The manner of correction and denunciation

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.

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.

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).

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.

939. The mode and order to be observed in correction. - Fraternal correction can be done either by suitable speech, or by equivalent deeds or signs: by showing a sorrowful face, by diverting the conversation to other things, by withdrawing temporal help, or by other modes by which neighbor is warned openly or implicitly.

Nevertheless, let it always be done with great prudence and affection of charity, and indeed toward inferiors and equals with kindness and love (Gal. VI, 1), toward superiors with humility and reverence (I Tim. V, 1).

Lest one sin against justice by wounding the reputation of neighbor without necessity (Mt. XVIII, 15), the order to be observed in correction is prescribed: first let it be done secretly, and this several times, so long as fruit is hoped for; but if it does not profit, let one or two witnesses be brought in; and if it still does not profit, let denunciation be made to the superior, who first corrects paternally, then, if it shall have been necessary, also judicially. But that order can be changed so that denunciation is made immediately: a) if the fault is public, known to the greater part of the community or shortly to be made known; b) if it is foreseen that private warning is not going to profit, especially if the necessity of correction urges, as if the sin is to the harm of the community or religion, or to grave damage of a third party (for example, of infamy, of the corruption of others); c) if amendment through the superior is foreseen to be much more secure and fruitful, provided the superior is prudent and discreet; d) if some law imposes denunciation, as for confessors soliciting.

943. Practical observations. - 1. Since the conditions required for the obligation of fraternal correction rarely are present for private persons (unless they are familiarly conjoined), these are rarely bound to correction, especially toward unknown persons whose disposition is unknown, and therefore amendment is very doubtful. A fortiori the scrupulous, who on account of lack of discretion would always think themselves bound to correct others, or would always doubt concerning this, and very often would commit imprudences, are rarely bound to it.

2. A sinner is bound to amend himself for correction: a) if he is a superior, because he is bound to procure those things which are necessary for rightly undertaking his office, among which is his own amendment; b) if he is a scandal to others, because he is bound to abstain from scandal; c) if neighbor is going to die in mortal sin unless he himself, having been amended, corrects him, because there then seems to be a grave necessity to which he ought to give assistance with some inconvenience.

3. In communities, colleges, etc., generally it is expedient that correction be done by way of denunciation to the superior: for he who denounced would easily be known, if he first warned privately; indeed, where there is question of grave damage of the community (not of one or another person), fellow residents unwilling to denounce could not be absolved.

4. As regards denunciation before a superior, St. Alphonsus notes:

a) If it is certainly clear that a brother has perfectly amended a hidden sin, and from it there is no danger of relapse or of damage to himself or to another, it is not licit to denounce him to a father or prelate, unless the brother expressly consents to that denunciation.

b) It is not licit to bring a fault to mediate superiors, if the immediate superior can correct by himself and there is no probable suspicion that this latter will fail in his office; for the reputation of neighbor, insofar as can be done, must be cared for.

c) A superior, by force of knowledge obtained through private denunciation made to him as father, cannot publicly warn or judicially proceed, because the fault was not manifested to him as judge.

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.

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.

WE ASK here: Whether, given the conditions assigned above by D. Bonaventure — that the neighbor has gravely sinned and can probably be amended by fraternal correction — he ought first to be corrected before his sin is reported to the Prelate, even as to a Father, not as to a Judge. I speak, however, of secret sin, not one that threatens public ruin, such as heresy, rebellion, etc.

The FIRST opinion is: If there is hope that the Prelate will be more useful, one is not bound to secret correction; yet so that the Prelate be prudent, discreet; not violent, not hostile to the religious who sinned. They are cited by Caspensis, Tract. 17. disp. 6. sect. 1.: D. Thomas quodl. 11. art. ultimo, Sylvest. v. Correctio, Gabriel. lect. 74. in Can. Antonin. 2. p. tit. 9. cap. 6. Richard. 4. dist. 19. Iulius Calvus in Synaxi cura animarum, Angelus Clavasius in summa, v. Denuntiatio, num. 10. who asserts this to be the opinion of D. Augustine and all the Doctors of the Seraphic Order. Gerson 2. p. Alph. 24. litt. T. Tuttecremata in cap. si peccaverit 2. quaest. 1. Nicolaus Otbellius 4. dist. 19. quaest. 1. Iacob. Graffius lib. 2. cap. 69. who cites many others, and all the Theologians of the Society of Jesus.

He ADDS D. Bonaventure on cap. 19. Lucae, and the General Chapter of Barcelona, and the Constitution of the Fathers the Preachers, cap. 18. lect. 6. Which constitution, he says, is most ancient; for Smaragdus the Abbot, in Regulam S. Benedicti, refers this Constitution at cap. 24. and adds others at cap. 32. He further proclaims it common among the Doctors, and altogether to be held; but we shall soon see the opposite.

OTHER Doctors are reported in favor of this opinion by P. Antoninus Diana p. 2. Tract. 2. resol. 37.; they are Turrianus Tom. 1. in 22. dist. 89. dub. 4. where he cites D. Bonaventure, Angelus, Rosella, and Arauallus. Bictus, de denunt. casus quaest. 16. approves; he also reports D. Thomas and D. Bonaventure, as though truly cited.

ALMOST all, however, warn that this opinion is true provided the superior be prudent, discreet, not violent, or hostile to the religious, as I noted above; otherwise they fly to the second opinion.

The OPPOSITE opinion seems to be that of D. Bonaventure ad 17. Lucae, which passage the adversaries use for these words: Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, increpa illum, where he says: And note that in this rebuke the order must be kept which is expressed there: If thy brother sin against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. And afterwards he adds that witnesses must be called in; then, it must be told to the Church. This order, however, as regards witnesses, he says is a matter of congruity, not of necessity, and especially if it is perceived that the neighbor is incorrigible. There he gives the reason why it can first be told to the prelate; he adds the reason from Prov. 9: Rebuke not a scorner, lest he hate thee; and he adds from D. Jerome: To strive in vain, and by laboring to accomplish nothing else than to seek hatred, is the height of madness; otherwise indeed it is a commandment, he assents in the Speculum animae, cap. 3. see what was said in the previous volume de consentient. dist. 17. quaest. 10. to proposition 5.

From this supposition, indeed, he concludes that the fault of one's neighbor can be told to the Prelate without prior fraternal correction, understanding it when no fruit is hoped for from the correction. The same opinion he plainly indicates in other places cited above quaest. 2., and in the Speculum animae, cap. 1. he expressly asserts, with the majority whose view he subscribes to, the order of fraternal correction under pain of mortal sin. See after the middle of the chapter. The same he gravely asserts absolutely at those words Ecclus. 10. Si mordeat serpens, etc., where he asserts that this very order is a Divine commandment. The same he infers in the Speculum animae, cap. 3.

Of entirely the same opinion is D. Thomas in his last testament 2. 2. quaest. 33. art. 7., where he expressly teaches that this order is under commandment, nor can the prelate invert it, even if he perceived it in virtue of obedience, nor is obedience to be rendered to him; nay, both the one commanding and the one obeying sin against the divine commandment. The same he teaches art. 8. ad 4. Rodriquez de ordine iudiciario, tit. 4. cap. 19. where he reports others: Thomas a Iesu lib. de inst. tract. 1. cap. 9. num. 1. et 6. Lorca 2. 2. sect. 3. disp. 47. Ioan. de Cruz in directorio conscientiae, p. 1. praec. 5. art. 2. dub. 5. conclusione 1. Miranda de ordine iudic. tom. 1. quaest. 11. art. 4. to whom Diana subscribes tom. 1. parte 2. tract. 2. resol. 37. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 33. art. 8. dub. 2. Nauar. in Manual. Lat. cap. 8. num. 14. Petrus Nauar. lib. 1. cap. 4. dub. 13. num. 131. Sottus relect. de tegendo secreto, membr. 2. quaest. 4. concl. 3. disp. 3.

From the Society: Valentia disp. 3. quaest. 10. punct. 5. Tanner. 2. 2. disp. 1. quaest. 5. num. 106. who cites Adrian, Sylvest. Sotus, Bannes, Nauarrus, Valentia, Umbertus, Hugo, Victorinus, and D. Thomas. Becanus 2. 3. cap. 21. dub. 4. Sayrus in Clavi Regia, lib. 11. cap. 4. Fagundez in octavum praeceptum Decal. cap. 8. num. 7. where at num. 8. he carps as almost rash Richardus and others of the first opinion, who say the opposite. And at num. 9. he says that that opinion is in no way probable if one stands on the common law. He admits, however, at num. 13., with other Fathers of his Society, that some Religion could determine otherwise by a particular statute, provided however the religious by their right wish to renounce it, as is done in the Society of Jesus; whose constitution they defend without prejudice to this second opinion: Suarez tract. de fide, disp. 8. sect. 6. Coninch. de act. supersn. disp. 28. dub. 12. num. 121. Layman in Theol. moral. dub. 3. sect. 5. tract. 3. punct. 2. cap. 4. num. 5. Valentia loc. cit. Cantarellus super Decal. lib. 2. cap. 69. num. 111. Rodriquez in exercitiis spiritualibus, Tom. 3. tract. 8. cap. 6. where however he wrongly cites the Seraphic Doctor, whom Suarez and Tannerus also falsely cite super our Rule, Sancius in select. disp. 46. num. 28. Sanchez summa, 1. 2. lib. VI. cap. 18. num. 50. Ribadeneira de Inst. Soc. cap. 34. Becanus 2. 2. cap. 21. dub. 5. num. 33. and others in Diana at the place adduced, Bouerius in direct. p. II. cap. 14. Bictus, de denunc. quaest. 15. et 16. The same opinion hold Octavianus Spatius in Practica, de modo corrigendi Regulares tract. V. cap. 1. num. 4. and cap. 3. num. 4. Petrus a S. Ioseph lib. III. cap. 10. Basilius v. Correptio, num. 11. and our Order in its Constit.

IT MUST BE ASSERTED, with this opinion, that in fraternal correction the order of the Gospel is to be observed by commandment.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure ad locum Lucae, because fraternal correction is commanded by Charity for the salutary remedy of the neighbor; but more sweetly than it can be, out of love: Now love works more with less harm than it can inflict on the neighbor: Therefore.

Whence Caspensis loc. cit. and P. Matthias Bellintanus do not rightly attempt to show that a religious better heals his brother's salvation by reporting to Superiors, so that they may provide a remedy with a strong hand. Surely medicine teaches that iron is not to be applied when lenitives can help, as Fagundez observes num. 7.

IT IS PROVED secondly, because Matth. 18. and Lucae 17. the Fathers cited above quaest. 1. confess to be a commandment issued by Christ, surely also as to the order. This is confirmed by the Gloss there, and D. Augustine in Catena aurea of D. Thomas, where he says: That the one not rebuking in the manner said is a betrayer. The same D. Chrysostom has there, bringing forward the example of the physician adduced above, and homil. 60. in Matth. he teaches the same. And D. Hilary on this passage says: The Lord imposed upon us that order of keeping Charity. So also D. Jerome on this passage: The brother must be rebuked apart, lest if once he lose shame and bashfulness, he remain in sin. But if he will not hear, let a brother be called in. Thus also D. Augustine homil. 2. on this passage: Finally, from these words attend, out of what love you ought to do this. Therefore do it for his sake, that you may gain him. And comparing that saying of the Apostle 1. ad Timot. 5. Them that sin rebuke before all, he says: I say, therefore, let us hear these commandments, brethren, and be prepared between both commandments: it is true in both cases, that sometimes a brother must be rebuked between thee and him alone: Hear, if he sin against thee, because it was secret when he sinned against thee, seek secrecy. Hence you have that D. Augustine is wrongly brought forward by Angelus for the first opinion.

The same has Eusebius Emissenus and others in the Bibliot. homil. feria tertia post Dominicam tertiam Quadragesimae, and other Fathers, brought forward by Lorca disp. 47.

IT IS PROVED thirdly. Religious are not only not exempt from the observance of the commandments of the Gospel — especially the Friars Minor, whose Rule begins: The Rule and life of the Friars Minor is this, to observe the Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ — but are more bound to it. Now that this is a commandment S. Bonaventure asserts in the places cited, quaest. prima. Whence it is wrongly brought forward by Sanchez and Caspensis for the opposite opinion. It is confirmed; for our very Constitutions, which profess observance according to the rule, enjoin at chapter 3. that this ordinance of fraternal correction be kept, so that the brother be first rebuked, and if amendment does not follow, either one tell the sin of the other. I wonder that the Chapter of Barcelona is brought forward to the contrary, which decides this only when they are companions in crime, whence neither, if unamended, can rebuke the sins of the other, lest it be said to him: Said the Thief to the Thief. But concerning brethren outside who sin scandalously, it commands, and only condemns at the end, those who deny that a brother is ever bound to tell the sins of a brother to the Prelate. The same Julius II condemned. Whence that Chapter is not to our purpose.

IT IS PROVED fourthly: for No one is the Lord of another's reputation. Therefore he cannot straightway report to the Prelate, whereby he foully stains his reputation and eliminates the shame first aroused in the subject; for while a Religious is reported before the Prelates, a worse loss is inflicted on him than if it were told to many others. Therefore P. Martinus Rex de Calvasessio, of Brescia, who for nearly 30 years exercised the office of definitor, Provincial Vicar, and Apostolic Visitator in the Missions of the Rhaetians, a man of supreme Integrity and holiness, shining with Zeal and Charity, was wont to say: I would rather that my grave sin (if God suffered me to fall) be known by all the brethren than in the Definitory, where the Fathers dispose of me and govern me at their pleasure. O would that all Prelates would acknowledge this golden sentiment of ours! For very many, once reported to superiors, so collapse in spirit that they rush into reprobation. And if we were lords of our reputation, nor would it be lost by secret report to the Prelate as to a Father: why would the Fathers of the Society of Jesus press it, so that Novices be instructed in that custom of theirs, and, if they wish to profess, renounce their right to reputation in this respect? Why would so many most learned Fathers of the Society labor so hard to defend that constitution of theirs? Surely Lorca 1. 2. quaest. 33. art. 8. sect. 3. disp. 47. num. 12. Ledesma in the summa Tom. 2. tract. 4. cap. 4. concl. 24. and Cosmas Philiareus de officio Sacerdotis, tom. 1. puncto 2. lib. 4. cap. 14., though Jesuits, cry out against such a statute, whose opinion, as the more probable, the Academy of Salamanca has lately followed, as Hieronymus Rodriquez testifies in Compend. regularium quaestionum, resol. 36. num. 13. That Academy, moreover, is that of the Fathers the Preachers.

IT IS PROVED fifthly. The nature of things must be measured from what happens always or for the most part; but for the most part a report to the prelate stirs up hatreds, arouses shame, and afterward eliminates it; he has rushed on to worse things, as the Holy Fathers related above teach: see Diana. D. Bonaventure seems to incline somewhat to that Lucae 17., but because he wished all Prelates to be made like himself, who was famed for outstanding mildness, Charity, and benignity even toward apostates, much more toward the wounded within the secrets of walls, so that all might trust in him wondrously, as is had in his life in the Breviary, and in the first Volume of his works. No one is read to have gone away without consolation, no one without refreshment; all, even those once fallen, he embraced in his benign bosom. Such also was S. P. Francis, who was for him the exemplar of mildness and Charity, of whom it is read that he wished Prelates to be so gentle that if a sinner repented a hundred times, he would always be received, as at first, most benignly, with cheerful countenance. And if the subject would not have mercy; yet the holy Father, most humane even toward little animals — swallows, hares, etc. — wished Prelates to display supreme Charity toward the fallen, and was wont to say that the Prelate who wishes to raise up the fallen must bend himself to the earth, as Christ bent himself when he saw the adulteress drawn to him, whom he would not, according to the law, deliver to be stoned, but said: No one hath condemned thee: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. He bent down, writing in the marble the sins of the Prelates of that Synagogue, who with loftiest brow gaped for the condemnation of the woman. Prelates, therefore, ought to remember, as S. P. Francis used to say, that we shall all have been far worse if God should desert us, nor is it not so because of our merits. Our Constitutions enjoin these things also in that chapter. Therefore that constitution of Barcelona, among the Constitutions of Farinerius cap. 7., either does not touch the matter, or is abrogated. But say, it is not to the point, because they only condemn those unwilling ever to have the sins of a complicit neighbor reported to the prelate, even public ones and pernicious to the body of the Religion; which same Julius II condemned in the Constitutions of the Franciscan family, as Fagundez reports num. 20, and as I noted above.

Give us forever Prelates, holy Francises, Bonaventures, and others according to these exemplars of Charity. But on this well-worn path I cannot fix my steps, nor valiantly sustain the opposite opinion: Yet I do not refuse another point on which our Bouërius speaks learnedly, that some religious are reprobates, who abuse corrections, that they may sin in secret. These, I judge, are to be reported to the Prelate, not only as to a Father; but also as to a Judge. But these, who do not shrink from enormities, you will easily discern from others, who sin from some impulse of passion, or from frailty.

From these things the responses of Caspensis are worn away, who says that the good of the soul ought to outweigh the good of reputation. For we have already seen that the good of the soul is more easily promoted by a good reputation. And indeed I know that some have rushed headlong because of lost reputation. Then, reputation is of the natural law, and must necessarily be upheld, nor are evils to be done that goods may come, as the Apostle says.

The other response also is worn away, that the infamy from the knowledge of the Prelate is slight.

Nay, I have shown it to be the greatest, which will forever stand in the way in governance, dispensations of offices, and the other goods of the Religion; nay, those most expert in religious life judge from this a greater loss of reputation than from the knowledge of other brothers. I have shown sufficiently also that the constitution of Farinerius helps him nothing, where he declares that doctrine, opposed by many, according to the mind of D. Bonaventure.

Surely D. Bonaventure professed the Gospel, and this commandment of the Lord the sacred Canons confess; And at least in that passage of Luke, he admits the admonition: Are then the precepts of Christ pestiferous? Hah, P. Caspensis, professor of the Gospel!

But as to the Constitutions of the Fathers the Preachers loc. cit., I am not moved at all; for they speak of scandalous sin. Then the Theological Fathers of Salamanca, and other Preachers, are with us. Then the Rule of the friars minor is this, to observe the Gospel of the Lord, cap. 1.

As to the rule of S. Benedict, it plainly speaks of him who plots apostasy, and of the scandalous. Whence it is not to the point. I add that our Constitutions, cap. 3., impose the order of correction.

He ADDUCES also Innocent III. cap. 39. Qualiter, et quando, 1. de accusat. But he speaks of a delict already so known to the Prelates that they can proceed. Where he only the more commends providing without the engines of trials, if it can be done, by removing from the office in which the brother sins. Nor does he speak of the Evangelical order. Nay, Innocent himself cap. cum ex iniuncto, says: It is one thing to rebuke secretly a brother sinning in himself, which each is bound to effect, according to the Evangelical rule.

This, however, I warn with Cajetan: one must walk with open eyes, while we see a Religious sinning lethally; and it must be presumed that such a one is with difficulty brought back to penance. See him opusc. primo, resp. 5. ad ultimum dubium, and Durandus in 4. dist. 19. and D. Chrysostom homil. 40. in Matthaeum.

Therefore it is needful that the monitor clothe himself with the bowels of Charity, and arm his heart with Zeal, and neither pander to the curiosity of Prelates, nor indulge the license of subjects; for fraternal correction is the daughter of mercy, the granddaughter of Charity, as all the Doctors, even of the first opinion, confess, in Sanchez num. 46. who adds n. 47. that it is not to be reported to the Prelate if it be doubtful whether the Prelate is more apt for the salvation of the sinner.

But CRIMES, ruinous to the community, especially heresy, are to be reported without correction, as is lately said in the Constitution of the Holy Inquisition of Alexander VII. Among sins publicly damaging, moreover, Caspensis reports fornication, and he reports sixteen Doctors. He adds, however, that those fallen through frailty are to be commiserated, and rather covered with the mantle of Charity.

From what has been said you have that it is mortal to transgress this commandment, or to invert it out of hatred. Whence it comes that it cannot be told to the Prelate before witnesses have been called in, or at least one. So Hugo de S. Vict., who was a second Augustine, as Trithemius says, and he reports the same Augustine. The same affirm Albert. Navar. Valentia, who proves it from D. Basil quaest. 46. and D. Augustine regula tertia.

IT IS PROVED also, because Christ prescribes the sweet manner of Charity in this order of correction: Now surely he supposes that the greater detriment to reputation is if it be reported to the Prelate than if only two subjects know it.

Finally I warn that Christ gave this commandment to the Apostles, religious men; Whence I wonder at those saying that the good of religion requires something else, as though Christ had not instituted the best norm of religion.

MANY, in Diana resol. 38., add that it is a venial sin not to correct one sinning venially: but this displeases; nor does that of Azorius punct. 2. lib. 12. cap. 14. quaest. 4. Angelus, or Sylvestrus, and others there, please. Prelates are excepted, who ought to correct even venial sins. See him. Nay, Fuliensis adds that the Prelate is to be blamed mortally if he omits to correct venial sins gravely noxious, for instance silence; and similar things, which tend to no small detriment of religion.

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.