When fraternal correction is obliged

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

937. From natural and divine law there is given a precept of fraternal correction, grave from its genus. - It is proved:

a) From St. Matthew XVIII, 15: "If your brother shall have sinned against you, go and correct him between you and him alone; if he shall hear you, you shall have gained your brother" (cf. Lev. XIX, 17; Eccli. XVII, 12; XIX, 13 sq.; Lk. XVII, 3; Gal. VI, 1; I Thess. V, 14; II Thess. III, 15).

b) From reason: By the law of nature and charity we are bound to assist neighbor bodily in need; therefore much more one spiritually in need. - Moreover, we ought to love neighbor; but dilection of neighbor includes willing and furnishing good to him; therefore much more averting from him a grave evil, such as certainly is mortal sin.

That precept, like charity, in itself obliges all toward all, that is, not only superiors, who are bound to correct both from office or justice, and also from the order of charity because they are more fit for it and more conjoined to subjects; but it also obliges equals, indeed subjects and sinners, although these are excused by many circumstances, as not always fit for correction.

Superiors are parents, the husband, tutors, teachers and preceptors, masters with respect to servants, bishops, prelates and parish priests, confessors with respect to penitents, preachers with respect to hearers.

938. Conditions required for fraternal correction. - Five conditions are simultaneously required so that this precept obliges here and now:

1. Certain matter, that is, a grave sin certainly committed, in which it is foreseen that neighbor will relapse, or in which it is feared that he will die, or will not do penance at the due time.

It is said: grave sin, because since every correction is burdensome to the one correcting and includes at least slight inconvenience, in itself and ordinarily it does not oblige for removing a slight evil from neighbor. Then morally certain knowledge of grave sin is required on account of the danger of one's own rashness and of another's offense; but if it is doubtful, a private person ought not and cannot inquire into the life of neighbor, because it would be very burdensome and hateful to others (Prov. XXIV, 15); otherwise sometimes a superior, who has the care and providence of others.1

2. Necessity, that is, probability that neighbor is not going to amend himself spontaneously and that another equally fit is not going to correct him.

3. Utility, that is, founded hope of amendment, or probability that the correction is not going to harm (for example, by impelling to new or graver sins), but is going to profit, either immediately or at least after some time. For when the end ceases, the precept ceases.

Hence a) if correction is doubtfully going to profit but certainly not going to harm, it must be done;

b) if the utility is not probable but doubtful, so that amendment is equally hoped for and harm feared, in itself and generally it is to be omitted, because the negative precept of not harming obliges more than the affirmative precept of doing good;

c) nevertheless in such doubt, accidentally and exceptionally, it must be done if it is foreseen that neighbor is going to die in sin, or if a greater evil is feared which ought to be prevented, for example, dishonor of God, irreverence toward religion, scandal or damage of many or of the commonwealth, indeed the damage of one if it is greater or is feared more than the damage of the one sinning; likewise if from office the correction must be made by a superior, who is bound to warn even with modest hope, lest discipline be weakened or scandal harm others.

4. Possibility, that is, that it can be done without too great inconvenience of the one correcting, such as is not the danger of some indignation, which is almost always present.

But the greater the necessity of neighbor is (in extreme necessity even with danger of life), or the gravity of the sin, or the probability of fruit, or the obligation of correcting, so much the greater inconvenience must be undergone. And indeed superiors are bound even with great inconvenience in grave necessity, indeed with danger of life if they are bound from justice, as bishops, parish priests, magistrates; or with some great detriment, as parents, masters, a husband, teachers; - on the contrary, servants and subjects are rarely bound, since the matter is easily doubtful in a particular case.

5. Opportunity, that is, that the time, place, and other circumstances suited to amendment are present here and now: for an affirmative precept does not oblige for always, but only in given circumstances.

Therefore it is not always to be applied immediately, but often is to be deferred to an opportune time, when fruit is hoped for more. Indeed sometimes the repetition of sin can be permitted so that the sinner may come to his senses more fervently, if immediate fruit is not hoped for. But if immediate fruit is hoped for, let it be done at once, if scandal harmful to others is to be removed, or if the honor of God or of neighbor is to be defended.

1. Some add: also a private person, if there were question of averting a most grave evil, for example, of homicide, or of common damage. But then there is not present an obligation to the amendment of a brother, but to averting the evil of another.

940. To omit fraternal correction is a mortal sin from its genus. According to St. Thomas, if someone presumes concerning another that he could draw him back from sin, and nevertheless, on account of fear or cupidity or shame, absolutely refuses to make correction, he sins mortally, because he places fear, etc., before fraternal charity. But if someone from these is only made slower to correct, yet in such a way that, if it were clear to him that he could draw his brother back from sin, he would not omit it, he sins only venially, because the character of the end is not taken away; for example, if he were negligent in considering the circumstances and opportunity in which he is bound to correct, or culpably estimating himself not fit for it.

941. The matter of correction is only grave sins committed, and therefore the following are not:

1. Sins to be committed: for these are matter of warning (to counsel the doubtful), which obliges in the same circumstances as correction.

2. Material sins done from invincible ignorance or at least from ignorance not gravely culpable: these are matter of instruction (to teach the ignorant), which also is of precept in the same circumstances as correction, not only from reverence toward the law but also from charity, because depraved ignorance of those things which someone is bound to know is an evil to be removed from neighbor just as sin is; yet less strictly and often under venial sin only, because it is a lesser evil. Hence according to many it is probable that private persons are not bound to instruct others as regards material sins committed only against positive law (divine or human), because these are not intrinsically evil and therefore of lesser moment; it would be otherwise if someone were bound from office to teach others, or if from ignorance there arose damage of the ignorant person, or of a third party, or scandal, or irreverence toward God or religion, etc.

3. Venial sins. Nevertheless these accidentally can be matter of correction, instruction, or warning, to be done even under grave obligation sometimes, both by reason of the effect, for example, if from them there follows proximate danger of sinning mortally, or great scandal, or some other grave evil for religion or the common good, such as disturbance of tranquility in a community, or relaxation of regular discipline in a monastery; and by reason of office, for superiors, because they have care of others.

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.

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.

Fraternal admonition is of natural precept and positive divine precept¹⁹³. ¹⁹³ Ibid., a. 2, o.

It is proved. 1° from Scripture. Christ says, Matt., XVIII, 15: If thy brother shall sin against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

It is proved. 2° by reason. 1° By natural precept we are held to relieve a neighbor in corporal want. Therefore much more one in spiritual want. 2° By the law of nature we are held to lead back the wandering ox of our neighbor. Therefore much more the neighbor himself who wanders. 3° Finally, we are held to love our neighbor. But love of neighbor necessarily imports not only willing and procuring his good, but also averting evil from him when we can. Therefore.

I say 2°: That the precept of admonition may bind, there is required 1° sufficient matter, namely that the sin committed or to be committed be, speaking per se, mortal; 2° certain knowledge of it is required; 3° hope of amendment; 4° necessity of the admonition.

These conditions are proved and explained.

Sufficient matter. — That only mortal sin, and not venial, is per se sufficient and proper matter of fraternal admonition is evident: 1° from the very words of Christ, Matt., XVIII, 15, where, explaining this precept, he says: If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. Therefore he had perished. Now no one perishes as regards spiritual life except through mortal sin. Christ adds that, if he hear not the one admonishing him, witnesses are to be brought in, then he is to be denounced to the Church and held as a heathen and publican. It seems certain these things are not prescribed for venial sins, because they are daily and are found even in the just themselves. 2° Since every admonition is burdensome to the one admonishing and odious to the one admonished, and venial sins are most frequent, if the obligation of admonishing them were urged on, the burden would be unbearable both for those admonishing and those to be admonished, nor could peace or tranquility be preserved among men.

I said, « speaking per se; » because per accidens venial sins can be necessary matter of fraternal admonition, as if from them there would follow scandal, disturbance of tranquility in a community, proximate danger of sinning mortally, or detriment to regular discipline.

Knowledge of the sin. — In order that anyone be held to admonish a neighbor, he must have morally certain knowledge of the sin committed or about to be committed. Whence doubt, suspicion, scruple, or rumor does not suffice; because, since correction inflicts shame and is odious to the corrected, he would justly complain if accused of a sin which does not appear; and often imprudent corrections arising from doubts and uncertain indications cause grave contentions and dissensions. Add that in doubt there must be presumption in favor of the neighbor. For this reason scrupulous persons, who fear and suspect sin in all things, are usually exempted from making the admonition.

Hope of amendment. — That hope of amendment is required is evident¹⁹⁴, because, the end ceasing, the reason for acting on account of the end ceases; but the end of fraternal admonition is the amendment of the neighbor, wherein it differs from judicial admonition, whose end is the common good. Add that by this very fact that the admonition does not profit, it harms, because the admonished, not repenting, sins more gravely. And for this reason those of inferior condition than the one correcting are often excused from fraternal admonition. ¹⁹⁴ Ibid., a. 6, o.

Yet certain hope is not required, but probable suffices, provided also it be probable that the admonition will do no harm. If it be doubted whether it will profit, and it is certain it will not harm, it is to be applied, just as physicians apply a medicine they certainly know will not harm, although they doubt whether it will profit, while there is no other way of helping the sick man. If truly it be doubtful whether it will profit, and equally doubtful whether it will harm, as often happens with strangers and unknown persons whose character we do not know, the hoped-for utility is to be compared with the damage feared, and the greater is to be preferred to the less.

Understand these things of admonition precisely fraternal and intending nothing else than the amendment of the delinquent; because, if it be a question of an admonition which would be taken up toward some other end, as toward impeding injury to a third party or to the republic, or the dishonoring of God through blasphemies, or the seduction of the people by heretics, even if there were no hope of amendment in the sinner, if there be hope of impeding the evil or damage consequent upon his sin, admonition and reproof can and ought to be applied.

Necessity of admonition. — Namely for the amendment of the brother; because, as the Author runs through it¹⁹⁵, fraternal correction is ordered to the amendment of a brother, and therefore falls under precept in this way, inasmuch as it is necessary for that end, but not so that the delinquent be corrected at any place or time whatsoever. ¹⁹⁵ Ibid., a. 2, o.

Whence it follows that, if the brother be already amended, or it be probable that he will amend himself, as is lawfully presumed in those who take care of their salvation and are accustomed frequently to receive the sacraments, nor meanwhile be danger of relapse, you are not held to admonish him. Likewise if he ought to be admonished by others. Yet truly, if there be present some who could perhaps admonish better and more usefully, and yet do not, you are held; because, as was said of corporal alms, all who know are held in solidum.

Moreover it is to be observed that, since these conditions are rarely found all together, rarely also are private men held, at least under grave sin, to fraternal admonition.

You will ask 1° whether the precept of fraternal admonition binds with loss to the one admonishing.

Answer. If the brother be in grave spiritual necessity, from which indeed he could absolutely free himself, yet only with difficulty, whether on account of the vehemence of passion, or on account of inveterate custom and obstinacy in evil, or on account of ignorance or another cause: everyone is held to admonish him with some loss of his temporal goods, because we ought to love the eternal salvation of our neighbor more than certain temporal goods. But those on whom the care of souls devolves by office are held even with peril of life in grave necessity; because they are bound more than others, and ought to be ready to lay down their life for their sheep.

Compare what I said above, dissertation IV on the order of charity, especially article 3.

I said, « in grave spiritual necessity; » because extreme spiritual necessity, namely from which one cannot absolutely free himself, can scarcely be given.

[You will ask 2° whether sinners themselves are held by this precept.

Answer. Affirmatively. « The correction of the delinquent, says the Angelic Doctor¹⁹⁶, pertains to someone inasmuch as right judgment of reason flourishes in him. But sin does not take away the whole good of nature, so that something of right judgment of reason remains in the sinner. And according to this it can belong to him to accuse the delinquency of another. » Yet if he is a public sinner, he ought to abstain from correction on account of scandal, mindful of the words of the Apostle, Rom., II, 21-24: Thou 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. ¹⁹⁶ Ibid., a. 5, o.

You will ask 3° whether even inferiors are held by this precept toward superiors.

Answer. Affirmatively, with St. Thomas saying¹⁹⁷ : « The correction which is an act of justice through coercion by punishment does not belong to a subject toward a prelate. But fraternal correction, which is an act of charity, belongs to each one toward any person whatever toward whom he owes charity, if there be found in him something correctible. For an act proceeding from some habit or power extends itself to all things contained under the object of that power or habit, as vision to all things contained under the object of sight. But because a virtuous act ought to be moderated by due circumstances, therefore in the correction by which subjects correct prelates a fitting mode should be used, namely that they be admonished not with insolence and harshness, but with mildness and reverence. Whence the Apostle says, I Tim., V, 1: An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father. » ¹⁹⁷ Ibid., a. 4, o.

You will ask 4° whether he who sins from ignorance ought to be admonished.

I answer. 1°. If he sins from vincibile ignorance, certainly he is to be admonished, because then he is in bad faith, nor is he excused from sin.

I answer. 2°. If he offends from invincible ignorance, he is to be warned: 1° when things necessary to salvation are in question, or turning away the scandal of others. Nor is admonition to be passed over, even though the amendment of the delinquent could scarcely be hoped for, lest perhaps others judge licit what will not be corrected. If it be objected that his sin will then become formal from material, and he could thence perish spiritually: it must be answered that in the prior case he would likewise perish, from invincible ignorance too, of the things necessary to salvation; in the latter case, that charity requires that the scandal of the neighbor be prevented. 2° When divine law, natural or positive, is violated, even if only materially, and the fruit of warning can be hoped for; for knowledge and observance of the certain law is always something good and above all desirable. So commonly. But if amendment cannot probably be foreseen, the delinquent is to be left in good faith, lest he sin formally. 3° If truly mere human law is in question, several contradicting: more probably the warning is to be made, if it seem able prudently to be done, for removing the depraved habit¹⁹⁸ . Certainly they must take notice of such a delinquent who are held by office to teach their subjects, as a prelate, confessors, masters¹⁹⁹ . ¹⁹⁸ St. Lig., lib. III, d. 36. ¹⁹⁹ Id., lib. VI, n. 610, obi. 1ª at the end.

Christ handed down this order, Matt., XVIII, 15-17, in these words: If thy brother shall sin against thee, go and rebuke 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 yet one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. But if he will not hear them, tell the Church; and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and publican. There are therefore three grades in the order of fraternal admonition: first, to admonish secretly; second, to admonish before one or two witnesses; third, to tell the Church or the prelate. The question is whether this order is of precept as regards all its grades²⁰⁰ . ²⁰⁰ Hic q. 33, a. 7, c.

I say 1°: If the sin be public, that is, known to the greater part of the community, secret admonition ought not necessarily precede denunciation, but he is to be reproved publicly, according to that word, I Tim., V, 20: Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear; which Augustine understands of public sins, Serm. 822, concluding: « Therefore those things themselves are to be reproved before all which are sinned before all; those themselves are to be reproved more secretly which are sinned more secretly. »

The reason is²⁰¹ : 1° Because, when sin is public, a remedy is not only to be applied to him who sinned, that he become better, but also to others into whose knowledge it comes, that they be not scandalized. 2° Because the end on account of which secret admonition should precede, which is preservation of reputation, ceases when through the publicity of the sin the reputation of the sinner has been lost. ²⁰¹ Ubi supra.

I say 2°: If the sin be hidden, but tending to the harm of others, whether corporal or spiritual — say if someone secretly treat of betraying his fatherland, if a heretic privately turn men from the faith, if a magician or sorcerer secretly act to the destruction of others, if an apothecary sell pernicious drugs, etc. — one must proceed straightway to denunciation, secret admonition not having preceded, so that such harm may be impeded²⁰² : partly because then the words of the Lord have no place, for the brother sinning does not sin against thee only; partly because we ought rather to care that an innocent neighbor not be injured in body or soul than that the sinner's reputation be lost. ²⁰² Ibid.

Except, unless perhaps someone firmly judge that he could straightway impede evils of this kind through private admonition²⁰³ . But this scarcely holds place with heretics, who are unwilling to hear even the Church herself, and with magicians and sorcerers, on account of their obstinate will in evil. ²⁰³ Ibid.

I say 3°: If the sin be hidden and harmful only to the sinner himself and to him against whom it is sinned, speaking per se, a secret warning must necessarily precede denunciation²⁰⁴ . ²⁰⁴ Ibid.

It is proved. 1° from the words of Christ: If thy brother shall sin against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. 2° By natural law we are held to cure our neighbor with less, so far as can be done, damage to his reputation; for reputation is useful both in temporal and in spiritual things: just as a physician confers bodily health upon the sick man, if he can, without amputation of any limb; but if he cannot, he cuts off the less necessary limb, that the life of the whole be preserved. Therefore the reputation of the sinning brother ought not to be diminished before a superior when amendment is hoped for through private correction. 3° Because immediate denunciation without secret warning often moves the neighbor to indignation against the denouncer, and to further fall, according to that word of Jerome on the cited words of Matt.: « The brother must be rebuked apart, lest, if once he lose shame or modesty, he remain in sin. » For many are withheld from sin by fear of infamy who, when they see themselves defamed, sin unrestrainedly.

I said, « speaking per se; » because per accidens secret correction is not to precede denunciation in certain cases. 1° It is not to precede if it be solidly presumed not profitable²⁰⁵ . 2° If the one about to correct be less fit for correcting, and it appear that it will be done better by the prelate, inasmuch as the prelate is pious, discreet, spiritual, not bearing rancor or hatred against the subject, and able to impede the sin in many ways, although delation be made to him at once. He says the same concerning some other pious and prudent man. ²⁰⁵ Quodl. 11, a. 13, c.

Nor is this to tell the Church; because it is not said to the prelate as to a judge and superior, but as to a person profiting toward the correction and amendment of a neighbor, and quasi as a brother.

Nor even thereby is the precept of the Lord violated of secret warning preceding denunciation; because, since it is affirmative and directed to the good of correcting, it ought to be observed insofar as the circumstances of places, times, and persons indicate it ought to be observed. Nor can the corrected one complain of his defamation before a superior; for this defamation is light, attending to the prudence, probity, and benevolence presupposed in the prelate, and he ought to endure it for obtaining a better manner of his salvation.

I say 4°: If after secret admonition applied several times fruitlessly there be hope that, proceeding further, the brother will amend himself, we ought to proceed further, bringing in witnesses, then denouncing the prelate as a father, however hidden the sin be. But if there be no hope that, proceeding further, the brother will amend himself, one must not proceed beyond private warning²⁰⁶ . ²⁰⁶ Ibid., c. et ad 1.

It is proved as to the first part: 1° from the law enacted by Christ. 2° By charity we are held to consult the reputation and salvation of our neighbor, salvation however more than reputation, if both cannot be had. Therefore if the introduction of witnesses or denunciation be necessary to the salvation of our neighbor, the light injury to reputation from the introduction of witnesses or from the denunciation made to the prelate as to a father ought to be neglected, that salvation be obtained; just as a prudent physician, for preserving the life of the whole, cuts off the less necessary member, as we said above from the Author.

It is proved as to the second part. Fraternal correction and its whole process are ordered to the good and amendment of the brother; wherefore, when the amendment of the brother is not hoped for from proceeding to the introduction of witnesses and to denunciation, one must abstain from these.

I said, « denouncing the prelate as a father; » because, if the hidden sin of the brother be harmful only to himself, nor such that the common good requires its being brought to judgment, it is not licit to denounce by juridical denunciation the prelate as judge, but only as father; nor can the prelate, to whom this sin becomes known by way of fraternal correction, proceed judicially against that brother, nor punish him with public excommunication or other defaming penalty: because fraternal correction itself and its whole order and process are ordered to the good alone and amendment of the brother, but judicial process to the common and public good only. Add that the brother through his hidden sin has not lost his right to reputation, nor does the good of the republic require that he be defamed. Therefore the delinquent subject-brother is to be denounced fraternally to the prelate as father, so that the prelate cannot chastise him with public excommunication or with other defaming penalties of law, but before the denouncer and witnesses, or a few grave men, reprove him and chastise him with moderate private penalties, as flagellation, fasting, and the like, and forbid him under penalty of excommunication lest he relapse into such sin. But if he obey not, he shall be excommunicated, and thus as a heathen and publican, as the sentence of Christ declares, yet not publicly, but privately; nor can he be denounced as such while the sin remains hidden.

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.

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.

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.

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.

THE whole troop of the Sectarians, because they esteem themselves to be led by a blind impulse like beasts of burden, endowed with no free will unto acting, utterly exclude every fraternal correction; for they do not desire to be made better, who are ever rushing into worse.

YET that it is a matter of precept, all Theologians teach in 4. dist. 19. There D. Bonav. dub. 4. litt. says: Concerning fraternal correction, this must be noted, that a man is then bound to correct, when he sees his brother sin gravely, and believes with probability that it will profit, and not harm. Yet this must be guarded against, lest anyone form for himself a foolish conscience from a slight conjecture. And in the Speculum animae, cap. 3. he says: The correction of one's neighbor is a matter of precept for all, when it is known, or believed, that the correction will impede a sin that would otherwise be committed. And although it is a matter of precept for all; yet especially for those upon whom it rests by office, as are Masters, Princes, Prelates, and these can sin more gravely in this. That correction, however, is a matter of precept for all, is clear from August. de verbis Domini, serm. 16. If you neglect to correct, you have become worse than he who sinned. So also D. Thom. quaest. 33. art. 2. where the Expositors, and Canonists on cap. Novit, extra de Iudiciis, and on the Can. si peccaverit, 2. quaest. 1.

IT IS PROVED by S. Doct. in the Biblia pauperum cap. 36. with very many examples of the Scriptures. The rule of this, he says, was given to Peter, Matth. 18. If thy brother sin against thee, etc. By which testimony the precept is evidently had.

SO Innocent III. alleges it in cap. cum ex iniuncto, extra de haereticis. Anacletus, dist. 24. q. 3. the Can. tum Sacerdotis. Origen homil. 3. in Lev. Basil. in moral. summa 52. cap. 2. Chrysost. homil. 60. in Matth. Jerome on Psal. 140. August. serm. 16. de verbis Domini. Gregory lib. 22. Regist. epistle 31. whom Valentia reports disp. 3. quaest. 10. punct. 2. and others at D. Bonau. lib. 4. Pharetrae, cap. 38.

THE SAME S. Doct. proves at 17. Luke from the precept imposed there. And 2. Timot. 4. Reprove, beseech, rebuke, etc. and Eccles. 19. Correct a friend, lest perhaps he have not understood. Eccles. 17. He commanded them to instruct every one his neighbor. 1 Timot. 5. Them that sin reprove.

IT IS PROVED by reason there by D. Bonavent. taken from D. Gregory, because we are bound to love our neighbor as ourselves; therefore also especially as to salvation. Valentia adduces this reason, thence gathering that it is a precept of nature, acknowledged by Aristotle himself 9. Eth. cap. 3.

SECONDLY it is proved by D. Bonau. dist. 19. of the fourth sent. in dubiis litt. For if the precept of corporal alms stands, much more of spiritual. So also Valentia.

THEREFORE Christ thus commands gravely, Luke 17. Take heed to yourselves, as if to say: First make yourself fit, that you may be able to correct another, lest it be said to you: Thou who teachest not to steal, dost steal. And this Rom. 2. Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself. And this Matth. 7. Hypocrite, cast out first the beam from thine own eye; and then thou shalt see to cast out the mote from thy brother's eye. And this Luke 4. Physician, cure thyself, as S. Doctor notes there in his commentary. If thy brother (says Christ) sin against thee, rebuke him. Therefore: If he sin in te, which is wont to be expounded in two ways, as S. Doct. says. In te, that is, against thee. Which sense is clear from Peter's question: How often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? So expound Jerome, and Chrysost. there. Ambrose at 17. Luke. Hilar. can. 18. in Matth. and August. serm. 16. de verbis Domini, where he also embraces the second exposition: If he sin in te, that is, before thee: Lyra there, S. Thom. quodl. 11. art. 12. and according to this exposition, which does not exclude the other, the precept of correcting one's neighbor is given, however he may sin, whether against us, or against God.

What all Doctors suppose, especially D. August. loc. cit. concluding, not only when one sins against us, but when one sins, with others not knowing it, we ought in secret to correct him.

This, however, is a precept, when the neighbor has sinned mortally. Therefore Christ says: If he hear thee, thou shalt have gained thy brother. Whence S. August. in the sermon cited infers: If thou hast gained thy brother, then thou hadst perished.

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

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.