreetly, by inquiring curiously about individual matters, but only about those concerning which indications have been given. For a private man it is necessary that the neighbor's sin or danger of sin be certainly evident of itself; nor does a doubtful sign suffice. An inquiry which a private person would attempt would be odious and rather vicious.

2. Alms are to be given only to one in need. Therefore, that you be held to correct, it is necessary that it be at least probable that there has not been amendment, nor that there will be amendment without admonition.

3. A private person is not held, if another equally suitable person is present who is thought about to correct.

4. Without hope of fruit no obligation of correction presses at least a private man. For a Prelate sometimes, for avoiding scandal, must make even a correction immediately useless. It is necessary that a strong reprehension of vice confirm the good. - Where there has been a small hope of fruit, the grave obligation will cease, at least in a private person. Correction which perhaps would be harmful is no longer prescribed, unless a reason of a greater good concurs. In doubt, however, correction is to be presumed useful. And as long as there is hope of fruit, correction will have to be repeated.

5. Outside a suitable place and time, correction is not to be made. Nor is a private person held with grave harm to himself.

Corollary. - Therefore a grave obligation of correction in private persons (not likewise in Superiors or Confessors) will be present rather rarely. Regularly the scrupulous are excused from making it, since they are incapable of employing opportune counsel in this matter, and the obligation would be of very grave inconvenience to them. Finally, with those whose disposition he does not know, a private person will do better to omit correction. Cf. concerning one hearing detraction, St. Thomas, 2, 2, q. 73, art. 4.

The Order to Be Observed in Correction. is indicated by Christ Himself: first that it be done entirely privately, then before witnesses, then that the matter be referred to the Prelate of the Church or to the Superior. For the words "Tell the Church" are commonly admitted to mean as much as "tell the Presidents of the Church." Cf. Knabenbauer on Matthew 18, 17. The reason is that reputation must be preserved.

A public sin, or one so notorious that it cannot be hidden by any evasion, can at once be corrected openly or referred to the Superior; this is per se manifest.

The utility of the delinquent himself (which is proportioned to the harm of revelation), an equal harm of an innocent person to be prevented, harm to the community, or the special or general consent of the delinquent himself, also permit that, with that order omitted, the matter be referred immediately to the Superior. And, as our customs are, although the Lord said that one or two should first be employed (St. Matthew 18, 16), it will not often happen that other witnesses besides the Superior, or before the Superior, must be called in.

Is it preferable to refer the matter at once to the Prelate? Let us receive these things from St. Thomas, Quodlib. 11, 9, 10: "This must be held as a rule, that in all these things charity must always be preserved, and that which seems better and more expedient; and if he intends this, namely the amendment of neighbor, and preserves as much as he can the good of charity, then by denouncing he does not sin."

But let Superiors themselves not give easy ears to spontaneous accusers who, under an appearance of the common good, often seek themselves. Nor let them hold one denounced as convicted or suspected before they have heard his explanations.

Denunciation. — Since fraternal correction is mixed with some denunciation, it seems worth the labor to hand down these few things concerning denunciation, especially since every denunciation is at last ultimately directed to warding off evil, whether one's own or that of neighbor.

A threefold denunciation is distinguished: evangelical, canonical, and judicial. The first is made to a Superior as to a father, and has as its end the good of the delinquent himself. - The second is received by a Superior as president of the community whose good he must provide for; and it tends to preserving the safety either of an innocent person or of the community. - The third is made, on account of the common good, to the public avenger of security, whether evils which the guilty are planning must be impeded, or at least by the punishment of the delict the guilty must be restrained and courage must be added to the good.

Judicial denunciation is per se lawful, to be made without any other consideration: because the office of the judge cannot be supplied by any private action, and the reputation of the delinquent can be neglected before the common utility which the punishment of delicts brings. Only by accident, in certain circumstances, on account of excessive harm either of a private person or of religion (as if a very Catholic person or a priest is denounced), will it have to be omitted from charity or religion. Where it becomes necessary for avoiding public harm, the same denunciation will be prescribed.

Canonical denunciation is subject to the same rules as fraternal correction itself, of which it is a certain extension. Here therefore the reputation of the guilty person will have to be spared where he can prudently remain unharmed. Therefore denunciation will per se have to be omitted if its end is obtained sufficiently by private correction. Provision must also be made for common charity, which is easily shaken by an imprudent denunciation. The very person of the Superior, more or less benign, discreet, and prudent, must be attended to. Yet in an equal cause of utility or detriment, the innocent person will have to be preferred to the guilty.

Evangelical denunciation is the very mode of fraternal correction which, after matters have been prudently weighed, seems to be preferred to immediate admonition. By evangelical denunciation the Superior can proceed only as a father, and therefore impose only a medicinal penalty. Yet nothing prevents him from forbidding certain things to the denounced subject in virtue of holy obedience or under penalty of excommunication, if that seems likely to profit the good of the same subject.

From canonical denunciation it is lawful for the Superior to take all sanctions which seem conducive to guarding or restoring common discipline, and this even if these sanctions are foreseen by accident to be harmful to the denounced person.

Judicial denunciation gives place to public vengeance.

If the matter bears it, the Superior can declare to one referring evangelically the obligation of canonical or judicial denunciation, and strictly command either to the same person. But as long as evangelical denunciation has not been legitimately changed into canonical or judicial denunciation, the Superior per se, by the general law of entrusted secrecy, is prohibited from acting canonically or judicially. I say per se, because the very obligation of entrusted secrecy is circumscribed by certain limits.

Corollary. — 1. The indication of hidden corrupters in colleges over which prudent Superiors preside is regularly to be strongly advised; yet the harm of him who is reported must be weighed, since perhaps, if he is expelled, spiritual ruin may threaten him. - 2. As long as there is question only of the harm of one or another, it does not seem, if the inconvenience of the one reporting is grave, to be imposed strictly. A grave inconvenience would exist if the one reporting would have to manifest his own delict thence, or if as an "informer" he would become hateful to others. - 3. But if corruption of many, infamy of the house, or another reason of common harm is feared, the delation will have to be made, with grave harm to oneself disregarded. Yet the confessor will be able to be silent about the matter, if the warning seems plainly about to be useless, or if there must be doubt concerning the efficacy of the denunciation made for preventing evil.

He is not yet a corrupter who has spoken less chastely. But it must be seen whether the occasion was extraordinary, or rather whether from some habit he mixes base conversations; such a one is per se to be reported.

According to the quality of the Superior, the manner of acting can be changed. But the Superior is to be presumed prudent and discreet.

— In ascetical works, the word edification is customarily taken metaphorically to designate that positively beneficent action which even unconsciously a man sincerely devoted to cultivating piety and virtues exercises. The wonderful power of good example is expressed and confirmed by the proverb itself: "Words sound, examples draw." And nothing more excellent is to be adduced in praise of good example than these words of Christ: "So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (St. Matthew 5, 16).

Yet virtue is not therefore to be feigned or simulated, as we are also taught by Christ: "But thou when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy face, that thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret" (St. Matthew 6, 17. 18). For merit then perishes, if these things are done for human glory alone, and edification itself perishes, if suspicion of vain glory arises.

There are, therefore, actions which, as done openly, always edify, because they yield directly to the honor of God, and by the very manifestation virtue is exercised: for example, profession of faith, observance of an external law, for example of hearing Mass, of abstaining from meats. And there are good actions which, because they are in esteem among all, are easily mixed with a less right intention. These are rather to be hidden than displayed, and circumstances must be permitted to manifest them.

Moreover there is a certain exercise of virtue, either imperfect and partial, or incautious and inelegant, which excites aversion mixed with a certain envy. While, on the contrary, simple, humble, and modest virtue draws souls to God and to itself. Aptly did St. Paul proclaim charity to be kind (1 Cor. 13, 4).

That a man may acquire for himself the merit of edification he must sufficiently intend it. Cf. I, 130. This intention is manifest when someone deliberately goes before others by example, for example in confessing the faith, in undergoing danger for a noble cause, in performing an office of charity. But what must be said concerning that edification which is given by virtue that does not know itself and, from modesty, hides itself? Although distinct knowledge of that edification escapes the agent, nevertheless the humble man does not ignore the power of good example in general, and often says or does those things which manifest the intention of helping neighbor spiritually in every way the opportunity for which is given to him. Therefore an intention sufficient for merit does not seem lacking to him.

The Notion and Division of Scandal. — Scandal properly signifies a stumbling-block which, placed in the way, prepares a fall for him whose foot strikes against it. Metaphorically, it is a saying, deed, or omission on whose occasion neighbor easily sins. - Per se, an action of this kind is only something done less rightly, although by accident a very good action can give occasion to sin. Is not Christ Himself said to have been set for the ruin of many? When such a thing happens, scandal is called merely received or passive, but not actively given.

Therefore they are accustomed to define active scandal as a deed less right, furnishing to another an occasion of spiritual ruin. It is less right insofar as it is evil in itself, or has the appearance of evil. - Active scandal is divided into direct, when something is done with this intention that another should sin, for example direct solicitation to sin. And if, from some hatred of God or of neighbor, the very character of sin is formally intended, scandal is called diabolical. It is indirect when the sin of neighbor is indeed foreseen and permitted, but not intended.

Passive scandal is the occasioned sin itself. If it is connected with active scandal, it is called scandal of the little ones or of the weak; if it has been merely received from the malice of the one scandalized, it is called pharisaic, because the Pharisees, from hatred and envy against Christ, on occasion of His good deeds, suffered such scandal.

What shall we call that which not a few poor, rude, and unlearned persons suffer on occasion of priests, religious, and their action, because, deceived by evil writings, they represent those persons and that action to themselves under a false color? It is rather scandal of the little ones; yet it arises less from the priest himself or from his action, than from the calumnies of those who hate religion.

But observe that not the sin of another itself, but only temptation, is the immediate effect of scandal given: no one sins unless willing.

Further, passive scandal is sometimes a sin of the same kind as the scandal given, such as is necessarily had among accomplices; and not rarely it is of an entirely different kind. Thus scurrility and the impurity of a priest induce contempt of the sacerdotal order and of religion. - It is also per se manifest that passive scandal can be had without active scandal, and conversely. Indeed an evil action, for instance blasphemy, can give beginning to good actions, such as holy protests and expiations. Nor is scandal the very wonder or horror of those seeing and hearing, which they are accustomed to call by the name of scandal. Therefore he who sins before others is not always at the same time actively scandalous, but only then when, after the circumstances of the sinner and of the witnesses have been considered, it is to be feared lest among the witnesses there are those who are drawn to a sin which otherwise they would not have committed. On account of the depravity or probity of the witnesses scandal can be absent: on account of depravity, as if someone blasphemes or violates chastity before others who, prepared to do the same, are in no way moved by that example; on account of probity, as if someone contends, quarrels, or strikes before the meek. Nor will scandal be given to witnesses so accustomed that they are in no way excited by the dangerous thing. Yet evil actions which are publicly committed are deservedly presumed scandalous, especially by persons of certain name or authority.

The Sin of Active Scandal. — 1. Concerning the sin of direct scandal, there is no room for doubt; and it is established that the species of the sin to which someone intends to lead another is contracted. - Diabolical scandal, since it contains formal hatred, denotes a special contrariety to charity, which must be opened in confession.

2. But the author of indirect scandal also sins per se. And his sin is contrary to the office of fraternal correction. For if charity obliges us to impede the sin, at least grave sin, of neighbor, much more does it impose upon us that we not be the cause by accident (that is, the occasion) of another's sin. - But contrary to what many and grave authors hold (for example Sanchez, Decal., l. 1, c. 6, n. 3), that sin is opposed only to the common obligation of charity, not to another virtue. For that which is outside the action and intention of the agent does not constitute the species (2, 2, q. 43, art. 3). But a sin merely occasioned is outside the intention, as is manifest, and also outside the action of the agent. For the sufficient cause of sin is the proper will of the one sinning (ibid., art. 1 ad 3). Wherefore the varied conditions of the persons who suffered that scandal are not to be declared, except the quality of parishioner, son, and the like, to whom the author of scandal owed spiritual edification by a special title; nor is he held to restitution who by example alone induced others to theft or damaging.

Permission of Scandal. — Scandal can be given by an evil act and by an act which has the appearance of evil. And it can be merely received, whether from weakness or from malice. Hence:

a) It is clear that he always sins who by an evil act is the author of scandal. And under grave obligation I must avoid inducing another by my evil deed into such danger of grave sin from which he may extricate himself with difficulty. For this is to cast another into spiritual necessity, which I ought to drive away unless I were excused by proportionate inconvenience. If another is tempted merely to venial sin, even directly, the author of scandal per se will sin only venially.

b) If the action merely has the appearance of evil, the author of scandal can be excused by proportionate inconvenience. And if there has been grave danger of many, grave inconvenience must be suffered by me to avoid it. Indeed if the whole Christian life, the very faith of many, is in danger, I shall be excused by no harm to myself.

c) Scandal merely received or passive per se cannot be permitted: because the sins of neighbor, if we can easily do so, we must impede. A proportionate cause of necessity or utility excuses the permission of scandal. These things are to be weighed: the inconvenience of abstaining from the action, the gravity of the evil which is feared in others, the proximity of the occasion of sin, the nature of the scandal, whether it is of the little ones or pharisaic. A greater cause is required that scandal of the little ones be permitted than pharisaic scandal; pharisaic scandal can be permitted for any cause whatever, unless from delay of the action a great fruit is hoped.

Indeed passive scandal sometimes must be permitted; for, to avoid it, it is not lawful to sin, or to expose one's own salvation to grave danger, or to harm others gravely, especially the community.

Reparation of Scandal. — He who by evil example has scandalized others must give them good example, insofar as the force of the evil example is thought to remain in some way. He must remove that force from charity; yet this is not true restitution, but rather a cessation from an evil action. This reparation will vary according to the nature of the scandal (public, occult, against one's proper office or not). - For the most part a general reparation which is contained in open conversion will be able to suffice. Cf. Aertnijs, I, 395. 396.

Some Applications. — 1. Two who commit sin simultaneously are necessarily scandalous to each other. For even if each conceived the evil intention by his own movement, nevertheless the execution, or exterior sin, required the complicity of the other, so that even the accomplice gave the instigator an occasion of sinning. Certainly he sins more who excited or induced another to sin. Yet because this is a merely aggravating circumstance, it need not be opened in confession, contrary to what some opine.

2. It is not lawful without cause to ask an honest work from him who will not perform it without sin, for example to ask an oath from someone who will perjure himself, or a sacrament from a minister whom you know to be living in a bad state. Yet this will be lawful on account of a reasonable cause: for the other sins from his own malice. Indeed, if, for example, the unworthy minister is already actually determined to sin, your petition merely anticipates the external sin, so that the petition does not seem to many to be gravely sinful, even if it is made without cause. Cf. Lugo, De Iure et Iustitia, d. 25, n. 234, against St. Alphonsus, l. 2, n. 47. (He argues from this, that external sin increases the malice of the internal will.) Hence they simply permit the faithful to ask sacraments from their bad priest. For they have a right to this administration. Likewise the wife of an onanist husband has a right to copulation. Therefore she will be able to ask this, unless by moderate abstinence she can draw her husband to better counsels.

3. On account of pharisaic scandal, no one ought to omit or defer good things not necessary, whether spiritual or even temporal, according to that saying of St. Matthew 15, 14: "Let them alone: they are blind and leaders of the blind." Except if from delay a notable fruit is hoped.

4. More easily and more often those good things are to be deferred or omitted on account of scandal of the little ones. Thus entrance into religion will have to be deferred on account of the scandal of parents, if their consent seems about to be obtained shortly.

5. When an explanation has been given which removes the appearance of evil, for example which shows a suspect action to be just, scandal of the little ones can easily be changed into pharisaic scandal, so that the obligation of avoiding it is greatly weakened.

6. Therefore scandal of the little ones excuses from fulfilling certain positive precepts of fasting, abstinence, etc., unless the omission would be more harmful to the one omitting. The case can be that of a wife whose husband would be gravely offended by abstinence on Friday; of a woman who in church would have before her a young man by whom she is basely desired. Some oblige, in such circumstances, that precepts sometimes be omitted, because the law of nature concerning avoiding scandal must be preferred to a positive law. St. Alphonsus, l. 2, n. 51, thinks this opinion more probable. But the observance of a precept seems to others to be a just cause for permitting scandal. Therefore the obligation is not established, unless by office you ought to impede the sin of the person about to sin.

7. Ecclesiastical prelates, for avoiding disturbances, will sometimes have to omit certain sacred ceremonies; - they can, for avoiding greater evils, dissemble the sins of subjects which otherwise they would have to correct; - they neither must nor per se can omit lawsuits or those things which are necessary for guarding ecclesiastical goods, that scandals of Pharisees, or even of the little ones, may be avoided. Yet in a special case it will be better for them to yield their right; but unless the matter is of small moment, the assent of the Holy See will have to be sought.

8. A beautiful girl, decently adorned, need not be anxious concerning the temptations and sins of the men whom she will meet. Yet if she can easily avoid a man whom she knows to sin on her occasion, and can extinguish that lust by one or another flight, she must do this under grave obligation. (Aertnijs, 384, 4.)

9. On account of a just and proportionate cause, it seems lawful that you place an occasion, yet not a proximate occasion, of sin: thus a father who deservedly suspects his son to be prone to stealing can place an occasion of theft before him in order to detect and correct him. For detecting and expelling or punishing servants, the master will be able to do the same. Nor do they prohibit a husband from prudently and cautiously testing the fidelity of his wife. Indeed, on account of a very great cause, especially a public one, they say it is not repugnant that a woman, yet doing nothing immodest herself, permit a temptation to arise on her occasion, as Judith is narrated to have done in Sacred Scripture.

— You will ask whether it is right to ask from another an action honorable in itself, which he, on account of an erroneous conscience, cannot perform without sin? Suppose an attendant of false worship (Jewish, Mohammedan) to serve you, who must abstain on the Sabbath from servile works or must observe certain fasts; or suppose someone to be unjustly detained in prison, the injustice however being unknown to the guard, or to be prevented by hostile dominion from going out from the borders of the fatherland.

Resp. Without a grave cause it would be unlawful thus to induce another to subjective sin. On account of a grave cause, as if the work is urgent and you cannot seek it from another, or if you vindicate your right, this will be lawful. For the intention of the one asking is borne toward an action objectively good; the sin, which must be attributed to false conscience, is accidental: this is merely permitted by the one asking, on account of a just cause. But, if the one asking the action has this opportunity, after an explanation has been given concerning the objective honesty of the act, he must try to spare the other the subjective sin itself.

Nor should money perhaps to be paid to a guard or soldier cause scruple: for it is paid in order to redeem oneself from an objectively unjust vexation.

On Womanly Adornment. — a) Garments can derogate from the rules of decency in two ways: insofar as they excite lust, and insofar as they manifest a certain boldness contrary to modesty. Of the former character are the too-short garments of theaters and circuses; there are also garments too thin or too few, which have begun to be used in worldly dances; there are also garments which are fitted so artfully to the body that they either display every form of the body or exaggerate the sexual marks; finally there are - and this must not be disregarded - shorter garments of boys and girls: many are tempted on their occasion. Rather of the other character are indecorous uncoverings of the neck. And note that lust is excited more by mysterious veils than by complete nudity.

b) Those who introduce adornments that are not very decent, as well as the women who first wear them, sin gravely: they are the cause of innumerable sins, nor is their fault weakened by any excuse.

c) Those who merely accommodate themselves to accepted customs are rarely to be blamed gravely, especially since the manner of wearing garments has much force for diminishing, as also for increasing, indecency.

d) Those who increase indecency, according to the graver or less grave mode, will sin gravely or lightly.

e) The remote cooperation of a maker who, when asked, makes garments a la mode, practically will be excused by necessity or a grave cause.

f) A woman who foresees that it will happen that many in general are scandalized by her vain and superfluous adornment (yet not base), is not bound under grave obligation to lay it aside. For the occasion is in itself remote; moreover it is universal and perpetual, which beautiful women necessarily furnish when they go out of doors, and it would be too grave for the same women to abstain from adornment.

N. B. The rules concerning womanly adornment gathered from St. Thomas are proposed by Ballerini-Palmieri, t. 2, n. 269.

But Catholic and pious women accept an excessive servitude to usages which the less pious, indeed prostitutes, introduce. Wherefore an effort must be made that, a league having been formed, they vindicate their liberty, I say the liberty of elegant modesty. Nor can the cultivation of modesty be sufficiently urged upon all, both for themselves and for the family which they have to rule.

And because this is the head matter for amendment, as much as is in our power, we must procure for the common people that solid instruction turn the souls of girls away from futile matters toward fulfilling their grave offices, both familial and social.

On Dances. — a) No modern dances seem positively to be approved, if perhaps you except certain innocent dances which in some villages or Catholic regions are celebrated rarely, for example on the feast of the patron of the place. Berardi testifies that he has known such dances. On the contrary, there are also popular dances which end in true Bacchanalia.

b) While a few years ago the question was raised about certain modes of dancing, especially about that which is called the "waltz," today more attention must now be given to dances which figure a certain action.

Although certain modes of dancing are less pleasing, there is none which, where it has been introduced, we can condemn absolutely. But dances of the latter kind, unless they represent a sacred procession or a warlike action, are accustomed to express or imitate amorous deeds, for example the pursuit by which the male follows after the female; to express or imitate them in such a way that the very mode of execution casts the actors into an occasion scarcely not proximate of lust. Therefore it has happened that some, for example the "tango," have sometimes been reproved by ecclesiastical authority (*).

(*) Yet that you may respond prudently, this also must be observed: it sometimes happens that, with the name retained, the vices of certain dances are corrected, almost as corrected editions of evil writers are customarily published. - But again the license, neo-pagan and increasing day by day, makes matters worse and exaggerates the incentives of passions. What is to be said of the fact that in the very art of learning dances, under a futile pretext, dress wholly immodest has begun to be used? Nor only immodesty of dress, but several other, more recent, "worldly" usages seem as it were to declare war on virtue. Cf. Josue Germain, Dangereuses? Enquete sur les danses modernes, Paris, 1923; and, concerning that work, Doncoeur, Etudes, April 1923, t. 160, p. 193 ss.; or Hocedez, Nouv. Rev. Theol., 1924, t. 51, p. 32 ss.

c) Yet it can happen that for certain richer young men the intercourse of persons with whom they must observe the laws of civility, even if they mingle with honorable dances, is to be preferred to the vulgar intercourse of taverns to which otherwise they would be addicted.

d) If any wish or ought to go to dances, they must at least take care that they have honorable company. Masked dances are more dangerous, since they render the lustful more audacious and more impudent.

e) Penitents will have to be judged according to their case. Absolution is not to be denied to those who have not sinned. For those who are accustomed to sin in dances, dances will have to be prohibited, if the dances themselves, and not the weakness which is found in every association with women, are the proximate occasion of sin, and the occasion is not morally necessary, as it can be, for example, for a wife accompanying her husband.

— You will ask whether it is lawful, for avoiding a greater evil, to counsel a lesser evil, or whether that counsel is to be accused of active scandal.

The matter is controverted. Some deny that this is lawful, because the counselor of a lesser evil still remains a counselor of evil; others think it lawful, because the counsel merely affects the note of the lesser evil, and the evil which remains is neither intended nor has its cause in the counsel but in the evil will of the other. Or, if you prefer, the counsel, because conditional, is reasonable. For it is rendered in these words: since you want the greater evil, do rather the lesser. Thus Lugo, Iust., d. 19, n. 42 ss. Yet others think that this reason is valid only when the lesser evil is contained in the greater, or when there is question of evil to be inflicted on the same person. In this opinion, it will be lawful to counsel the mutilation of a person whom the other intended to kill; or in general theft or fornication to him who had determined to commit killing or adultery. But it will not be lawful to counsel him who intended by theft to despoil a poor man that, leaving such a one, he should take money from a rich man, because the rich man is reasonably unwilling with respect to that counsel. Therefore make an exception if, on account of the small quantity, the rich man cannot reasonably be unwilling. But since a prostitute is not unwilling, the designation of a prostitute to be chosen before a married woman does not seem to be reproved if it has been made by the counselor with the intention of diminishing the evil.

We judge this third opinion to be truer. Yet one must beware of the scandal which the counsel can bring with it. For which cause, unless we are deceived, on 22-23 Nov. 1922, the Holy Office denied that it was lawful that a confessor counsel dimidiate copulation to an onanist husband. For the Bishops of the Netherlands, in the preface of their petitionary booklet, had indicated why, in the concrete circumstances, that counsel would be scandalous, insofar as it would offend pious ears and pave the way for propagating Malthusian arts. Cf. Per. XII, p. 33-37.

On this matter cf. Lugo, Iust., d. 19, n. 13 ss. He also, nn. 50-54, discusses and benignly solves the question concerning him who counsels an equal evil, because that counsel also is purified by this condition having been placed: "If you are determined to this, do that other." And he even concedes that to one hesitating between two determinate men, which he would harm, he can be counseled that he damage Titius rather than Caius, at least insofar as he wishes to avert evil from Caius.

— Cooperation, by the force of the word, denotes the simultaneous action or operation of two or more. Thus in every good action we cooperate with the grace of God. Cooperators can either all assume principal parts for themselves, or some principal parts and others secondary parts. These latter are more strictly called cooperators: yet in such a way that the distinction regards rather the exterior execution than the whole action. Therefore, although, as the Code itself teaches in can. 2209 §3, one commanding or ordering is the principal author, apart from the executor or executors he is numbered among cooperators.

Cooperation is distinguished as formal and material. Formal cooperation is chiefly had when the intentions themselves are joined, or when concurrence is offered to the intention of the agent, or the matter is done and aided by common counsel. - Material cooperation is offered when one acts with a different intention, and another concurs. But that cooperation also is called formal which in itself, whether by its nature or by its necessary signification, contains goodness or malice of the same kind as the principal action. Others call this immediate material cooperation.

Therefore material cooperation in evil is done without the intention of the evil intended by the principal agent, through an action good in itself or indifferent, or at least wholly extraneous to the malice of the principal action which is considered: the principal agent himself then abuses your action for his depraved plans; he himself joins his evil will with your action. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 2, n. 63.

According to its distance from the principal action it is called proximate or remote.

The Utility, Value, and Merit of Cooperation. — Alone we have power for few things. Therefore charity counsels prompt and manifold cooperation, both physical and moral, toward good, by counsel, exterior help, approval and praise, communication of knowledge, or furnishing of strength.

Aid of this kind, since it often prepares applause and success for others, frequently contains an exercise of humility and is very remote from envy. Therefore the same cooperation is commended by the very purity of affection. And it reaches the highest praise when the cooperator chooses labor for himself, and procures honor for another. On account of the communion of saints, all our prayers and good works can cooperate with all pious undertakings which are attempted everywhere on earth.

Formal or "intentional" cooperation communicates the merit of the principal action; not so material cooperation, unless it is conscious and, as cooperation, approved or intended.

— Superiors of religious institutes are accustomed to admit friends and benefactors to the society of merits and good works. Those who are given that communication are now ascribed among those for whom not a few sacrifices and suffrages are offered in the religious institute, whether from the appointment of the Superiors or from the spontaneous prayers which religious are accustomed to pour out according to the mind of the Superiors; and besides, as joined in a special way with the religious institute, in a mode analogous to that by which those themselves who are enrolled in the institute are joined, they can thence expect for themselves manifold supernatural help and divine mercy. Cf. concerning this matter St. Thomas, in 1 Sent., d. 45, q. 2, art. 1; Tamburini Ascan., De iure abbatum, t. 2, d. 9, quaesit. 3; Bucceroni, Theol. mor., tom. IV, p. 428, Altera affiliatio, where he treats this argument more fully.

— 1. Strictly formal cooperation necessarily participates in the malice of the principal action. Therefore, if this is intrinsically evil, the cooperation itself never becomes lawful. The same must be said of formal cooperation which others call immediate material cooperation, if you except only injustice in material goods. For, on account of the right of necessity, it is sometimes lawful to cooperate materially, even immediately, in such injustice.

2. Material cooperation itself is per se illicit. For with respect to the agent it is opposed to the office of fraternal correction, by which we ought from charity to impede or correct his evil action; and often besides another effect is connected with it, derogating from the honor of God, or harmful or damaging to others.

Thence a not small question arises, whether material cooperation, when it is illicit, wounds the virtue of charity alone, or also the diverse other virtues to which, according to the diversity of the case, the principal action is opposed. Cardinal d'Annibale, I, n. 174, judged that charity alone is wounded, unless besides you bear a special office of parent, judge, minister of the sacraments, which imposes upon you the opposite care, because the material cooperator effects nothing evil in itself. Sanchez thinks otherwise, Decal., l. 1, c. 7, nn. 10, 12; but he says this consistently with his opinion concerning the malice of indirect scandal, which we rejected. Others (cf. concerning prop. 51 of Innocent XI, Cardenas, diss. 31, nn. 10, 11) hold the same conclusion, because cooperation, joined with the principal action, participates in this action's malice. But this must be denied, since the connection is not intrinsic but extrinsic, from the evil will of another. And, if this reason were admitted, the cooperation itself would become intrinsically evil, so that it would never be excused: which is very commonly rejected. There are those who distinguish injustice from other sins, because then, besides the reason of impeding from charity the sin of the agent, "there is present the reason of impeding the damage of a third party who has a right that another should not concur to his damage." Thus Ballerini-Palmieri, t. 2, tr. 5, n. 297. But Cardinal d'Annibale objects, l. c., why should justice bind more than the other virtues? There are not lacking those who, concerned only about the gravity of the sin, omit the question of species, although other virtues oblige in one way, charity alone in another; or those who propose the matter very briefly and rather confusedly. Thus Lehmkuhl, I, 786, has these few words: "the wounding of charity is not the only, indeed often not even the principal, reason why some cooperation is illicit." Yet by these words, with the common opinion, he dissents from the view of d'Annibale.

We think it must be said briefly thus. The only cooperation which comes here to be considered is that which is positive, or by action. This alone truly concurs. Negative cooperation merely does not impede. Therefore, unless you have a different obligation from office, this can wound charity alone.

Positive material cooperation itself is no more than scandal a per se cause of the evil thing. Yet this difference exists between scandal and this cooperation: from no physical operation of the scandalous person, as such, does the effect depend; whereas, apart indeed from the intention of the one operating, his causality is assumed for an evil effecting, which is thus actively permitted. But various virtues impose upon us an unequal positive care, lest our action, even unwillingly on our part, harm their cause or good. Therefore material cooperation is not forbidden by a negative precept of the virtue, because one cooperating materially in truth does nothing contrary to the virtue himself (and thus the second opinion is rejected); but it can be forbidden by a positive office, insofar as the cooperator has wrongly permitted an efficacy opposed to various virtues. And this seems to have escaped Cardinal d'Annibale.

3. Material cooperation is not intrinsically illicit, but becomes lawful insofar as it is joined with sufficient care of virtue. The same thing is said in other words: material cooperation is excused by a proportionate inconvenience.

Principles Concerning Lawful and Unlawful Material Cooperation. — 1. Insofar as cooperation is forbidden by charity, the rules handed down above concerning indirect scandal recur. Insofar as it is forbidden also by another virtue to which the principal action is opposed, the very proximity of the cooperation to be avoided creates a formally graver obligation, and the rigor of that virtue also must be attended to.

2. Furthermore, this formula can be handed down. Material cooperation must be purged from affection toward the evil, from the vice of scandal, from a further evil effect. Therefore the cause excusing it ought to be such: a) that it can be joined with a mind wholly averse from the evil; b) that by an explanation of the cause scandal is removed, or because of the gravity of the cause scandal can be disregarded; c) that it compensates for the other damages which will follow from the cooperation.

Difficulty of Estimation. — The estimation of lawful and unlawful cooperation is impeded by difficulty: a) of considering adequately the matter with its circumstances. Now, if the business were completed between only the agent and the cooperator, the scandal which is often mixed with cooperation complicates the solutions. Thus Titius indeed wishes to read a bad work, but at the same time to preserve faith. If you foresee that from the reading he will lose the faith, by cooperating with the reading you give scandal of lost faith. - But the execution of an evil thing easily brings further effects damaging to religion, virtue, other persons, and society itself; b) of distinguishing an action intrinsically or always illicit from an action which in certain circumstances can be made honest. Now in that estimation writers do not agree, although per se it does not seem too arduous; c) of distinguishing the reasons of scandal and cooperation which occur in the case.

But the difficulty increases: a) because many writers propose the principles confusedly; b) because they do not agree concerning the reason why cooperation is illicit; c) because not a few circumstances have changed since the classic authors contemplated the various cases of cooperation, whose authority nevertheless is so great that modern authors retreat with difficulty from their literal responses.

The Prudent Mode of Examining a Case. — a) First of all it must be defined accurately what, in the proposed case, is intrinsically illicit.

b) Then the various respects of the proposed case must be considered: the respect of the proper danger to which the cooperator is exposed in the cooperation itself, and of the damage which is to be feared from denied cooperation; - with respect to the principal agent, the connection between him and the cooperator, the damage which seems about to accrue to him in relation to the common character of sin; - the respect of others who will suffer either scandal from the cooperation, or damage from the action to which cooperation is given; - the respect of the virtue to which the principal action will be at least materially contrary: this consideration can reveal a direct obligation of positively impeding the principal action; - the respect of the action which preceded and of the action or effect which follows: thus one who sells a bad sheet helps the publisher and harms the readers.

c) These things having been considered, as by a simple intuition you should see whether the cooperation appears to be a rational mode of acting, or the contrary. This intuition of a prudent man contains no small presumption of truth.

d) If the importance of the matter requires it, the various parts of the case must be weighed separately.

e) That you may suitably add counsel to the response, you will examine the very utility sought from the cooperation. We shall not favor cooperation which brings merely temporal gain; we shall be easier if damage is to be avoided; if a nobler end is intended, with a more inclined mind we shall indulge the matter. For if the casuist inclines toward the more benign things, the spiritual director suggests the better things.

Helps for Right Estimation. — It is useful to recall these things which are generally admitted:

1. He who gives an occasion of sinning to a man prepared to sin, or whose will is already evil, does not thence gravely harm him. Lugo, Iust. et Iur., d. 25, n. 235.

2. Per se, or with scandal excluded, remote cooperations which are not removens prohibens, i.e. which would be supplied by another, are excused from grave sin. Sanchez, Decal., l. 1, c. 7, n. 16.

3. Every cooperation toward grave evil which either is proximate or, if remote, is removens prohibens, can be excused only by grave damage. If at the same time it is proximate and removens prohibens, or if there follows the gravest evil of one person, or the grave evil of several or many, cooperation is excused only by gravest damage.

4. For rescuing someone from extreme spiritual necessity, every damage must be borne, whereas damage of life or state or fortunes is not to be undergone for freeing neighbor from temporal necessity, even extreme.

Grave spiritual necessity imposes a grave inconvenience, at least on those who have a positive office of caring for the good, or unless the necessity has been general; then damage of life itself must be undergone. Cf. n. 99.

For avoiding formal sin for someone, grave inconvenience is not to be suffered.

5. But we are forbidden more severely lest we cause such evil. Wherefore it happens that of the same evil from which you ought not to free neighbor with grave detriment, you cannot be a positive and proximate cause,[^017-1] even by accident,[^017-2] unless you are excused by morally extreme damage of your own.

6. Causes excusing cooperation are distinguished as very slight, light but reasonable, rather grave, grave, very grave, and gravest. It is useful to declare these by examples.

A very slight excuse is brought by ordinary profit: this scarcely ever suffices.

A light but reasonable excuse is brought by service, the condition of a subject: it is always considered damaging that you should have to deny what seems to pertain to an office. - Extraordinary profit also induces such a reason, as does the inconvenience of not selling one's goods equally well.

A rather grave excuse is sought from fear of losing good service, a good client, indeed notable profit, if there is question of a man of slender fortune.

A grave excuse is present in the true difficulty of finding another service, another office; - in lack of things, whether this present lack is to be removed, or a future one is feared; - in infamy before one discreet man; - in secret expulsion from a college; - in the desertion of several clients; - indeed in great indignation of a husband, father, or master.

A very grave excuse is shown by the loss of state or civil condition; by defamation before several; - by notorious expulsion from a college; - by the danger of falling notably from one's state.

A gravest excuse is had when a good equivalent to life is placed in danger.

And observe in general that a graver excuse proceeds from positive damage than from cessation of profit.

But when, to excuse a servant, they demand a reason which is added to service, the servant ought to decline that cooperation by seeking another service, unless the very loss of such service induces sufficient inconvenience.

— You will ask whether or not you can cast illicit cooperation upon another already prepared: as if a magistrate or soldier should ask others to indicate causes or execute things which, conscience forbidding, cannot be indicated or done by you?

It is not lawful to ask illicit things. Therefore a Catholic magistrate or soldier cannot formally and honestly ask from another an action illicit in itself and illicit for the other. But no one is forbidden simply to refuse his own cooperation, to ask from him who distributes causes or commanded actions that these things not be imposed on him to be indicated or done. Nor does the foreseen substitution of another stand in the way. He who refuses his own action merely permits that future substitution. Therefore it is not repugnant that in an unbelieving region Christian servants pay money to the master of works, lest they be compelled to perform or participate in superstitious things. Lehmkuhl, I, 820; Noldin, Praec., 122.

It is very useful, by reading approved authors, to acquire for oneself a right judgment, so that afterwards you can more easily apply the principles to various cases, by weighing the connection with sin and the character of this sin, the fruit of refused cooperation, and the damage to be sustained.

Wherefore we adduce various examples, warning at the same time that there is not one opinion concerning all.

— A parish priest, minister of a sacrament, confessor, lest they violate secrecy, lest they make someone infamous, etc., not rarely must, in the public or even private administration of a sacrament, cooperate in sacrilege. Just as a bride lawfully cooperates in the same when she contracts marriage with a bridegroom living in the state of mortal sin.

Cooperation of Religious Sisters in Clinical Hospitals. — Since today there easily occur physicians and surgeons who, in exercising their art, in a conscious or unconscious manner sin against the natural divine law, as it is declared by the Holy See, a question of grave moment arises concerning the cooperation of Sisters. The chief cases are: the administration of morphine, not for alleviating present pain, but for procuring alienation of mind in the agony of death; then the direct procurement of abortion and feticide.

Furthermore, hospitals to which Sisters are assigned are of three kinds: some are public; others are private hospitals of physicians; others belong to the Sisters themselves.

In no hospital, as is clear, can Sisters formally cooperate in an illicit action; but material cooperation can be excused less with difficulty in public hospitals than in private ones. For it pertains to the common good of religion and to the salvation of very many souls that Sisters rather than lay women minister to the sick in public hospitals. Wherefore, with the exception of formal cooperation or the execution of the illicit operation itself, such as an infusion of morphine certainly illicit, which they must wholly refuse, material cooperation, even that of cleaning and arranging the instruments, washing and preparing the body for the operation, and the transfer of the sick person to the place of operation, will not be able to be condemned, with scandal excluded, which will be removed rather conveniently, for example by a declaration.

But if there is question of the private hospital of a physician, first, before they promise their own labor and that of the Sisters, the Superiors must take cautions, lest anything against the conscience of the Sisters ever be asked; and every cooperation, even material, must be denied, unless perhaps very remote, as is the very reception of a person laboring under an evil into a room adorned by the Sisters.

Finally, if the ownership of the hospital belongs to the Sisters themselves, they must take care in the contract with the physician lest any physician be called or admitted who attempts anything illicit. And only in an extraordinary, unforeseen case will there be room for tolerating the action of the physician, illicit in itself, and for cooperating materially, in order to avoid worse evils.

Finally, in doubt, when the act is invincible, the Sisters can in any hospital permit the matter to the conscience of the physician, otherwise upright. If, however, a firm presumption cannot be drawn from the very religion of the physician, concerning a case which is foreseen to be going to occur several times, afterwards they will have to procure fuller security for themselves.

Concerning the difficulty which the false worship of a non-Catholic sick person can bring, cf. below, 147, 6 and 7.

— In what way a spouse can or even ought to have carnal commerce with an onanist spouse, or one who is bound by a vow, is explained in the tract On Chastity and the Opposite Vices. Cf. nn. 255, 265-268.

A Servant. — 1. On account of the reason of service alone he can per se render services which are accustomed to be demanded from servants and concur remotely in sin: for example, to dress the master, to saddle a horse, to open the door for a concubine and prepare her bed, to set wine before a master making himself drunk, to prepare meats on a forbidden day, to buy a liberal newspaper or a book not so obscene, etc.; indeed even to accompany the master or convey him by carriage to the house of a mistress, or to carry letters which he suspects to be amatory. For it would be intolerable that, while he performs these customary offices, the servant should carry out a censorious inquiry concerning the end, or should look to the master's intentions. Yet for permitting the later actions (those enumerated after the word "indeed") many require that a reason of notable damage be added, which will scarcely be absent. All require this reason that he may lead the prostitute herself to the master.

N. B. Public drivers, since without very grave inconvenience they cannot publicly refuse an office to one asking, nor are they accustomed to be solicitous concerning the reason of the journey, can render these things more easily. Certainly they will be praised who industriously avoid these things.

Yet we think that a stricter answer must be given concerning those who, beyond the boundaries of a region in which a duel is forbidden, convey those who ask for the journey with a manifest intention of duel. Not every cause then seems sufficient.

2. Another proportionately grave cause is required besides, that a servant may be able to render to a master inviting or ordering him those things which approach more nearly to sin, as for example, to put his shoulders under, to move ladders near, for the master climbing through a window to a concubine; to carry letters certainly amatory to a prostitute; to accompany to a duel; to write, at the dictation of the master, letters which indeed contain only signs of civility but are foreseen to be going to increase base love; to buy an image not so base that it is properly obscene, or not such that it can serve for nothing except lust.

3. A gravest cause is required when an action is demanded which at the same time approaches more nearly to sin and will effect grave damage to an innocent person, or which contains proximate cooperation: for example, to put his shoulders under a master climbing up to violate a virgin; to keep watch to defend the master if perhaps, while he is with a mistress, arriving rivals attack him (Sanchez, l. 1, c. 7, n. 23); to carry letters which certainly contain a base invitation, etc.

4. For no cause would it be lawful both to write and to carry letters containing base things or a base invitation, or to invite a person in the name of another to meet for the sake of sin, with the depraved end indicated. With the depraved end kept silent, cooperation by invitation can be excused by a gravest cause.

Therefore it is not lawful for those Black servants, who are commonly called "boys," to obey Europeans who order them to seek a concubine for them from among Black women.

According to the things said in n. 3, if in that meeting a girl is to be deceived, fear of death alone would excuse from the invitation; or the girl would have to be notified that snares have been laid for her.

— A judge or magistrate does not merely declare an existing law, but, as a Superior, authentically intimates it to the parties, so that by sentences passed the law is practically confirmed and received into morals. Yet he does not command of his own accord, but ordered by the law, compelled by office, and as it were the legislator's mandatory. It is besides of the highest interest that Catholic and upright judges can remain in office. Therefore the cooperation of a judge with an unjust law, which cannot be declined except by resignation of office, is demanded by a grave reason of the common good. The object and circumstances of the cooperation must now be considered.

With voluntary cooperation excluded, which, as quasi-formal, cannot be excused, a judge can never directly command things which are intrinsically illicit: for example, incense to be offered to an idol, cohabitation with an illegitimate spouse. But if there is question of a penalty to be imposed, and the same is not grave, the solution seems to be sought from the consideration of the prevailing public good. As long as one must strive in every way against a law, whether because it is openly impious, or because it is recent, or if this is the manifest will of the Superiors of the Church who define or declare moral obligations, office will rather have to be yielded than that it would be lawful to offer cooperation of this kind to the unjust law; on the contrary, scandal having been removed and hope of accomplishing something having been taken away, the innocent person to be fined is not judged reasonably unwilling that he be condemned to pay a moderate sum of money. Moreover, it is sometimes lawful to cooperate immediately in unjust damage in goods which one can licitly renounce; and the public utility of preserving good judges can make this renunciation of his right necessary for the innocent person from charity. Thus, for example, in Belgium the case seems to be that of a judge who imposes a fine on a priest who has imparted the nuptial blessing before the civil marriage ceremony. Lehmkuhl indeed, I, 962, raises this grave difficulty, that to affect an innocent person with a penalty, to declare him worthy of penalty, is intrinsically evil. But Noldin, De praeceptis, n. 726, thinks that this malice can be removed by the consent of the innocent person. We think that the distinction must be made thus: - that condemnation harms the innocent person and contains per se a disapproval of the action. Insofar as it harms, if there is question of those goods which can be directly taken away on account of public utility, the sentence is not intrinsically evil. But the note of disapproval can be removed by common interpretation, so that it is known merely to be a literal application of the law, which must be tolerated to avoid greater evils. And then nothing intrinsically evil is now shown in that sentence.

If the law is unjust for this reason, that it contains usurpation of the ecclesiastical forum, in certain regions custom itself has removed at least the positive sanctions of that immunity, as was declared by the Cardinal Secretary of State in the year 1911. Cf. Periodica, t. 6, p. 190. Therefore regard must then be had to the natural obligation of consulting for the honor of the Church. And, in a graver or unusual case, a license or declaration sought from the Ordinary or, through the Ordinary, from the Holy See, will make the magistrate more certain concerning his office. In this matter civil causes and criminal causes of minor clerics must be distinguished from criminal causes of Bishops. Concerning the former, either Concordats or custom in several regions indicate what must be done; elsewhere the license to be requested will not be denied. Concerning the latter causes, as graver, the matter will have to be arranged mediately or immediately with the Holy See.

Nor, by applying the law of divorce, does a judge command anything intrinsically dishonorable, but he removes civil protection from marriage and concedes to the parties the faculty of a new civil marriage. In this matter nothing intrinsically dishonorable is discerned, but something which, according to the circumstances, will either be scandalous and to be inhibited, or to be tolerated. And the responses of the Holy See have varied according to time and place. Cf. the writings on chastity, n. 286.

While concerning the application of an unjust law Lehmkuhl, I, 962, speaks more severely than Bucceroni, Theol. mor., nn. 19, 20, the former, II, 921 note, solves more benignly than the latter, l. c., the case of one pronouncing divorce.

— In speaking about judges, we have already spoken about jurors, whose case is similar, except that these can more easily, by denying condemnation, impede a sentence against the rights of the Church. Yet it is not per se expedient that a convicted accused person be absolved. Therefore it will be more satisfactory that, where there is need, after the faculty has been sought, they answer according to the things alleged and proved. Nor is it per se to be advised that Catholic jurors refuse that office, since there is danger lest ministers of the Church be judged by enemies.

N. B. Jurors, according to their conscience, pronounce merely concerning guilt, by responding affirmatively or negatively to the questions proposed by the president of the court.

Innkeepers. — 1. They cannot favor the violation of the laws of the Church or render them difficult to observe; yet they themselves, again, because Catholics and non-Catholics, the pious and impious, the healthy and the weaker are mixed, today experience great difficulty in serving on days of abstinence foods forbidden by law to those alone for whom they would be permitted to prepare them. Thence there are not lacking regions where a general dispensation of the law has been conceded in lodging houses and inns. And, except in places plainly Catholic, where the offering of forbidden food would be scandalous, today innkeepers will satisfy their office if they supply clients every convenience for observing the law, and do not by various pretexts or even by a lesser quality of foods increase the reasons why clients may decline the observance of ecclesiastical discipline as too grave. It is never lawful to supply meats requested in contempt of religion.

2. Dances are the occasion of many sins. Therefore those innkeepers cannot be excused who introduce them or alone retain them. Those who merely, according to received custom, furnish a place for dances, otherwise not dishonorable, are not to be blamed, at least gravely. But that there should be held there dances of that more recent kind, which even among persons select by their condition are to be criticized not lightly, can in no way be tolerated either by a pastor of souls or by a confessor.

3. They are forbidden to buy newspapers wholly opposed to faith and morals, or obscene ones, even if they are deserted by many clients. On the contrary, they must take care that good newspapers be ready for those same clients. Concerning other newspapers, they should strive to give the least occasion of reading things which are less becoming, whether you regard faith or morals; let them lessen the evil which they cannot extinguish.

They themselves do not draw clients by less good newspapers, which would be unlawful; but they impede being deserted by clients. Therefore this can be lawful.

4. They can never furnish a place for sinning to those asking in such a way that they seem to consent to the sin. Indeed, a notable necessity, which alone would excuse, is for the most part not present. Lodging houses which admit persons of this kind are often marked by a certain infamy, whereas others from which they are severely excluded are commended by that very good name. Yet it is clear that inquiries are not to be made concerning persons who present themselves as spouses.

— Artisans cannot spontaneously make things which, whether in themselves or with attention to the region where they are made, have no use except a depraved one: images wholly base and without scientific use, abortive drugs, "condoms" in our region, idols in an idolatrous region. For a general and spontaneous making of this kind contains manifest favor offered without necessity to an evil thing, so that it must be marked with the note of formal cooperation. - But what if you make them under compulsion? Here the things and the makers must be distinguished. The very making of certain things can scarcely be had without sin: for example, a truly obscene painting or photograph; to perform these things will never be lawful unless perhaps to avoid a gravest evil. The making of other things is indifferent in itself, but their use will be evil. For example, instruments of the neo-Malthusian art, and the idol itself. The kind of evil must be attended to. Since idolatry is gravely injurious to God, to offer work in making or adorning a statue which is destined for idolatry will for the most part not be lawful, and cooperation of this kind can be made honest only from a gravest cause. Cf. Noldin, II, 123, c.

As to condoms, in certain regions, as they report, these same things serve for children's games; and in moderate quantity, just like abortive drugs themselves, they should be ready for men who study the medical sciences. Again, the cooperation of a hired worker in a workshop is remote, and he ought not to be solicitous concerning the special destination of the things. Therefore, if only a few are to be made, a worker who is prohibited from seeking an explanation will be able to cooperate, lest otherwise he be dismissed from the workshop. But if a great quantity of these things must be prepared in our regions, so grave a common evil is propagated through them that a worker who cannot otherwise refuse his cooperation must under grave obligation seek another master, nor can he remain in that workshop except for a short time. - In a typography, individual workers can and must be solicitous only concerning the kind of printing establishment; nor, where a better occasion is lacking, are they forbidden to hire out their work where, although obscene or truly impious works are not published, they have books to be printed, some good, others less good.

Even insufficient garments can always be completed by those wearing them. Therefore the work of an individual worker can be admitted with less difficulty.

2. Managers or masters of a workshop, since they preside over many things to be made and care for the diffusion itself of the things made, can never administer the making of things which can scarcely have an innocent use. For they would be the cause of many sins which otherwise would not be committed.

Yet here also attention must be paid to the varied nature of the things.

Books or newspapers which are not given over to obscene matters are accustomed, besides their less approvable parts, to contain things innocent and useful. Therefore they are not to be put among things whose good use is almost none. Therefore, when there is not question of an obscene or truly impious book, a hired manager, on account of a grave cause, for example if otherwise he would be deprived of a sufficient amount of works, is permitted to print a less good work, unless, because he is known as very Catholic, his cooperation would be scandalous. Yet he will not be able formally to publish such a book, since the publisher must care for its diffusion, so that his cooperation must be held as formal.

Those who by their own device invent and make dishonorable or less honorable women's garments cannot be excused from grave sin. On the contrary, a moderate or grave cause will excuse those who adorn such garments when asked: a moderate cause will suffice if the garments are a little freer; a graver cause will be required if they have been notably dishonorable. But today the conscience of managers who equip their large shops with no other ready-made garments except less honorable ones is burdened more gravely. For since they are sold at a lower price than garments adorned according to the desire of the client, they are bought by women of more obscure place, so that the less modest clothing of plebeian women and girls must be imputed at least in part to those managers.

A moderate cause seems sufficient, with scandal excluded, that you make garments, not strictly sacred, for a heretical or schismatic minister, by which his usurped dignity is recognized, as if you prepare the violet habit of bishops for a Jansenist bishop.

To avoid a necessity quasi-extreme, Lehmkuhl, I, 815, permits that emblems of Freemasons or of a condemned sect be made, because they do not contain superstition in themselves and are directed only by sectarians to depraved ends. And a very grave excuse seems to us sufficient, with special scandal from the quality of the maker excluded.

He exercises no superstition who, in preparing foods, avoids those things from which others think one must superstitiously abstain. Therefore it is lawful to consent to one asking these things for a very slight cause. And he who spontaneously announces that chocolate made by him is pure from elements which Jews do not want mixed in, today will seem to all to wish to gain profit, not to approve the Jewish sect. Therefore a moderate cause, for example a notable increase of profit, will excuse that cooperation. (Yet it is necessary that the rite itself be decorated with no honorary title.)

— A merchant holds a middle place between the maker and the user. His cooperation is more proximate; besides, one who proposes things for sale (at least spontaneously) seems to recommend them and is stimulated by the very zeal of profit to seek buyers. Therefore his cooperation approaches more to formal cooperation and is spiritually dangerous to him. But again the merchant presupposes the maker, so that the thing-making person sometimes, by his action, brings forth a necessity to which the merchant conforms while he has those things for sale.

Thence writers speak in a similar way concerning artisans and merchants, yet so that they estimate the cooperation of merchants a little more benignly. Hence the following norms are established:

1. Morally it is never lawful to sell things which have no use except a depraved one. Yet they excuse him who, in a special case, compelled by the gravest necessity of avoiding death, has done it.

2. Things which are subject to immense danger of abuse regularly cannot be sold unless the future good use is morally certain. Thus most poisons, excepting however those which, because they have a frequent good use, are now accustomed to be offered to all.

3. Things indifferent are sold without fault, which many use well although very many abuse them: dice, cosmetics, swords, guns, alcohol, as long as the intention of abuse is not certain. For the order to sin is remote; and those businesses cannot be impeded.

But if the abuse is morally certain, a proportionately grave reason, to be estimated from the principles prudently considered, must be added. Hence if the abuse is toward idolatrous worship, a very urgent cause is demanded; a graver one is likewise required if an innocent person is going to suffer unjust damage; indeed proximate cooperation which at the same time is necessary to the effect is excused only by a gravest cause. Therefore you could not sell a sword to one going to kill a man unless to avoid an evil equivalent to death. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 571, where he corrects what he had written more severely in l. 2, n. 66.

Is it lawful, absolutely or without condition, to sell good merchandise, for example pure wine, to another who afterwards, under his own name, will sell it adulterated? St. Alphonsus, l. 2, n. 69, does not permit this except on account of fear of death or infamy; others, for example Lehmkuhl, I, 832, require a grave cause, while others, better, are content with a moderate one. The cooperation of the seller is very remote; there is no public scandal; and the cooperation is refused in vain. Indeed, from usage, from diminished price, etc., often the very injustice of the one adulterating will be doubtful. Yet a gravest cause will be required if the adulteration has been harmful and consequently notably damaging to the public good.

Concerning selling women's garments or ornaments that are not very modest, the things said about making them recur, n. 145.

There is a special difficulty concerning books and newspapers. Catholic booksellers are given the faculty that they procure prohibited books for selected persons who are helped in studies or profession by them. But it is not lawful for the same booksellers to have those books promiscuously for sale.

Concerning newspapers these things are to be observed especially: a) The spontaneous sale of newspapers which are opposed to faith or morals brings proximate cooperation to not a few sins. Therefore, even when formal recommendation is avoided, this cannot be tolerated except on account of the gravest cause of poverty and for a short time; b) far less grave is the cooperation of him who, with obscene and very impious newspapers excluded, has newspapers of various kinds for sale. His work can be indirectly useful, if he recommends or displays the less Christian newspapers less than another who would sell such in his place. Therefore, with scandal removed, this in certain circumstances could simply be permitted; c) it sometimes happens that from the public or general administration there is bought the right or monopoly of selling newspapers in "stations" of railways or streets, on this law, that newspapers of all political parties be sold equally. This sale-distribution of newspapers can be compared with the distribution of all letters, newspapers, and books which is done through postal offices. Therefore nothing prevents a Catholic man or Catholic society from acquiring such a right for itself. No scandal of connivance with evil will be given; and indirectly there will be an occasion of impeding not a few evils.

[^017-1]: Insofar as we can be the cause of another's sin.

[^017-2]: By accident, i.e. apart from intention.

Cooperation Toward False Worship. Present circumstances warn us that the danger of a certain indifferentism must be carefully removed, which honors or neglects various religions in almost an equal way; yet at the same time, indeed more, irreligion must be fought, which surely is worse and more false than erroneous worship. Besides, in most places at least, the profession of false worship offends Catholic worship less directly than formerly. Finally, in our mixed societies, material cooperation is judged less to be a favor furnished to a false sect.

1. Therefore this general rule can be established concerning that cooperation: that, with a positive prohibition of law excluded, it is rather easily called lawful when it savors of no indifferentism, but can be joined with aversion from the false sect, creates no danger for the cooperator, and scandal is absent or is excused by grave inconvenience.

2. To give one's work in constructing a non-Catholic temple, whether pagan, Mohammedan, Jewish, or heretical, will never be lawful if it is sought in contempt of the Catholic religion, or if it is held as a kind of protestative sign of false worship. In this way the most severe decrees given by the authority of the Holy Office, by the S. C. of the Propagation of the Faith, e.g. January 8, 1851, concerning cooperation in building temples of idols, must be explained. Cf. Ball.-Palm., t. 2, tr. 5, n. 300. Although a graver necessity must be present for you to be excused from cooperation toward a pagan temple than toward the very "mosque," on account of the greater distance from true worship.

But hired simple workers can, from their very condition, cooperate in constructing a temple which, permitted by law, is erected with no offense to the Catholic religion. But contractors for works (entrepreneurs, appellatori, intraprenditori), insofar as they merely execute the model of the architect, will be excused with more difficulty than workers, more easily than architects. Where a different custom has not already prevailed, on account of merely sufficiently grave damage the contractor for the work seems able to be excused: the scandal of indifferentism stands in the way. But a wholly grave damage must be required for you to excuse the architect: for he adds splendor, and thus favors false worship. Yet I would answer more mildly if he rather seems, against irreligion, to favor divine worship under a common aspect. Nevertheless one must guard against the scandal of indifferentism.

Because the constructions of heretical temples in the City were judged especially scandalous, the Instruction of the Cardinal Vicar of June 12, 1878, declared architects, contractors, masters of workers, "who undertake care and work for constructing and adorning some Protestant temple," guilty of mortal sin.

3. To contribute money for the building of a temple is not intrinsically illicit, because the building itself is not yet the exercise of false worship, nor does the contribution necessarily contain approval of error. Yet if it immediately helps the very plan of building a temple, as Noldin says, Praec. n. 122, "in itself it contains external consent with the depraved intention of heretics or unbelievers, and an external favor furnished to heresy or idolatry." Yet that note can be removed either by protestation or by the circumstances themselves, as if Catholics can in this way free themselves from the simultaneity - scandalous in itself - by which they are forced to have one church in common with heterodox persons. Cf. N. Paeii. 1822. With circumstances of this kind excluded, it is better to avoid this as much as opportunity is had, and rather to offer money to a lodging-house or to a profane good of Protestants. Where the contribution cannot be avoided, it will be excused by grave inconvenience, if by common interpretation no favor is judged to be given to heretical worship, but benevolence merely has been signified.

Thus also it is tolerated that Catholic deputies approve subsidies which customarily are paid from the treasury to various sects: they grant these not to non-Catholics as such, but to fellow-citizens, and for avoiding grave damage to the Catholic religion. Lehmk. I, 818.

4. To sell indifferent furniture for adorning a non-Catholic temple (benches, seats, a table, lamps) is so remote a cooperation that the excuse of profit to be received therefrom suffices. A graver cause is required for things of this kind to be made expressly for that temple, because these help the formal exercise of worship; and the more immediately they serve a non-Catholic rite, the graver cause is required. Cf. Noldin, Praec. n. 122. Today nevertheless they permit that simply, on account of the profit to be received from it, a lamb to be sacrificed be sold to Jews: that cooperation is very remote ¹. But a grave cause is required so that sacred vestments can be sold to them, and scarcely except for averting gravest damages will it have been lawful to sell sacred vestments which contain superstitious signs. But simply it will be lawful to sell our liturgical books for a price to non-Catholics who use them, since these at the same time commend our faith.

5. To ring a bell is not to exercise a rite, but it is either formally to invite to a sacred ceremony or to give a sign of a future ceremony. Where, from the circumstances, it seems to be an invitation, this is intrinsically illicit; but if, as per se it is to be understood, it is held for a mere announcement, this material but rather proximate cooperation will be lawful from a very grave cause. Lehmk. I, 812; Noldin, Praec. 120. That for a profane solemnity, e.g. as a sign of joy for the victory of the fatherland, Catholic and non-Catholic bells should be rung together even by agreement, nothing prevents; but lest the scandal of indifferentism be given, it is not to be approved that at an appointed hour all should be rung for this end, so that they give to the faithful and to non-Catholics at the same time the sign of a sacred function. Cf. Lehmk. I, 812.

6. To prepare things necessary for exercising a superstitious or non-Catholic rite, e.g. to spread a table and place there the things which come into use for the minister in assisting the sick person, is to exercise proximate cooperation, material however, which will be excused by a grave cause. But ambiguity of intention, if any is present, must be removed by protestation. Cf. Lehmk. I, 811.

7. Formally to invite a non-Catholic minister to exercise his ministry with a dying person is formally to ask from him an illicit action, which is unlawful. Cf. S. Off. March 15, 1848, apud Lehmk. I, 810. Merely to warn him that there is a sick person of his sect there is only to furnish material cooperation, which will be lawful from a cause wholly grave. Lay persons set over prisons or hospitals, for example, will be able to do this. With attention to their quality, let Sisters not do this of themselves per se.

8. To play the organ for ritual chant seems hardly not to be formal cooperation. Wherefore only from very grave necessity can that proximate cooperation be admitted. But one who, in a certain concert, is compelled to perform his musical part on some instrument will be excused a little more easily. And the case is different of a concert which, on account of a profane reason, e.g. for honoring a prince, celebrating a victory, is set during a sacred function. In circumstances of this kind this commonly will be lawful per se.

9. That in the heretical temple itself Catholics assisting together with non-Catholics should sing a sacred canticle of thanksgiving, e.g. the Te Deum, as a sign of common joy rather than for carrying out a sacred function, this does not seem lawful except to avoid scandal: lest they seem destitute of patriotic affection. If it is rather considered as a sacred thing, one must abstain more from that communication, which nevertheless is not yet intrinsically illicit. Wherefore care must be taken, as much as opportunity is given, that demonstrations of this kind be made separately by Catholics and by non-Catholics.

10. When a heretical minister recites prayers before or after the table, it will be unlawful to respond to him if he recites them as a heretical minister. If as an elderly man devoted to sacred things, where custom was to entrust this to the elder, the thing does not seem to be prohibited, since no authority is then added to him as minister. If custom is lacking, let us reverently abstain.

On English ships, the captain, from office, must on Sunday recite in common prayers taken from the book called the "Prayer Book." Provided that he chooses prayers free from error, a Catholic captain seems able to fulfill those parts. His action is explained by the office to which he is bound, and a religious demonstration today is rather to be desired.

11. If in a non-Catholic region an oath must be taken by touching sacred Bibles edited or translated by heretics, and there is no opportunity of using a Catholic edition, the thing does not seem illicit, since per se it is manifest that these are used only insofar as they contain the word of God, but not insofar as they are not perfectly conformed to the Catholic edition. If it can be done, this mind should be declared. Cf. Lehmk. I, 552 note. - Concerning cooperation toward false worship, Sanchez, Dec., l. 2, c. 9, n. 7; Laymann, l. 2, tr. 3, c. 13; Lugo, De Fide, d. 14, s. 5; d. 22, s. 1, nn. 10, 11; Lehmk. I, 800-823; Noldin, Praec. 122, are read usefully.

¹ But the cases are sufficiently different of a lay man who sells to Jews some lamb from among lambs which are offered for sale in various places, and of an ecclesiastical man who sells to a schismatic priest flour expressly requested for making hosts for Mass, and which no one else can sell. A very grave cause, especially of public order, alone seems able to excuse that cooperation.

— Concerning the construction of buildings of Freemasons, the things said concerning temples apply. They are connected more remotely with the evil use than the sacred buildings of heretics. Cf. Lehmk. I, 816. Yet again the sect is usually more actually hostile to the Catholic faith and religion than a non-Catholic sect, especially an ancient one. Wherefore it is worse to favor their impiety than the false piety of these latter.

The same must be said of favor furnished to societies of socialists, such as they are commonly known. Therefore to procure money for these, so that they can have buildings proper to themselves, cannot be excused from objectively grave guilt.

Yet it is not intrinsically illicit, but on account of a proportionate cause it will be lawful to contribute money to a society of socialists whose immediate end is honorable. Noldin, Praec. 122.

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."

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

S. Th. II-II, q. 33; De Virt., q. 3.

935. There are seven spiritual alms: 1. to pray for all, concerning which it is spoken in the treatise on Religion; 2. to forgive the one offending, concerning which it was said above, n. 898; 3. to console the sorrowful; and 4. to bear the burdensome and troublesome, which pertain rather to those who are constituted in office; 5. to teach the ignorant; 6. to counsel the doubtful; 7. to correct the sinner. Concerning these things something must be said here, especially concerning the last, which is the chief one and presents a special difficulty.

936. Correction of one sinning is one thing judicial, another fraternal:

1. The former is applied a) against sin insofar as it is an evil for others, especially for the common good; b) and is done for repairing order; c) through punishment of the delinquent. The latter is a) a remedy of sin insofar as it is an evil of the sinner himself; b) and is done by simple admonition of him; and c) is ordered to his amendment.

2. The former is an act of justice; the latter is the chief spiritual alms, whence it is an act of mercy commanded by charity.

3. The former is done by juridic action by a superior as judge; the latter is done by neighbor as by a brother for the good of a brother, and if it is done by a superior, it is not done by him as by a superior, but as by a private person. Hence it is defined: an admonition of a neighbor who is a sinner, made by a private or quasi-private person so that the neighbor may be amended; or, with St. Thomas, IV Sent., d. 19, q. 2, a. 1: an admonition of a brother concerning the amendment of faults, proceeding from fraternal charity.

Between each is paternal correction, which is done by a superior with authority, but without the form of judgment, for amendment and for removing scandal.

942. Instruction of the ignorant is useful, and therefore, the other conditions being supposed, generally it must be done:

1. If ignorance is vincible and gravely culpable, for example, if someone is not in good faith but doubts, as if he asks.

2. If ignorance will shortly become vincible, as if someone is ignorant of laws which cannot long be unknown, for example, the first principles and first conclusions of the law of nature, or the obvious duties of one's state (of priest, father, judge).

3. If ignorance is not gravely culpable, but harmful to the ignorant person, for example, if it concerns things necessary for salvation, or induces an occasion or proximate danger of sinning or of persevering in sin, or is a cause of estimating that to be sin which is not, or that to be mortal which is venial.

4. Even if ignorance is invincible and favorable, but warning will probably be profitable, at least after a time, and graver inconveniences are not feared, such as infamy for others, scandal, hatreds, quarrels, for example, from the dissolution of an invalid marriage.

On the contrary, generally it is to be omitted on account of a greater evil, namely, if ignorance is not gravely culpable and:

a) the warning is doubtfully going to profit the ignorant person and equally doubtfully going to harm (with a positive doubt), because formal sin is more to be guarded against than material sin;¹

¹ Nevertheless in a negative doubt, or one improperly so called, whether the warning is going to profit or harm, it must be done, because no one is presumed evil unless it is proved.

b) more so if it probably is not going to profit, unless, however, greater damage is feared, whether public (great scandal), or of a third party (omission of restitution), or of the ignorant person himself (a depraved custom, for example, of pollution, difficult to conquer);

c) most of all if it certainly is not going to profit; unless, however, silence is equivalent to approval (for example, if a priest or preceptor, when asked or seeing fornication, pollution, theft, is silent), or unless from not warning there follows great damage of many or public damage, because the common good or the good of many is to be preferred to the private good of one (thus, in itself, a priest invalidly consecrating or teaching errors, spouses who exercise the marital act so that they impede generation), but not if there follows the damage of one, because the spiritual good of the ignorant person can be preferred.

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.

(St. Thomas, q. 33.)

Although, if the force of the words be attended to, correction and admonition differ — for admonition is a reprehension directed to the amendment of a brother, correction is the amendment itself — by accepted usage among theologians they are confounded and taken for one and the same.

There is a twofold admonition of a delinquent¹⁹²: One which applies a remedy to sin inasmuch as it is some evil of the sinner himself and is ordered to his amendment, called fraternal. The other is that which applies a remedy to sin inasmuch as it is to the evil of others, and especially to the harm of the common good, and is called judicial. This latter is an act of justice, whose office is to preserve the rectitude of justice of one toward another. Fraternal, however, since it is a spiritual work of mercy, is an act elicited by mercy and commanded by charity. ¹⁹² Hic, q. 33, a. 1, o.

Judicial admonition is not treated here, but only fraternal, which can be defined: « An act of charity and mercy by which, through fitting speech or something equivalent, we strive to turn our neighbor from the evil of sin to the good of virtue.

I. Fraternal correction is described by St. Thomas (II-II, q. 33, art. 1) as a spiritual alms flowing from charity, by which one strives, by a secret admonition, to remove the evil of his neighbour insofar as it is harmful to him. Correction is twofold: fraternal, which I have described; and judicial, which is an act of justice and looks to the good of justice. This correction can be given only by those who are endowed with public authority.

II. Question I. Is there a divine precept of fraternal correction? Response. All affirm it. For it is said (Matt. 18:15): But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. This precept binds both the faithful and unbelievers, because it is divine and natural, included in these words: What thou wouldst have done to thee, do to another.

III. St. Thomas (II-II, q. 33, art. 2) recounts several conditions, which can be reduced to four, for this commandment to bind. 1. Knowledge of a grave sin. 2. That there be hope of amendment. 3. That there be a fit occasion of person and of time. 4. That it can be given conveniently.

IV. The knowledge of the sin that is required must be morally certain; a doubtful or slightly probable knowledge is not enough, unless the danger of grave harm were imminent, or when the sin would turn to the injury of the neighbour and there were hope of amendment: for then a merely probable doubt would suffice for correcting the offender.

V. The sin subject to correction is mortal; otherwise venial — unless venial sins carry with them the proximate danger of falling into mortal ones, for then I judge the precept to oblige. If venial sins are habitual not from infirmity but from malice, the precept obliges under light fault.

VI. Lay Superiors are free from correcting the venial faults of their subjects, since it is theirs to guard the tranquillity and peace of the Commonwealth and the Community; and venial sins do not disturb this peace. Those mortal sins above all they ought to correct which are pernicious to the neighbor. But ecclesiastical Superiors, and especially Regulars, are bound to correct deliberate venial sins which proceed from malice, because these cut short the course of that perfection to which Regulars are held by a special title. Nay, they are bound, and that gravely, to correct the frequent transgressions of the constitutions of their own Order, which inflict grave detriment on the Order and dispose toward the dissolution of regular discipline.

VII. Past sins not yet amended are subject to fraternal correction, whatever certain men say to the contrary: since not only the crime about to be committed, but the crime committed, is matter for correction. For the evangelical text says: If thy brother shall offend [in the perfect tense, not the future], rebuke him.

VIII. Question II. Are sins committed from ignorance to be corrected by force of the precept? Answer. All affirm it, if the ignorance be vincible. Of invincible ignorance there is disagreement among the Theologians. But the more common opinion, and the true one to me, is that the precept presses above all when the neighbor labors under a double misery — both that he has committed a sin, material though it be, and that, wrapped in the gloom of darkness, he is ignorant of the sin. The precept of enlightening the neighbor, then, presses greatly at that time. If the invincible ignorance be only of ecclesiastical law, the precept presses even then — especially if that law regard the universal Church, as does the law which commands Lent, the Ember days, abstinence from flesh on Friday, and things of that kind. For ignorance of these is a grave evil, from which the neighbor must be rescued by the benefit of fraternal correction.

IX. Question III. Who are the persons upon whom the burden of correcting rests? Answer. All are subject to this precept, as has been said above. But of certain persons, and especially of sinners, there is dispute among the Theologians. It is expedient that correctors be just; nay, holy Scripture seems to require this: for St. Matthew, chapter 7, says: Hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thy own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye; likewise St. Luke, chapter 4: Physician, heal thyself; and St. Paul, Romans chapter 2: Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. All these texts require in the one correcting cleanness from crime, and therefore humility, meekness, prudence, and the other virtues which shine in the just. Sinners, for the most part, driven by hatred, pride, and haughtiness, become the reproachers of others' crimes.

X. I answer, nevertheless, that sinners are not immune from the precept of correction, but bound by it, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 33, art. 5: The correction of an offender belongs to someone insofar as the judgment of reason has force in him; and according to this it can belong to subjects to reprove a fault. But nevertheless, through a preceding sin, a certain impediment to correction is brought about, for three reasons. First, indeed, because from the preceding sin he is rendered unworthy to correct another — and especially if he has committed a greater sin, whence he is not worthy to correct another for a lesser sin ... Secondly, the correction becomes undue on account of the scandal that follows from the correction, if the sin of the one correcting be manifest: because it seems that he who corrects does not correct out of charity, but rather for ostentation ... Thirdly, on account of the pride of the one correcting, insofar as someone, making light of his own sins, prefers himself to his neighbor in his heart, judging his neighbor's sins with harsh severity, as if he himself were just ... From these things, then, it is plain that if a sinner corrects an offender with humility, he does not sin, nor does he acquire for himself a new condemnation — although by this he may show himself, either in his brother's conscience or at least in his own, to be condemnable for his past sin.

XI. It is the duty of sinners, before they correct others, to detest their own crimes, and with great humility of soul to rebuke the vices of others. Sometimes sinners endowed with natural prudence and good sense have more energy, persuasion, and efficacy in stirring up a hatred of sin than not a few of the just, who are destitute of the gifts of nature and excessively tiresome. Sinners, then, just as they are bound to corporal almsgiving, are likewise bound to spiritual. It is more probable that ecclesiastical Prelates themselves, stained with sin, do not sin in exercising judicial correction. Yet they do sin, and gravely, when they do not amend themselves, and do not put themselves in a state opportune for making correction. For either they ought to abdicate their prefecture, or to set their own morals in order and remove the impediments that stand in the way of the right and useful administration of their office.

XII. Question IV. Do Preachers polluted with grave fault sin mortally by preaching the word of God from the public pulpit? Answer. Cajetan, Navarrus, Paludanus, Sylvester, and others affirm it. I do not dare to subscribe to this opinion: because when mortal sin is in question, it is dangerous to make a definition unless the truth manifestly lies open. Now if the quality of the ministry be regarded absolutely, it does not seem to require so great a sanctity that a Preacher stained with a deadly fault cannot discharge it without perpetrating sacrilege or a mortal crime. This, however, I say trembling and hesitant, since it is an apostolic and sublime ministry. Wherefore, as to practice, if a Preacher has fallen from infirmity into some crime, and must of necessity give sermons, I would not believe that he sins gravely. But those Preachers who, full of shameful deeds, discharge the apostolic ministry, seem to me more probably to commit a grave profanation, and, so far as lies in them, to render the word of God sterile. Nor is there anything to object, that wicked Preachers sometimes call back inveterate sinners to a better way: since it is hidden from no one that God can use the work of iniquitous Preachers for the conversion of sinners. Does it follow from this that wicked Preachers do not disgrace their ministry? Does it follow that they are exempt from the law of cleansing their own crimes, that they may remove the impediments of their office, and render themselves fit for the holy handling of holy things? Preachers ought to correct public sins, even though they should hope for almost no fruit — which can rarely be presumed, when the reproof is made before a multitude. For contempt of correction is an argument of reprobation. But how can it prudently be presumed that all the hearers are reprobate? Only then can Preachers licitly omit correction, when from it they prudently foresee that a greater evil will follow.

XIII. Question V. Are subjects bound to correct their Superiors? Answer. I propose to discuss a most grave question of the highest moment. All the Theologians to a man champion the affirming opinion, though they treat it in passing, whereas it deserves a severe discussion. If the fear of displeasing, if the hope of worldly things, if self-love, are often the cause why the precept of fraternal correction is neglected, by a stronger right do these and many other things far more remove us from the observance of that same precept when our Superiors, under whose rod we live, are to be corrected.

XIV. St. Augustine, book 1, chapter 9, On the City of God, observes that even holy men themselves for the most part neglect the observance of this precept, saying: For very often it is ill dissembled by them, as to teaching, admonishing, sometimes even reproving and correcting them: whether because we are loath for the labor, or because we are ashamed to offend them to their face, or because we avoid enmities ... lest they hinder and harm us (N.B.) in these temporal things, whether such as our cupidity still desires to attain, or such as our infirmity dreads to lose; so that, although the life of the wicked displeases the good, and therefore they do not fall with them into that damnation which after this life is prepared for such — nevertheless, because for this reason they spare the sins of others more damnably, while they fear them in their own faults, though light and venial, they are rightly scourged with them in temporal things, although they are by no means punished in eternity ... This is culpable: that those who live differently, and abhor the deeds of the wicked, nevertheless spare the sins of others, which they ought to unteach and rebuke, while they guard against their offenses, lest they be harmed (N.B.) in those things which the good and innocent themselves use, but with more cupidity than was fitting for those who are pilgrims in this world and carry before them the hope of the heavenly Fatherland. Correction is omitted, he adds a little after in the same place, because the flattering tongue and the human day delight, the judgment of the crowd is dreaded, and the excruciation or destruction of the flesh — that is, on account of certain bonds of cupidity, not on account of the offices of charity. At last he concludes the chapter, reproaching both Superiors and subjects with the crime of neglected correction: In which matter they by no means have an equal, but a far graver cause, of whom it is said by the Prophet: "He indeed shall die in his sin, but his blood will I require at the hand of the watchman." For to this end watchmen — that is, the rulers of peoples — are established in the Churches, that they spare not in reproving sins. Nor for that reason is he entirely free from a fault of this kind who, though not a ruler, yet among those with whom he is joined by the necessity of this life, knows many things that ought to be admonished or reproved, and neglects it, avoiding their offenses on account of those things which in this life he uses — not undue things, but which he delights in more than he ought. Finally, in book 10, chapter 29, he observes that all the proud despise correction: Or perhaps they are ashamed to be corrected? And this vice belongs only to the proud.

XV. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 33, art. 4, assigns the reason: Correction, he says, is an act of charity. Therefore it extends to all those whom we are bound to pursue with charity. Now Superiors must be loved with a more fervent charity, since, the more they shine in a loftier place, the greater the danger in which they stand, says St. Augustine. Therefore, above the rest, they need the almsgiving of spiritual correction. If all must be corrected with meekness and humility, Superiors above all must be corrected with the utmost reverence and lowliness of soul, as St. Thomas says in the same place. Few Superiors are corrected, because few furnish those proofs of humility whence subjects can presume and hope for the fruit of amendment. Few subjects fulfill the precept of correction, because few are found free from fear and hope, few so unstained by faults that they cannot be reproved by their Superiors. Let Superiors consider that they will render an account to God for all the sins committed by their subjects on account of their own negligence in correcting. Let subjects turn over in their mind that they are by no means free from correcting their own Superiors in a spirit of humility, if a hope of profit shines forth — a precept which presses above all those who assist Superiors by office in the government of subjects.

XVI. Question VI. Who are the Superiors bound by a peculiar right to correction? Answer. Prelates their subjects, Parents their children, Masters their servants, Husbands their wives, Guardians their wards, Parish priests their people, Confessors their penitents, Curators their minors, are bound by a peculiar right to correct. These are bound to correct their inferiors not only by the title of charity, as all the rest are, but also by the law of justice. For Superiors, besides the bond of the common precept, are bound by the tie of their office. Prelates, moreover, ought to perform a twofold correction — one judicial, the other fraternal.

XVII. Question VII. What hope of profit must be conceived, that the precept of fraternal correction may oblige? Answer. That four conditions must precede fraternal correction has already been indicated above. Their meaning must now be briefly discussed. Of judicial correction, which must be made even without hope of profit, there is no discourse now, but of fraternal correction. The end of this correction is the amendment of the offender. If the hope of this amendment be wanting, the precept does not oblige, as the Angelic Doctor teaches, II-II, q. 33, art. 6. For fraternal correction, whose end is the amendment of the offender, has no coercion, but simple admonition. And therefore where it is probably reckoned that the sinner will not receive the admonition, but will slide into worse things, one must desist from correction of this kind: because the things that are for an end must be regulated according as the reason of the end requires.

XVIII. It is agreed among all that a certain hope is not required, but a probable one suffices. Frequently men violate the precept of correction because they despair of the profit of amendment. Iniquity lies to itself. Sometimes men say that all must be judged well of, and the salvation of all must be hoped for. Sometimes, when they ought to fulfill the precept of correction, they judge rashly of everyone, and say that they are not bound by such a precept, because no hope of profit shines forth. These do not perceive that they are judging as proud and reprobate those whom they conceive will scorn correction. Rare is the amendment of offenders — not so much on account of their malice, as on account of the defect of correctors. I do not deny that many sinners are stubborn and obstinate, and unwilling to understand so as to do well. But it is also true that correctors are wanting who either are willing to fulfill the precept, or are endowed with charity, prudence, meekness, and true zeal. As for me, I have found more who have received correction than who have scorned it. If the first correction does not profit, it must be repeated as often as hope of amendment is conceived. Repeated blows often break hardness. When it is doubted whether the correction will bring forth more evil than good, one must abstain from it. But if the doubt is not of a greater evil, but only of the profit, correction must be made. In gaming, if you do not doubt loss but only gain, you cast the die. In extreme necessity, correction must be made, even though you doubt whether it will harm rather than profit.

XIX. Question VIII. Must correction be deferred, that it be performed at an opportune time? Answer. The other condition which ought to accompany correction is the opportunity of time. Correction must be hastened or deferred, according as, the circumstances weighed, it is judged that correction at this or that time will profit more. We are not freed from the precept of correction because we foresee it will be made by others: since the precept binds all and each. And he gave a commandment to every one concerning his neighbor: Ecclesiasticus 17.

XX. Question IX. What order must be kept in correction? Answer. This order is prescribed in chapter 18 of the Evangelist Matthew: If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

XXI. Three things are commanded to be observed. 1. That the correction be made secretly. 2. That if the correction is useless, witnesses be summoned. 3. That the offense be reported to the Superior, when the two aforesaid do not profit. This order is not of counsel, but of precept, as the Theologians commonly teach with St. Thomas, II-II, q. 33, art. 7. For the Angelic Doctor shows that this order is consonant with the law of nature. For this order regards first eternal salvation, then the reputation of the neighbor. This order must be kept in the best manner. Witnesses are not to be summoned if private and secret correction profits; if one witness suffices, two are not to be summoned. In keeping this order the kinds of crimes must be regarded. If the sin is public, or inflicts damage upon a neighbor, it must be publicly reproved, as St. Paul teaches, 1 Timothy 5: Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear. It must then also be reported to the Superior.

XXII. Question X. Does the precept of keeping this order oblige, when it is reckoned safer that the Prelate will correct the offender? Answer. The Theologians dispute on both sides. Some defend the position that the crime should be reported to the Superior, as to a father, when it is foreseen that correction will be better made by him.

XXIII. The more probable opinion to me is that this order must commonly be kept: because the precept of keeping the order is both natural and divine; and because it rarely happens, all things weighed, that it is done better by the Prelate than by a private person. Opponents concede that correction can be well made by a private man, and therefore say that it is done better by the Prelate. The sinner is certainly rendered infamous before the Prelate, while the sinner's crime is revealed to him. Now this defamation disturbs the offender, and renders him unfit for the fruit of correction. If this greater fitness of the Prelate be compared with the disturbance of the one being corrected, the latter commonly overcomes the former. The efficacy of correction depends very much on the disposition of him who must receive the correction. But who is there who would not rather wish to be corrected by his own brother, conscious of the sin, than by a Prelate, who is ignorant of the offense? The one to be corrected undergoes two burdens. One, that his sin, known only to a private man, be manifested to another. The second, that this manifestation be made to a Prelate, whose favor is commonly of more account than that of many private persons. Therefore men commonly desire to be corrected rather by private brethren than by Prelates. Therefore private persons are commonly fitter than Prelates, as fathers, for correcting, for the reason that the efficacy of correction depends on the greater disposition of those to be corrected; and these, as I have said, more willingly receive the correction of private persons than of Prelates. Wherefore Christ the Lord absolutely, and without limitation, prescribed that this order be kept.

XXIV. St. Thomas luminously teaches our opinion, II-II, q. 33, art. 7, ad 5: It must be said that the Prelate is not to be obeyed against the precept of the Lord, according to that of Acts 5: We ought to obey God rather than men. And therefore when a Prelate commands that whatever anyone knows deserving of correction be told to him, this precept must indeed be understood as safe, the order of fraternal correction being preserved — whether the precept is made commonly to all, or to someone specially. But if the Prelate should expressly command against this order instituted by the Lord, he himself would sin in commanding, and one obeying him, as it were acting against the precept of the Lord. Whence he would not have to be obeyed: because the Prelate is not the judge of hidden things, but God alone. Whence he does not have the power of commanding anything concerning hidden things, except insofar as they are manifested through some indications — for instance, through ill repute, or through some suspicions: in which cases the Prelate can command in the same way as a secular or ecclesiastical judge can exact an oath of speaking the truth.

XXV. If, in the judgment of St. Thomas, not even a Prelate commanding the reporting of a hidden crime, the order of secret correction being omitted, is to be obeyed, by what reason can a private man spontaneously omit this order? The precept of this order is divine; therefore, unless an evident and manifest necessity shows that correction will be better performed by the Prelate, the order must always be kept. Rarely, however — nay, most rarely — is this correction better performed by the Prelate, for the reasons which I touched on above; therefore the precept must be fulfilled. What they object from Quodlibet II, article 13 [recte question 8, article 2] of St. Thomas is of no weight. For we too concede that, the case being admitted in which the Prelate would correct more efficaciously than a private person, the order can be omitted; but we repeat that this rarely happens, and that private men very easily deceive themselves and feign this greater efficacy at their pleasure.

XXVI. Question XI. What sins ought to be reported to the Superior, the order of correction being neglected? Answer. Sins known and public ought to be reported to the Prelate as judge. Sins are said to be known either by notoriety of law, when they have been reported to the tribunal, or by notoriety of fact, when the deed happens before many. If a sin is committed before two or three witnesses, it cannot be called public. It can indeed be proved in judgment, and become public; but before it is reported to the tribunal, it is not public: therefore correction must be sent ahead, if there is hope of amendment, provided the sin is not to the harm of a third party. For the brother must be gained with the least detriment to himself.

XXVII. Public sins must be reported to the judge, as St. Paul commands, 1 Timothy 5: Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear. He who sins publicly offends against the common good. If, however, someone should sin publicly from a sudden impulse, and a most probable hope of amendment were present, then he should be corrected secretly, scandal being removed. Then indeed someone is presumed to sin from a sudden impulse, when he is a man of good repute in public estimation, and from some unexpected event falls into some sin which does not redound to the harm of a third party or of the Community. For the precept of the order prescribed by Christ must always be kept before the eyes.

XXVIII. Offenses of heresy, of the betrayal of a city, and the like, must be denounced to the Superior as judge. The opposite opinion was condemned by Alexander VII in this thesis: Although it be established for you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him, if you cannot prove it. Although the crime of heresy be hidden, it must be denounced to the judge — not that he may punish the offender, but that he may take precaution for the public good, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 33, art. 7. For there are certain hidden sins which are to the corporal or spiritual harm of one's neighbors — for instance, if someone secretly plots how a city may be handed over to enemies, or if a heretic privately turns men away from the faith. And because he who sins in secret sins not only against himself, but also against others, one must proceed at once to denunciation, that a harm of this kind be prevented. There is added the precept of Alexander VII, who in his Bull given in the year 1660, whose beginning is Licet alias, commands that the crime of heresy, even hidden, be reported to the Tribunal of the holy Inquisition. Of the obligation of denouncing heresy to the Superior, then, there exists an ecclesiastical precept. Of manifesting the crime of betrayal there stands no precept of the Church. Wherefore if certain arguments of amendment occurred, secret correction could be sent ahead. But solid arguments of amendment rarely occur for those crimes which redound to the harm either of the Community or to the detriment of a third party; therefore these sins must commonly be reported to the Superior, that the innocent may be preserved. Sometimes it suffices that the innocent be warned to guard against snares laid for them, the guilty party not being manifested, when the circumstances permit this.

XXX. Of carnal faults which can be committed by Religious, the Theologians dispute whether, the order of fraternal correction being neglected, crimes of this kind ought to be reported to the Superior. A certain and general rule cannot be designated. When a probable hope of amendment can be conceived, the divine precept must always be observed. In a doubtful cause, one must stand for the precept. Those who, fired with the spirit of charity, study to obey Christ and to preserve their neighbor's reputation embrace the safer part.

XXXI. I would wish that Christians and Religious were more courageous in reproving public sins, in modestly and reverently reproving the deadly indolence of those Superiors who permit crimes to rampage. In reporting to the Superior the hidden faults of the brethren, emulation, envy, and hidden hatred can often have a place. But rarely is there sin in admonishing those Superiors who neglect openly and before all the offices of government. For from this correction all human respect and political considerations withdraw men: since commonly all subjects can hope or fear something from their Superiors. How can the spirit of evangelical charity be presumed, if the hidden crimes of private persons are reported to the Superior, but the public dissimulations, the indolences and negligences of Superiors, whence innumerable evils, ruin, and the desolation of the Community proceed, are covered over with silence?

BETWEEN the two species of Mercy, poured out on either side into seven-flowing rivulets, as you have above, quaest. 2. sect. 2. on alms, Fraternal Correction is wont to be enumerated, by which many goods are bestowed on those under one's eye, when their advantage, not their will, is consulted, as D. August. has it in the Seraphic Doctor's lib. 4. Pharetra, cap. 38. And if perhaps the foreseeing that this advantage will not follow, D. Gregory also urges that one's neighbor be corrected for the public good, here at S. Bonav. Since, as he says, it is better that one be condemned for the salvation of many, than that many be endangered through the license of one. Here, however, we must treat of correction, as it is a certain species of spiritual alms, shown to the offender.

Paula, a Catholic matron, asked her confessor whether the things which censors of public morals say about race suicide were true. The confessor, however, asked for a fuller explanation of the question. Then Paula acknowledged that for several years she had been accustomed to wash the vagina with medicated water after marital intercourse, since she was too weak to have offspring; and since her daughter had become engaged to an officer who would suddenly be sent to a distant colony and could not support a family on his meager salary, Paula taught her how she could conduct married life without danger of offspring. With her husband’s consent, the daughter still successfully puts into practice the method taught by her mother. Having heard these things, the confessor is uncertain what he ought to say to Paula. Hence it is asked:

1. Is it lawful, after intercourse has taken place, to impede conception in any way whatsoever?

2. Is there an obligation of fraternal correction, and of what kind is it?

3. What is to be said about the obligations of the confessor and of Paula in the case?

1. Is it ever allowed to take means to prevent conception ?

St. Alphonsus says: “Never is it lawful for a mother, on account of any danger whatsoever, to take a potion to prevent conception.”¹ And the doctrine remains the same, whatever means are taken for the purpose.

1 Theol. Mor., lib. iii, n. 394.

2. Is there an obligation to give fraternal correction?

Yes, there is. This follows from the general obligation of charity which binds us to do what we can to help our neighbor in his necessity, whether spiritual or corporal. Hence if we know that another is in mortal sin and that he is not likely to correct it of himself, and there is nobody else who can or will do it better than ourselves, and there is good hope of succeeding, we are bound at a suitable time to do what we can to assist our neighbor to arise from his state of spiritual death.¹

1 Compare Matt. xviii. 15.

3. The case. The confessor is bound in the first place to tell Paula that what she has been doing is wrong, and she must promise not to do it again. Moreover she is responsible for having taught the practice to her daughter, and besides the latter’s husband she is probably the only person who knows of the daughter’s practice. She is, then, under the additional obligation of telling her daughter that what she taught her is wrong, and of doing what she can to induce her to abandon the practice for the future. The practice is harmful to her who employs it and is destructive of the race, so that it is rightly called race-suicide. The confessor, therefore, should explain to Paula the obligation she is under. Even if the means adopted sometimes failed in the desired effect, the act would always be gravely sinful on account of the intention with which it was done.

Caius, a boy who was staying in a certain Catholic college for the sake of education, confessed to Paul, his confessor, that, having been solicited by another boy, he had gravely sinned against the sixth commandment more than once. Paul judged that the danger of a future fall was not slight, and therefore declared to Caius a grave obligation of revealing the name of the accomplice to the prefect or another superior. When Caius refused to satisfy this obligation, Paul intimated to him that it was sufficient to write the name of the one soliciting him on a closed paper and deliver it to him; when Caius refused to do even this, Paul dismissed him without absolution. Hence it is asked:

1. What is fraternal correction, and what is its obligation?

2. How ought it to be made?

3. Is it lawful for a confessor to inquire from penitents the name of an accomplice?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 194.

2. The answer to this is given in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 195.

3. May confessors ask from penitents the name of those with whom they have sinned?

In three different constitutions Benedict XIV condemned the practice of asking from penitents the names of those with whom they have sinned, and imposed severe penalties on those confessors who do this. The constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX imposed the penalty of excommunication reserved to the Pope on all who teach or defend as being lawful the practice of asking for the name of an accomplice in sin, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitutions Suprema, July 7, 1745, Ubi Primum, June 2, 1746, Ad Eradicandum, Sept. 28, 1746. Benedict XIV in those constitutions expressly supposes that there are occasions when it is allowed to ask the name of an accomplice, and the confessor is justified in asking about the circumstances in which a sin was committed with a view to the integrity of confession and fulfilling the duty incumbent on him of prescribing remedies against sin even when such inquiries disclose to him the identity of the accomplice.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, book vi, nos. 491, 499.

4. The case. Caius is under the obligation of taking the necessary means for guarding himself against a relapse; he is bound by the precept of fraternal correction to try to amend his accomplice; and he is under a general obligation of charity to prevent great harm coming to the college in future from the presence of a black sheep among the boys. Practically and ordinarily the only way in which he can fulfil these obligations is to denounce the offender to the authorities. Paul, the confessor, was therefore right so far. He was, however, a little precipitate. He should, first of all, have tried to discover the boy’s dispositions with respect to denouncing his accomplice before telling him that he was under a grave obligation to do it. Paul might perhaps have discovered that Caius had some sort of excuse, such as fear of consequences, for not making the denunciation, or that he was under the impression that he could not be bound to do such a thing, and then perhaps the confessor might have seen reason not to proceed to extremities with the boy all at once. It is of immediate necessity that Caius should take means to preserve himself from falling again, and giving information to the authorities is not absolutely necessary for that.

Titius, a young man of otherwise good parts, is becoming very much addicted, of late, to the use of strong drink. His friend Cajus, a young man of the same standing as Titius, perceives this growing habit with alarm, and considers seriously within himself what may be his conscientious duty in the case. Cajus has, on several occasions, taken Titius to task for his excessive drinking, but only in a mild way and with considerable hesitation. Titius' father, a good man, knows that he drinks, and many of Titius' young men friends know it. But they have neglected, up to the present, to remonstrate with him about it, and, in the meantime, the case is becoming more and more aggravated. Cajus is beginning to have qualms of conscience about his duty of correcting Titius, under the circumstances. Is Cajus bound, under pain of mortal sin, to admonish and correct Titius, or may he leave the burden of correcting Titius to Titius' father and friends?

Solution.—Our Saviour imposes on us the precept of fraternal correction, when He says: “If your brother sins against you, correct him” (Matt. xviii.), charity demands of us that we rescue our neighbor from grievous evil whenever we can do so without serious inconvenience or damage to ourselves. There is no question here of obligations arising from justice or piety; as, for instance, between pastor and people, or between parent and child. There is question here of an obligation arising from charity, as between private individuals. Now drinking to excess is a grievous evil and a mortal sin, and although mortal sin can not be committed except by the free will and consent of the sinner, still, 1, it may be difficult for the sinner to reform, if left to himself, either because he does not reflect, or does not realize his condition; 2, the sinner may be led into sin by reason of external causes, from which it may be very difficult for him to extricate himself, unless admonished and assisted by others. There is a graver obligation of saving our neighbor from mortal sin than there is of saving him from serious temporal loss into which he is plunging of his own free will. And yet we are bound, sometimes even under mortal sin, to save our neighbor from worldly loss, into which he is rushing knowingly and willingly, when we can do so, without serious damage to ourselves. By much the more reason, therefore, are we obliged to save our neighbor from serious spiritual injury.

However, in order that there be created a grave obligation to correct our neighbor, the following conditions must exist: 1. We must be sure that our neighbor is committing grievous sin, or at least that he is in danger of committing it. 2. There must be little or no probability that our neighbor, if left to himself, will correct himself. 3. We must have hope of effecting some good by our correction. 4. There must be no one else more fit or equally fit to admonish, and who will, in fact, administer the admonition. 5. There must be no danger of our incurring any serious risk by reason of our admonitions.

If these conditions are verified, then, from the very nature of the case, and according to the unanimous opinion of theologians, there arises a grave obligation of correcting our brother.

However, even here, it must be observed, there is not so much question of correcting a past sin as of preventing a future sin; that is to say, we are obliged to prevent our neighbor committing grave sin or repeating it, and we are obliged to prevent him remaining along time in a state of spiritual damnation. Therefore it follows that we are not obliged to correct our brother as soon as he sins, not only because, as a rule, the above conditions will not be verified but also because the sinner himself is not obliged to repent directly he has fallen, but may wait some time; and therefore neither are we obliged to admonish him immediately upon his fall.

Now, on the other hand, there are circumstances which excuse us from the obligation of correcting our neighbor.

1. If there is hope that our brother will rescue himself, in a short time, or that he will not fall again, our obligation ceases.

2. If our correction would only make matters worse we are excused from correcting, except where damage is being done to others or to religion, etc.

3. If it be probable that parents or superiors will administer the correction, then those who are of equal standing with the sinner are released from the obligation.

4. In like manner, if I can prudently judge that some one else, more fit than I, will admonish the delinquent, I am excused.

It is rare that we are obliged to correct some one whom we do not know, because we can not judge what may be the result of our correction. A private person, of easy-going nature or indolent disposition or who is timid and backward, who thinks himself unfit to administer a correction, and therefore omits it, but who is, nevertheless, willing to act, if he thought it quite necessary or profitable, would commit a venial sin, by not correcting. Indeed, private persons are rarely obliged to administer a correction, unless they be more or less intimately acquainted, because it is rare that all the conditions creating a grave obligation are present. And seldom, if ever is an inferior obliged to correct a superior. Scrupulous persons are, as a rule, exempt altogether from the obligation of administering fraternal correction, because they are incapable of distinguishing when there is an obligation to admonish and when there is none. Moreover, on account of their scrupulous nature, they would commit a great many imprudences and torment themselves beyond measure. As a rule, therefore, it is better that they should not correct others, except in extraordinary and very evident cases.

Here we wish to lay stress on a point of considerable importance, in this matter, and that is that it is neither the duty nor the privilege of private individuals to pry into the lives of their neighbors, with a view to correcting them. All writers on this matter call attention to this point. Even superiors are admonished to be moderate and conservative in their scrutiny of the lives of those under them. We are obliged to administer a correction only in those cases that fall under our notice, without our seeking them.

Let us now apply these remarks to the case in hand.

1. If there is any hope at all that Titius' father or his other friends will administer the necessary correction, then Cajus is not obliged to do so.

2. If there is only slight hope or likelihood that an admonition coming from Cajus will do any good, then there is no obligation to give it.

3. If Cajus is scrupulous or overnervous or inclined to exaggerate, it were better that he abstain from correcting.

4. If Cajus fears harm for himself or for those connected with him, resulting from the correction, as, v. g., enmities, loss of position, breaking of a marriage engagement, then he is not obliged to act.

5. But if Cajus is a prudent man, whose admonitions will likely be heeded, and if he feels convinced that no one else will administer the necessary correction, and if he has nothing to fear from it, except that Titius may feel sore about it, etc., then Cajus is bound in conscience to administer a prudent, earnest, and charitable correction to Titius, in order to save him from the great evil that is destroying him. Cajus must make it evident to Titius that he is acting, not from motives of fault-finding or recrimination or personal indignation, but in a spirit of true, disinterested Christian charity.