Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

Fraternal admonition is of natural precept and positive divine precept¹.

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 evident², 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.

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 it³, 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.

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 Doctor⁴, 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.

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

Answer. Affirmatively, with St. Thomas saying⁵ : « 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. »

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 habit⁶ . Certainly they must take notice of such a delinquent who are held by office to teach their subjects, as a prelate, confessors, masters⁷ .