7. Scandal.
What is scandal?
This vice, opposed to the beneficence of charity, may be defined, with S. Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii. 27), as "a word or deed deficient in rectitude, giving occasion for the spiritual ruin of another." As one may put a stumbling-block in another's way, so that, if he encounter it, he is liable to get a fall, so, in the progress along the spiritual road, one by his advice, persuasion, or example may lead another into sin; this is scandal. But nothing according to its proper nature disposes any one to spiritual ruin, unless it be deficient in rectitude. For that which is perfectly right rather strengthens one against a fall than leads him to his ruin.
Both that is defective in rectitude which is evil in itself, and that which has the appearance of evil; for even if there be no corrupt intention in it, it may give occasion for another's fall. And therefore the apostle said (1 Thess. v. 22), "Abstain from every appearance of evil."
The word or deed of any one can be in two ways the occasion for another's sin. First, per se, when the evil word or deed is actually intended to induce another to sin (direct, active scandal); or, even though not so intended, the action is of such a nature that it incites another to do wrong (indirect, active scandal); as when one publicly sins, or does what has the appearance of evil. And then he who does anything of this kind, properly speaking, gives occasion for falling. These are active scandals.
But, secondly, per accidens some word or deed of one person is the cause of another's sinning, when, apart from the intention of the one who does the action, and without the action itself having any such tendency, some one ill-disposed is by this action induced to sin, say, to envy another's goods; and then he whose action is right does not give occasion, but the other takes it. This is passive scandal without any active scandal. Sometimes, then, it happens that active scandal is found in one and passive scandal in another, as when one induces another to commit sin. But sometimes there is active scandal without the passive, as when one by word or deed tries to lead another into sin, and he does not consent. And finally there is sometimes passive scandal without active (the scandal of the weak through ignorance or infirmity, and the scandal of the Pharisee through his own malicious wickedness).
Is scandal a sin?
Passive scandal -- i.e., the scandal in him who receives it -- is always sin in him, since he is not, properly speaking, scandalized, unless in some way he fall into spiritual ruin, which is sin. (Note that "offence," Rom. xiv. 21, is indignation against him who sins, which can exist without this fall.) But passive scandal can exist without any sin on his part from whom the scandal proceeds, as when any one is scandalized by those things which another has done with perfect rectitude.
Similarly, active scandal also is always sin in him who gives the occasion for it, because either what he does is sin, or, if it have only the appearance of evil, he is bound in charity to avoid it, since it is the duty of every one to care for his neighbour's salvation. And so he who does not avoid occasion for scandal acts against charity. But we have seen that the active scandal may exist without any sin on the other side (e.g., one may be "offended," without himself falling).
(1) The Lord said (S. Matt. xviii. 7), "It must needs be that offences (scandals) come." But this is not to be understood in the sense of absolute necessity. There is a conditional necessity of what God foreknows or has foretold; also there is a conditional necessity of that which is useful for some end, and scandals are useful that they "who are approved may be made manifest" (1 Cor. xi. 19). Scandals are conditionally necessary, also, according to the condition of men who will not keep themselves from sin. So a physician might say, when he saw the mischievous diet of his patient, "He is bound to have a long spell of sickness;" meaning, if he do not change his diet.
Active scandal per se -- i.e., when one by his word or deed intends to draw another into sin -- is a special sin, not that which is per accidens, there being no such intention (direct or indirect).
For the aiming at a special end constitutes a new sin over and above the original sinfulness of the act in question. And so active scandal may be found apart from other sins, as when one scandalizes his neighbour by an act which is not sin in itself, but which has the appearance of evil.
Is scandal a mortal sin?
Passive scandal may be a stumbling only, without actual fall; this will be venial sin, as when one through the inordinate word or deed of another is moved in a venial manner only. But passive scandal may be mortal, sin, as when one in such a case proceeds to actual mortal sin.
But active scandal, if it be per accidens (not intended either directly or indirectly), may be venial sin, as when the thing which is done is in itself venial, or has only the appearance of evil, and is committed through some light indiscretion.
But sometimes it is mortal sin, whether because the act is in itself such, or because the salvation of our neighbour is made of no account, and one does not for the sake of that give up what he chooses to do. But if we speak of active scandal per se -- viz., the intending to lead another into sin -- it is mortal if the sin is such, or if the intention is such in him who gives scandal; but it may be venial if sin and intention are such.
In this way we may understand the Gospel (S. Matt. xviii. 6), and S. Paul (1 Cor. viii. 12).
Those who perfectly adhere to God through love take no occasion of stumbling from others' words or deeds. Much less do they give reasonable occasion for active scandal to the weak. Through human infirmity, iadeed, they may fall somewhat short of the perfect standard set before them, but they do not go far away, nor so far that another can reasonably take occasion of sin from their words or deeds.
Remember, however, that one may scandalize himself (Pharisaic scandal). Consider the ease of S. Peter (Gal. ii. 14); was his sin so grave that others could be justly scandalized? (Or did he fall, and repent, and return to the measure of a perfect man?)
Venial sins may be found in perfect men, but they are chiefly those sudden motions of the passions which are inward and do not give scandal. If those infirmities appear outwardly in venial sins, those sins are so light as not to have in themselves power of giving scandal.
May spiritual goods be given up on account of scandal?
There can be no question about active scandal. Sin can never be lawful. But if we speak of passive scandal, there may be a question as to what is to be given up lest another be scandalized. But among spiritual goods there are some which are necessary for salvation, which cannot be abandoned without mortal sin. But it is manifest that no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to hinder another from doing wrong. In the order of charity man ought to place his own spiritual safety higher than another's. Things, therefore, which are necessary to salvation may not be left undone for the sake of avoiding scandal.
But in the case of spiritual goods which are not necessary to salvation, we should distiuguish two kinds of scandal. For the scandal which arises from these sometimes springs from malice, when there are those who wish to hinder such spiritual goods by exciting scandals. Such were the Pharisees who were scandalized at our Lord's teachings (S. Matt. xv. 12). This sort of scandal the Lord taught us to treat with contempt. But sometimes the scandal comes from infirmity or ignorance, the scandal of the weak. On account of this, spiritual goods may be kept hidden or even sometimes deferred when there is no imminent spiritual danger in doing so, until, further explanation having been given, the scandal may cease. But if after such explanations it still endure, it may possibly seem to come from malice; if so, spiritual goods are not to be relinquished on account of it.
(Note that argument may not put an end to scandal of the weak, however sound the argument may be. For the weak may be very weak in logic, or have their heads full of other arguments, with no room for more; or they may be so hardened in old habits that arguments run off from the surface of their minds, unable to enter any further.)
(1) But S. Augustine teaches that the discipline of sins may sometimes be passed over if there be great danger of schism (Contra Epist. Parmen. ii.). So a spiritual good, an act of justice, would be neglected on account of scandal. But I reply that punishment is not to be sought on its own account, but penalties of Church discipline are medicinal, intended to prevent sins, and they are so far just as they have that tendency. But if, through enforcing Church discipline, manifestly more and greater sins will follow, then the infliction of penalties will not come under the idea of justice. This is the case of which S. Augustine is speaking, where the excommunication of some will probably be followed by the schism of others.
(2) But sacred truth is to be held back on account of scandal. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine; lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" (S. Matt. vii. 6). I reply that sacred truth and the teaching of it are here to be distinguished. That truth is so necessary to salvation that the contrary of it may under no circumstances be taught for fear of any scandal whatsoever which will follow the proclamation of the truth. But he whose duty it is to teach the truth will give it according to what fits the times and the persons. This teaching is one of those spiritual works of mercy of which we shall presently speak.
(3) Fraternal correction, also, is intended for the amendment of a brother, and it is a spiritual good so far as this can be attained. But if he be scandalized by it, it is not a spiritual good. Therefore, if such fraternal correction be passed by through fear of scandal, a spiritual good is not given up.
(4) But you may say that the giving of alms and the following of spiritual counsels may sometimes be left undone on account of scandal. I reply that counsels or works of mercy are not to be left undone on account of scandal, although, for the sake of the weak, they may be concealed or deferred. But sometimes the observance of spiritual counsels or the works of mercy may be necessary to salvation. There are those who have vowed to follow the counsels of perfection; there are those whose office and duty it is to assist the poor or to teach the ignorant; there are cases occurring of extreme necessity in all such cases the principle already laid down respecting what is necessary to salvation applies; they may not be neglected through fear of scandal.
(5) But ought not one to commit some trifling venial transgression on account of some grave scandal -- say, to hinder another's mortal sin? For a man ought to hinder the damnation of his neighbour, if he can do so without loss of his own soul.
But there is contradiction in these terms. For if the thing may be lawfully done, it is not evil, it is not even venial sin; for sin can never be rightly chosen. I grant, however, that it may happen that something which would be venial sin under other circumstances, may be no sin at all, those circumstances not being present. A jest is venial sin under certain circumstances, but if it be uttered for reasonable cause it is not an idle word, it is no sin.
Are temporal goods to be given up on account of scandal?
Observe that a distinction must be made between what is our own and what is entrusted to our care, if we are guardians of Church property or of the goods of the commonwealth (or trustees of minors, etc.). Such deposits we are bound to preserve, and they are not to be resigned on account of scandal; neither are those things which are necessary for human life to be given up. But as respects those things over which we have dominion, sometimes on account of scandal we ought to let them go by giving them up, or not seeking them when others have them, and sometimes we ought not to do any such thing. For if the scandal arise from the ignorance or infirmity of others (scandal of the weak), temporal goods are to be abandoned, or the scandal is to be stopped by proper admonition.
But sometimes scandal originates in malice (the scandal of Pharisees). Property is not to be surrendered on account of those who excite such scandal, because such a course would be injurious to the common good, giving occasion for robbery to the evil-disposed; and it would be injurious to the plunderers themselves, who, by keeping others' goods, would continue in open sin.
(1) It is true that we ought to prefer the spiritual salvation of our neighbour to any earthly goods; but this principle can only apply to scandal of the weak.
(2) When S. Paul said: "Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died" (1 Rom. xiv. 15), he was speaking, of course, of what is not necessary for bodily sustenance; as again in 1 Cor. viii. 13: "If meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I make not my brother to stumble."
(3) Our Lord (S. Matt. v. 40) said: "If any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." And S. Paul to the same effect (1 Cor. vi. 7). But this is said of preparedness of soul when such a course is expedient; but sometimes it is not expedient.{3}
https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/emt11.htm