Scandal

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Notion of scandal

According toSt. Thomas (II-II:43:1) scandal is a word or actionevil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external act—for an internal act can have no influence on the conduct of another—or the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden; it must beevil in itself, or in appearance; this is the interpretation of the words ofSt. Thomas:minus rectum. It is not the physical cause of a neighbor'ssin, but only the moral cause, or occasion; further, this moralcausality may be understood in a strict sense, as when one orders, requests, or advises another to commit thesin (this is strictlyinductive scandal, which some call co-operation in a broad sense), or in a large sense, as when aperson without being directly concerned in thesin nevertheless exercises a certain influence on thesin of his neighbor, e.g. by committing such asin in his presence (this isinductive scandal in a broad sense). For scandal to exist it is therefore essential and sufficient, with regard to the nature of the act and the circumstances under which it takes place, that it be of a nature to inducesin in another; consequently it is notnecessary that the neighbour should actually fall intosin; and on the other hand, for scandal strictly so-called, it is not enough that a neighbour take occasion to doevil from a word or action which is not a subject of scandal and exercises no influence on his action; it must be acause of spiritual ruin, that is ofsin, consequently that is not scandal which merely dissuades the neighbour from a more perfect act, as for instance,prayer, the practice of the Evangelical virtues, the more frequent use of thesacraments, etc. Still less can that be considered scandal, which only arouses comment, indignation, horror etc., for instanceblasphemy committed in the presence of apriest or of a religious; it istrue that the act arouses indignation and in common parlance it is often called scandalous, but this way of speaking is inaccurate, and in strictlytheological terminology it is not thesin of scandal. Hence scandal is in itself anevil act, at least in appearance, and as such it exercises on the will of another an influence more or less great which induces tosin. Furthermore, when the action from which another takesoccasion of sin is not bad, either in itself or in appearance, it may violate charity (see below), but strictly speaking it is not thesin of scandal. However, some authorities understanding the word scandal in a wider sense include in it this case

Divisions

(1) Scandal is divided into active and passive. Active scandal is that which has been defined above; passive scandal is thesin which another commits in consequence of active scandal. Passive scandal is called scandal given (scandalum datum), when the act of the scandalizer is of a nature to occasion it; and scandal received (acceptum), when the action of the one who scandalizes is due solely toignorance or weakness—this is scandal of the weak (infirmorum),—or to malice andevil inclinations—this ispharisaical scandal, which was that of thePharisees with regard to the words and actions of Christ.

(2) Active scandal is direct when he who commits it has the intention of inducing another tosin; such is thesin of one who solicits another to the crime ofadultery, theft etc. If one prevails upon another to commit thesin not only because of an advantage or pleasure believed to accrue therefrom but chiefly because of thesin itself, because it is an offence toGod or the ruin of a neighbor'ssoul, direct scandal is called by the expressive name of diabolical scandal. On the other hand scandal is only indirect when without the intention to cause another to fall intosin we say a word or perform a deed which is for him anoccasion of sin

Malice

(1) That active scandal is a mortalsinChrist Himself has taught (Matthew 18:6 sqq.) and reason makes evident. If charity obliges us to assist our neighbor's temporal and spiritual necessities (seeALMS; CORRECTION) it obliges us still more strongly not to be to him acause ofsin or spiritual ruin. Hence it follows that everysin of scandal is contrary to charity.

Moreover (2) direct scandal is obviously contrary to the virtue against which another is induced tosin; in fact every virtue forbids not only its violation by ourselves but also that we should desire its violation by another.

(3) Indirect scandal is also contrary to charity (see above); but is it also opposed to the virtue violated by another?St. Alphonsus answers in the affirmative; others, and this seems thetrue opinion, deny this. In fact no one has hithertoproved this species of malice, and those who admit it are not consistent with themselves, for they should also maintain, which no one does, that anyone who is indirectly the cause of aninjustice by another is also bound to restitution; what istrue ofjustice should hold good for the other virtues.

Cases in which the sin of scandal occurs

The question remains: When is there asin of scandal? for it is obvious not all who anoccasion of sin to others are thereby guilty.

(1) As a general rule thesin of scandal exists when one directly induces another to do a thing which he cannot do withoutsin, either formal or material, e.g. by soliciting aperson toperjury, drunkenness,sins of the flesh, etc., even though theperson induced to this act is habitually or at the time disposed to commit it. It is otherwise when the thing we ask is good or indifferent; this may be done without scandal and withoutsin, when there is a just cause or serious reason for asking it; even though one foresees that the other will probablysin in granting it; thus for the common weal a judge may demand anoath even from those who will probably commitperjury; one who has need of money and who cannot find anyone who will lend to him may have recourse to anusurer although he foresees that the latter will exact exorbitant andunjust interest, etc. The thing asked must be withoutsin either formal or material because it is not allowed to profit by theignorance of another to induce him to commit what is forbidden, to cause a child to utterblasphemies, to induce someone who is unaware of the precept of theChurch to eat flesh on a fast day and so on. In fact in all these cases thesin is to be ascribed to theperson who endeavors to cause it This is the general rule, but here the question arises, may one advise another bent on committing a great crime to be satisfied instead with doing something lessevil? This question is much discussed, but the opinion which considers such a course justifiable is probable and may be followed in practice. In fact the advice thus given is not properly speaking advice to doevil but to do a lesserevil or rather not to do the greaterevil which a man intends to commit; therefore some writers exact that the words or circumstances must demonstrate that one advises theevil solely as the lesserevil; others, however, consider it sufficient that such be the intention, even when not made manifest, of theperson who gives the advice. Nevertheless, if a man had decided to do an injury to a certainperson one could not—unless in exceptional circumstances—induce him to do a lesser injury to any otherperson.

(2) He is guilty of thesin of scandal who without positively pledging or inducing tosin nevertheless performs an actevil in itself which will be anoccasion of sin to another. The same must be said when the act isevil only in appearance, unless there be sufficient reason to act and to permit the fault of another Thus those whoblaspheme before others when they foresee that their example will cause the latter toblaspheme are guilty of scandal; so also those who attack religion ormorals, hold immoral conversation, sing immoral songs or (by their behaviour dress, writings etc.) offend against thelaws of decency and modesty, when they foresee, as is usual, that those who see, hear, or read will be impelled tosin.

(3) To prevent another'ssin one may even be bound to forego an act which issinful neither in itself nor in appearance, but which is nevertheless theoccasion of sin to another, unless there be sufficient reason to act otherwise. It has already been shown that when there is a just cause we may ask of another a thing which he can do withoutsin although we may foresee that he will not do it without fault. Likewise we are not bound to be disturbed bypharisaical scandal, which may follow an action we perform; but we must avoid scandalizing the weak if we can do so easily. The application of these principles depends on concrete circumstances, which vary with each case; however, the following general rules may be given:

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT