SFO Fraternity question

Hello:

Looking for comments on this event. Pls indicate if your franciscan.

I'm a candidate in a Franciscan fraternity. When a counsel member (A) was asked by a candidate how he was doing so far, he said that he was doing well, but hadn't heard anything bad from another counsel member(B), so the candidate presumed he meant that (A) took that to mean no bad news is good news. The candidate is happy with the answer.

But what struck him was that (A) needed to hear from (B) in the first place. His argument was that Admonition25 specifically states that members need to confront other members for anything he needs to know, and frowns on diverting to someone else. So he's puzzled has to why (A )needed to get second hand information from (B), since all information should be after the fact if we are to follow Francis's rules to the letter. In fact if the rules are being followed, (A) could have asked the candidate outright rather than waiting for (B). He is dismayed that the institution itself does not set a good example. In other words there should be no pertinent information received by (A) about the fault of another member that was not already made aware to him by (B) and corrected. Every re-hash becomes a case of double jeopardy of sorts since every case by Ad25 creates a dead file and a reassessment of an old case.

Another point too is that Francis would have drawn up the rule in conditions where candidates were being assessed, so the rule still fits in the context of the situation that develops.

Thanks