174. “Fraternal correction”
174. “FRATERNAL CORRECTION”
Shouldn’t we avoid offending people? Should we pester them and bother them about good and evil? “Fraternal correction” sounds nice but nobody is grateful for it. Tell them they’re sinning? You may as well tell them they’re fat and ugly and smell bad.
Augustine says: You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him. . . . Fraternal correction is a matter of precept.
We must observe, however, that while the negative precepts of the Law forbid sinful acts . . . always and for all times . . . (the positive) acts of virtue must . . . be done . . . by observing the due circumstances . . . namely that it be done where, when, and how it ought to be done . . . (we do not) have to correct our erring brother at all places and times. . . . For Augustine says: If a man refrain from chiding and reproving wrongdoers because he awaits a suitable time for so doing, or because he fears lest if he does so they may become worse . . . or turn away from the faith . . . this (is) to be counseled by charity. . . .
(But) when (as he says in the same passage) one fears what people may think, or lest one may suffer grievous pain . . . one commits a . . . sin.
Since the admonition which is given in fraternal correction is directed to the removal of a brother’s sin. . . . this admonition is chiefly an act of charity . . . but secondarily an act of prudence. . . .
Fraternal correction is not opposed to forbearance with the weak, on the contrary it results from it. For a man bears with a sinner in so far as he is not disturbed against him and retains his goodwill towards him, the result being that he strives to make him do better (II-II, 33, 1).
One ought to forego fraternal correction when we fear lest we may make a man worse. . . . When it is deemed probable that the sinner will not take the warning and will become worse, such fraternal correction should be foregone, because the means should be regulated according to the requirements of the end. . . . Whatever is directed to an end becomes good through being directed to the end. Hence whenever fraternal correction hinders the end, namely the amendment of our brother, it is no longer good (II-II,33,6).
Once again, St. Thomas is the voice of reason and common moral sense, avoiding two extreme and opposite errors. On the one hand, to “reprove the sinner” is a “precept”, a commandment. And as Augustine says, we share the sinner’s guilt if we fail to speak. (For “silence betokens consent” is a maxim of law.) Fear for our own comfort, and worry about “human respect”, are no excuse for silence. On the other hand, we are not commanded to be bull-headed, stupid, obtuse, pesty, or self-righteous. Timing is important, and “forbearance” is a virtue too when needed. Fear that our speaking will make the sinner worse is a legitimate fear, and it is possible to pay too little attention to it. But fear of emotional pain is not. Fear of sin should trump fear of pain. (See point #27 on which is the greater evil, pain or sin.)
Today, much more than in St. Thomas’ day, the sins that are by far the most commonly approved are sexual. Many Catholics have been so badly educated that they have never been taught, and do not believe, that contraception, fornication, and sodomy are sins at all. They do not know that it is not just the Church’s “opinion” or “ideology” but God Himself Who forbids them. This situation calls for far more “fraternal correction” than in the past.
But because sexual sins are so attractive and addictive, it is more likely that their “fraternal correction” will be met with anger and the breaking of friendships than the correcting of these sins.
Neither of these two truths contradicts or removes the other.
There’s no avoiding the risk of making a prudential judgment call about the sinner’s needs and likely reaction to correction, both immediate and long-range. (They may hate you today and thank you tomorrow for correcting them. Or they may thank you today but hate you tomorrow for not correcting them!) The one thing we must always keep in mind is the end, which is not our comfort or convenience or that of our neighbor, but our neighbor’s true good, both temporal and eternal.
The words of the 20th-century Catholic phenomenologist Dietrich Von Hildebrand so perfectly flesh out St. Thomas’ advice concerning fraternal correction that I here make an exception to my rule of one page only for each point so that you can receive and profit by these moral and psychological gems of wisdom from his Transformation in Christ: It deals not with sin in general, but how to deal with sins, harms, or offenses against yourself.
“The attitude of rancorous enmity is not the only antithesis to the Christian spirit of forgiveness. Another attitude opposed to it is that of simply ignoring the wrong inflicted upon us, as though nothing had happened. This aberration may result from laziness, from faintness of heart, or from a sickly, mawkish clinging to outward peace. We hold our comfort too dear to ‘fight it out’ with our aggressor; or again, we feel terrified at the thought of any tension or hostility, and fear lest a sharp reaction on our part should exasperate the adversary; or perhaps we yield just out of respect for the abstract idol of peace.
“This is a kind of behavior far remote from the genuine love of peace or from a genuine spirit of forgiveness. It can never achieve the true harmony of peace, but at best a superficial cloaking of enmity, a mood of false joviality which drags our souls towards the peripheral.
“Also, people who behave thus fail to consider the moral damage that their supineness is likely to inflict on others. It is very often necessary to draw a person’s attention to the wrong he has done us—in fact, necessary for his own good. To pass over it in silence may easily encourage him in his bad dispositions. But we cannot reproach him to good purpose—that is, without provoking strife—unless we have ourselves attained to that serene attitude cleansed of all impulsive resentment, in other words, unless we have truly forgiven him. . . .
“When we have risen above the mood of regarding his awareness or admission of his wrong as a satisfaction to ourselves, then only shall we be able to ponder judiciously and to decide pertinently whether or not it is necessary for us to remonstrate with him for his good. . . .
“Our admonition should not bear, properly speaking, the note of a reproach. It should rather be in the character of a humble and amicable exposition of our grief, a gentle invitation to our friend to consider the matter in a valid perspective and to collect himself anew” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), pp. 341-43.