The Scandal of teaching that Jesus gave scandal (3)

Is there any special kind of sin which is directly opposed to charity as regards the external act which is called beneficence?

Yes, and the sin is called scandal (XLIII.).

What is scandal?

Scandal is that sin which through some word or deed offers to another an occasion of sinning; or the fact of taking occasion to sin because of what is said or done by another: in the first instance one gives scandal; in the second, one is scandalized (XLIII. 1).

Is it only weak souls that are scandalized?

Yes, that is those that are not as yet proof against evil; although many sensitive souls cannot help but be painfully affected when they see or hear something that is bad (XLIII. 5).

Are good and virtuous souls incapable of giving scandal?

Yes, because in the first place they never do or say anything bad that could really scandalize; if perchance scandal is ever given to others, this is due to the malice of the latter only (XLIII. 6).

May it not sometimes happen that virtuous souls are under an obligation to forego certain things lest weaker souls be scandalized?

Yes, provided of course it is not a question of things necessary for salvation (XLIII. 7).


Is one ever bound to forego some good thing in order that the wicked may not be scandalized?

https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/catsum03.htm


So one can be scandalized by another, but because of one's own wickedness, not because of any error on the part of another. For example, taking offense at another's good deeds, envying my neighbor's good fortune, etc. In these cases, one is scandalized passively, but without any active giving of scandal on the part of the agent. This is the sort of scandal Jesus gave to the Pharisees, and clearly He is not guilty of any grave sin.

But if we were to simply connect the passages, we would not know this, because the Catechism does not differentiate between active and passive scandal, and it does say one can be guilty of scandal indirectly, which would lead us to the logical but absurd conclusion that Jesus Himself is guilty of sin. This error needs to be cleared up, either by including definitions of active and passive scandal, or perhaps better, rewording the passages to note that it was the Jews who took scandal rather than the Lord who gave it. Jesus never actively gave scandal ("But that we may not scandalize them..." (Matt. 17:26).

Such distinctions used to be common in Catholic theology. For example, in the Douay-Rheims Bible, Matt 15:12 ("Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?") contains a footnote which says, "It must be observed here, that Christ was not the direct cause of scandal to the Jews, for such scandal would not be allowable; he only caused it indirectly, because it was his doctrine, at which, through their own perversity, they took scandal." The editors of the Douay-Rheims knew immediately that the words could be misinterpreted and took pains to point out that it was the "perversity" of the Pharisees that gave them scandal, not the good deeds of Christ.

And yet we now have the Catholic Church, in CCC entry #2287, teaching that even scandal caused indirectly is sinful and earlier on saying that Jesus gave scandal. Good Lord, what is wrong here? It is this passage itself which is scandalizing!

 http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/320-need-for-theolog


http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/social-teaching/moral-issues/93-social-teaching/moral-issues/284-three-types-of-scandal.html

Page 387 here:


The Universal Catechism is an abomination in its entries on scandal because they are lies about the Sacred Person of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and those entries must be removed, a publicly apology issued, and corrections made if we are to be capable of reestablishing continuity with Tradition.