_On the contrary,_ Jerome in expounding Matt. 15:12, "Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word," etc. says: "When we read "Whosoever shall scandalize," the sense is "Whosoever shall, by deed or word, occasion another"s spiritual downfall.""
_I answer that,_ As Jerome observes the Greek _skandalon_ may be rendered offense, downfall, or a stumbling against something. For when a body, while moving along a path, meets with an obstacle, it may happen to stumble against it, and be disposed to fall down: such an obstacle is a _skandalon_.
In like manner, while going along the spiritual way, a man may be disposed to a spiritual downfall by another"s word or deed, in so far, to wit, as one man by his injunction, inducement or example, moves another to sin; and this is scandal properly so called.
Now nothing by its very nature disposes a man to spiritual downfall, except that which has some lack of rect.i.tude, since what is perfectly right, secures man against a fall, instead of conducing to his downfall. Scandal is, therefore, fittingly defined as "something less rightly done or said, that occasions another"s spiritual downfall."
Reply Obj. 1: The thought or desire of evil lies hidden in the heart, wherefore it does not suggest itself to another man as an obstacle conducing to his spiritual downfall: hence it cannot come under the head of scandal.
Reply Obj. 2: A thing is said to be less right, not because something else surpa.s.ses it in rect.i.tude, but because it has some lack of rect.i.tude, either through being evil in itself, such as sin, or through having an appearance of evil. Thus, for instance, if a man were to "sit at meat in the idol"s temple" (1 Cor. 8:10), though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be done with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain appearance of evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol, it might occasion another man"s spiritual downfall. Hence the Apostle says (1 Thess. 5:22): "From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something done "less rightly," so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (I-II, Q. 75, AA. 2, 3; I-II, Q. 80, A.
1), nothing can be a sufficient cause of a man"s spiritual downfall, which is sin, save his own will. Wherefore another man"s words or deeds can only be an imperfect cause, conducing somewhat to that downfall. For this reason scandal is said to afford not a cause, but an occasion, which is an imperfect, and not always an accidental cause. Nor is there any reason why certain definitions should not make mention of things that are accidental, since what is accidental to one, may be proper to something else: thus the accidental cause is mentioned in the definition of chance (Phys. ii, 5).
Reply Obj. 4: Another"s words or deed may be the cause of another"s sin in two ways, directly and accidentally. Directly, when a man either intends, by his evil word or deed, to lead another man into sin, or, if he does not so intend, when his deed is of such a nature as to lead another into sin: for instance, when a man publicly commits a sin or does something that has an appearance of sin. In this case he that does such an act does, properly speaking, afford an occasion of another"s spiritual downfall, wherefore his act is called "active scandal." One man"s word or deed is the accidental cause of another"s sin, when he neither intends to lead him into sin, nor does what is of a nature to lead him into sin, and yet this other one, through being ill-disposed, is led into sin, for instance, into envy of another"s good, and then he who does this righteous act, does not, so far as he is concerned, afford an occasion of the other"s downfall, but it is this other one who takes the occasion according to Rom. 7:8: "Sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." Wherefore this is "pa.s.sive," without "active scandal," since he that acts rightly does not, for his own part, afford the occasion of the other"s downfall. Sometimes therefore it happens that there is active scandal in the one together with pa.s.sive scandal in the other, as when one commits a sin being induced thereto by another; sometimes there is active without pa.s.sive scandal, for instance when one, by word or deed, provokes another to sin, and the latter does not consent; and sometimes there is pa.s.sive without active scandal, as we have already said.
Reply Obj. 5: "Weakness" denotes p.r.o.neness to scandal; while "offense" signifies resentment against the person who commits a sin, which resentment may be sometimes without spiritual downfall; and "scandal" is the stumbling that results in downfall.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 43, Art. 2]
Whether Scandal Is a Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that scandal is not a sin. For sins do not occur from necessity, since all sin is voluntary, as stated above (I-II, Q. 74, AA. 1, 2). Now it is written (Matt. 18:7): "It must needs be that scandals come." Therefore scandal is not a sin.
Obj. 2: Further, no sin arises from a sense of dutifulness, because "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Matt. 7:18). But scandal may come from a sense of dutifulness, for Our Lord said to Peter (Matt. 16:23): "Thou art a scandal unto Me," in reference to which words Jerome says that "the Apostle"s error was due to his sense of dutifulness, and such is never inspired by the devil." Therefore scandal is not always a sin.
Obj. 3: Further, scandal denotes a stumbling. But he that stumbles does not always fall. Therefore scandal, which is a spiritual fall, can be without sin.
_On the contrary,_ Scandal is "something less rightly said or done."
Now anything that lacks rect.i.tude is a sin. Therefore scandal is always with sin.
_I answer that,_ As already said (A. 1, ad 4), scandal is of two kinds, pa.s.sive scandal in the person scandalized, and active scandal in the person who gives scandal, and so occasions a spiritual downfall. Accordingly pa.s.sive scandal is always a sin in the person scandalized; for he is not scandalized except in so far as he succ.u.mbs to a spiritual downfall, and that is a sin.
Yet there can be pa.s.sive scandal, without sin on the part of the person whose action has occasioned the scandal, as for instance, when a person is scandalized at another"s good deed. In like manner active scandal is always a sin in the person who gives scandal, since either what he does is a sin, or if it only have the appearance of sin, it should always be left undone out of that love for our neighbor which binds each one to be solicitous for his neighbor"s spiritual welfare; so that if he persist in doing it he acts against charity.
Yet there can be active scandal without sin on the part of the person scandalized, as stated above (A. 1, ad 4).
Reply Obj. 1: These words, "It must needs be that scandals come," are to be understood to convey, not the absolute, but the conditional necessity of scandal; in which sense it is necessary that whatever G.o.d foresees or foretells must happen, provided it be taken conjointly with such foreknowledge, as explained in the First Part (Q. 14, A. 13, ad 3; Q. 23, A. 6, ad 2).
Or we may say that the necessity of scandals occurring is a necessity of end, because they are useful in order that "they ... who are reproved may be made manifest" (1 Cor. 11:19).
Or scandals must needs occur, seeing the condition of man who fails to shield himself from sin. Thus a physician on seeing a man partaking of unsuitable food might say that such a man must needs injure his health, which is to be understood on the condition that he does not change his diet. In like manner it must needs be that scandals come, so long as men fail to change their evil mode of living.
Reply Obj. 2: In that pa.s.sage scandal denotes any kind of hindrance: for Peter wished to hinder Our Lord"s Pa.s.sion out of a sense of dutifulness towards Christ.
Reply Obj. 3: No man stumbles spiritually, without being kept back somewhat from advancing in G.o.d"s way, and that is at least a venial sin.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 43, Art. 3]
Whether Scandal Is a Special Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that scandal is not a special sin. For scandal is "something said or done less rightly." But this applies to every kind of sin. Therefore every sin is a scandal, and consequently, scandal is not a special sin.
Obj. 2: Further, every special kind of sin, or every special kind of injustice, may be found separately from other kinds, as stated in _Ethic._ v, 3, 5. But scandal is not to be found separately from other sins. Therefore it is not a special kind of sin.
Obj. 3: Further, every special sin is const.i.tuted by something which specifies the moral act. But the notion of scandal consists in its being something done in the presence of others: and the fact of a sin being committed openly, though it is an aggravating circ.u.mstance, does not seem to const.i.tute the species of a sin. Therefore scandal is not a special sin.
_On the contrary,_ A special virtue has a special sin opposed to it.
But scandal is opposed to a special virtue, viz. charity. For it is written (Rom. 14:15): "If, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity." Therefore scandal is a special sin.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), scandal is twofold, active and pa.s.sive. Pa.s.sive scandal cannot be a special sin, because through another"s word or deed a man may fall into any kind of sin: and the fact that a man takes occasion to sin from another"s word or deed, does not const.i.tute a special kind of sin, because it does not imply a special deformity in opposition to a special virtue.
On the other hand, active scandal may be understood in two ways, directly and accidentally. The scandal is accidental when it is beside the agent"s intention, as when a man does not intend, by his inordinate deed or word, to occasion another"s spiritual downfall, but merely to satisfy his own will. In such a case even active scandal is not a special sin, because a species is not const.i.tuted by that which is accidental.
Active scandal is direct when a man intends, by his inordinate word or deed, to draw another into sin, and then it becomes a special kind of sin on account of the intention of a special kind of end, because moral actions take their species from their end, as stated above (I-II, Q. 1, A. 3; Q. 18, AA. 4, 6). Hence, just as theft and murder are special kinds of sin, on account of their denoting the intention of doing a special injury to one"s neighbor: so too, scandal is a special kind of sin, because thereby a man intends a special harm to his neighbor, and it is directly opposed to fraternal correction, whereby a man intends the removal of a special kind of harm.
Reply Obj. 1: Any sin may be the matter of active scandal, but it may derive the formal aspect of a special sin from the end intended, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 2: Active scandal can be found separate from other sins, as when a man scandalizes his neighbor by a deed which is not a sin in itself, but has an appearance of evil.
Reply Obj. 3: Scandal does not derive the species of a special sin from the circ.u.mstance in question, but from the intention of the end, as stated above.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 43, Art. 4]
Whether Scandal Is a Mortal Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that scandal is a mortal sin. For every sin that is contrary to charity is a mortal sin, as stated above (Q.
24, A. 12; Q. 35, A. 3). But scandal is contrary to charity, as stated above (AA. 2, 3). Therefore scandal is a mortal sin.
Obj. 2: Further, no sin, save mortal sin, deserves the punishment of eternal d.a.m.nation. But scandal deserves the punishment of eternal d.a.m.nation, according to Matt. 18:6: "He that shall scandalize one of these little ones, that believe in Me, it were better for him that a mill-stone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." For, as Jerome says on this pa.s.sage, "it is much better to receive a brief punishment for a fault, than to await everlasting torments." Therefore scandal is a mortal sin.
Obj. 3: Further, every sin committed against G.o.d is a mortal sin, because mortal sin alone turns man away from G.o.d. Now scandal is a sin against G.o.d, for the Apostle says (1 Cor. 8:12): "When you wound the weak conscience of the brethren [*Vulg.: "When you sin thus against the brethren and wound their weak conscience"], you sin against Christ." Therefore scandal is always a mortal sin.
_On the contrary,_ It may be a venial sin to lead a person into venial sin: and yet this would be to give scandal. Therefore scandal may be a venial sin.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), scandal denotes a stumbling whereby a person is disposed to a spiritual downfall. Consequently pa.s.sive scandal may sometimes be a venial sin, when it consists in a stumbling and nothing more; for instance, when a person is disturbed by a movement of venial sin occasioned by another"s inordinate word or deed: while sometimes it is a mortal sin, when the stumbling results in a downfall, for instance, when a person goes so far as to commit a mortal sin through another"s inordinate word or deed.
Active scandal, if it be accidental, may sometimes be a venial sin; for instance, when, through a slight indiscretion, a person either commits a venial sin, or does something that is not a sin in itself, but has some appearance of evil. On the other hand, it is sometimes a mortal sin, either because a person commits a mortal sin, or because he has such contempt for his neighbor"s spiritual welfare that he declines, for the sake of procuring it, to forego doing what he wishes to do. But in the case of active direct scandal, as when a person intends to lead another into sin, if he intends to lead him into mortal sin, his own sin will be mortal; and in like manner if he intends by committing a mortal sin himself, to lead another into venial sin; whereas if he intends, by committing a venial sin, to lead another into venial sin, there will be a venial sin of scandal.
And this suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 43, Art. 5]
Whether Pa.s.sive Scandal May Happen Even to the Perfect?