On Fraternal Correction

 

ON FRATERNAL CORRECTION

“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

While fraternal correction is a salutary idea in theory—Jesus himself advocates it—in practice it may be problematic for at least two reasons: moral ambiguity, and the abuse of religious or spiritual authority.

Who is to say that the agent of fraternal correction is in the right, or that he or she in a particular instance possesses the necessary moral ascendancy? In all too many instances, moral ambiguity exists.

begin 

In the year 1054 slavery was widely accepted; in 1854 it was widely, though not universally condemned; by 1954 it was universally condemned, yet the residual practices connected with slavery, such as segregation and racism, remained. Why were all of those practices tolerated, and even in many instances applauded, whether in 1054, 1854, or 1954? We have argued that at least in part this was due to the invincible ignorance of our culture at that time. Yet with time and considerable corporate effort, we have reached a level of insight on these issues which has lifted the veil of invincible ignorance on a particular issue. What will we see in 2054 as morally reprehensible that is tolerated today? How is this development in our cultural traditions of moral wisdom achieved? With lots and lots of effort and moral energy expended over time our moral vision has been and will continue to be corrected. So while ignorance may seem to be invincible, this is not absolutely the case for all time, as both individuals and whole societies can grow in moral wisdom.

end

In James T. Bretzke, S.J., A Morally Complex World: Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology (Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines: Jesuit Communications Foundation, Inc., 2004), page 137

Fraternal correction so-called may be abused when in morally ambiguous situations this practice is instigated, perpetrated, or co-opted by religious or spiritual authority. Let us remember, for example, that for centuries it was the Roman Catholic Church that taught that the practice of slavery was morally acceptable under specific, commonplace conditions.

In contrast, by officially and categorically repudiating slavery in the eighteenth century, the Quakers showed themselves more progressive than Roman Catholics in this regard.

Fraternal correction is very easily abused as a means of enforcing social conformity in morally ambiguous, or worse, morally oppressive situations. Historically, for example, Roman Catholicism supported the practice of slavery. Clergy, religious, and even popes owned slaves. Teaching the moral acceptability of slavery might not be fraternal correction exactly, but the effect of wielding religious and spiritual authority to enforce alignment with questionable social values and norms is the same.

Let us not forget that the human being is homo socius. As a result, he or she readily succumbs to punitive injunctions inspired by the impulse to social conformity, in morally ambiguous situations especially so. Milgram’s experiment is a classic scientific demonstration that by ready extrapolation remains a testament to the moral frailty of social systems and institutions, including, remarkably so, that of the Roman Catholic Church.

We might add that activism in opposition to morally questionable beliefs and practices played an important role in the moral advancement of the polity, illustrated in the case of systemic slavery. With respect to the practice of slavery, still existing, activism continues to this day. We would observe that activism—action—has both merit and efficacy, even though the latter is necessarily limited. The point remains, however: action is morally good. Manifestly, in at least some important instances, silence is moral paralysis.