Question III: What is to be done, and what omitted, to avoid scandal

WE do not treat here of scandal per se special, or inherent; but of the general kind arising from an action alone.

MANY rules are given on this matter by Gregory of Valentia disp. 3. quaest. 18. puncto 4. Tanner disp. 2. quaest. 6. dub. 9. after D. Bonav. p. 1. Centil. sect. 31. whose full import Bassaeus delivers, 2. Scandalum, from num. 8.

THE FIRST is, that to avoid scandal it is not lawful to do a thing, or to omit one, which to do or to omit would be a sin mortal of itself intrinsically. So D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 43. art. 7. and D. Bonav. loc. cit. and others cited below. The first reason is, because sin is not ordainable to good.

It is PROVED secondly: For, as it is said Rom. 3. Evils are not to be done that goods may come of them. And it is confirmed from the order of charity, for each man must keep himself more immune from spiritual ruin than another.

THE SECOND rule is, that neither is it lawful to do anything intrinsically venial. So D. Thom. art. 1. ad 5. Valentia loc. cit. and D. Bonav. above, Tanner. disp. 2. quaest. 6. dub. 9. Diana p. 5. tract. 7. resol. 21. and seq. Bass. num. 12. and others among these authors.

THE THIRD rule is, that to avoid the scandal of the weak, all those things are to be avoided which can be avoided without sin, lest the weak and simple fall. So D. Gregory homil. 7. in Ezech. Beda on cap. 9. of Mark, and the Doctors commonly.

It is PROVED from the nature of charity, which is bound to provide for the neighbor's salvation in necessity, if it can. So also D. Bonaventura after D. Bernard, and the Saintly Doctor gathers this from that passage of Matthew 17. But that we not scandalize them, go to the sea, etc. Truly Christ was not bound to the tribute, nor the Apostles. Bassaeus adds num. 12. that when their scandal cannot otherwise be avoided, they must be made capable of the thing.

THE SAINTLY Doctor gathers this rule also from the Gloss, on that passage Matt. 15. Know that the Pharisees, having heard this word, were scandalized, where it says: Everything that can be set aside, with the threefold truth preserved, namely of life, of doctrine, and of justice, is to be omitted on account of scandal. The Truth of life comprehends all actions conformable to reason, and therefore true, practically containing the precepts, indeed even the counsels. The Truth of doctrine contains those things which the duty of truth imposes on masters. The Truth of justice looks to Prelates, as to punishing the wicked and rewarding and sustaining the just, and therefore in relation to another. So nearly also Valentia disp. 3. quaest. 18. punct. 4. with Adriano quaest. 1. art. 2.

These things truly, after D. Hieronymo, are not to be omitted for fear of scandal. But if scandal arise from the mere malice of the beholder, it is to be despised, as the Saintly Doctor admonishes there on 6. of John, citing that passage Matt. 15. Let them alone: they are blind. The Saintly Doctor has the same doctrine on 18. of Luke on those words: It is impossible that scandals should not come. The Apostle said he would abstain from meats lest he scandalize, Rom. 14. and first Corinth. 8. because scandal could arise from it. See also Tanner at number 15.

THERE arises indeed the question: whether at some time, to avoid scandal, we are bound to omit some precept.

Vasquez denies it, opusc. de scandalo, art. 8. dub. 1. Turrianus 2. 2. Tom. 1. disp. 96. dub. 1. Becanus 2. 2. Tom. 1. cap. 27. quaest. 5. Basilius Pont. de matrim. lib. 5. cap. 18. §. 2. Castrus Palaus T. 1. tract. 6. punct. 16. num. 3. It seems gathered from Innocent III. cap. Cum ex iniuncto de novi operis nunciatione.

YET many AFFIRM it: Hurtado 1. 2. disp. 173. sect. 20. a §. 256. Valentia disp. 3. quaest. 18. punct. 4. Suarez disp. 10. sect. 3. num. 9. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 43. art. 8. concl. 2. Tanner. T. 3. quaest. 6. quaest. 6. dub. 9. num. 120. Gordonus Tom. 1. lib. 6. quaest. 16. cap. 5. §. 1. Sà on the word audire missa, num. 3. Lorca 2. 2. quaest. 43. art. 8. num. 10. Henriquez lib. 8. cap. 47. Bannes brings the example of a woman who, lest she offend her jealous husband, omits the sacred rite.

DIANA Tom. 5. tract. 7. de scandalo judges both probable, but embraces the first more; Yet if anyone wishes to follow this latter one, he ought to attend to when precepts are to be omitted to avoid scandal, which Hurtado delivers §. 268.

FIRST, when the precept is human, and no evil follows from its omission, then it is to be avoided. For example. If I cannot hear the Sacred rite without giving someone occasion of grave anger, hatred, lust, I am bound to abstain from the Sacred rite. Valentia teaches the same loc. cit. Suarez disp. 10. sect. 3.

YET they judge the OPPOSITE of a woman who would be an object of concupiscence if she went to the Sacred rite: Castro Palao T. 1. tract. 6. disp. 6. punct. 16. Granado 2. 2. contr. 3. tract. 13. disp. 5. sect. 5. num. 28. Azorius tom. 2. lib. 12. cap. 18. quaestio 12. Vasquez opusc. de scandalo, quaest. 43. art. 8. dub. 2. num. 27. Diana loc. cit. resol. 22. Tannerus num. 121.

BUT IF from the omission of the precept another grave harm to the neighbor impends, the precept is not to be passed over; e. g. if I am bound to assist a needy person, and another, on seeing it, would detract and judge wickedly of a suspected conversation with that person, e. g. a widow, I am bound to help her. Whatever Bannes may say at art. 8.

HENCE you may easily also discover: whether a woman is bound not to adorn herself, and not to go out in public, to avoid the scandal of others.

FOR I JUDGE that, no necessity existing, wanton adornments and empty outings are to be avoided. So many Doctors in Diana resol. 31. See also concerning the adornment of women Suarez disp. 10. sect. 3. n. 10. Gordonum tom. 1. lib. 6. quaest. 16. cap. 5. §. 2. num. 15. Sanchez T. 1. lib. 1. cap. 6. num. 17. Layman lib. 2. t. 3. cap. 13. num. 11. quaest. 13. who nevertheless says that women adorning themselves, exposing their breasts bare, are excused according to the custom of their country.

THE DOCTORS also report VERY MANY cases, teaching when we are bound to undergo dangers to avoid scandal.

FIRST indeed the danger of damnation is not to be undergone, for instance if the necessity of confession presses, and no one is present except an unworthy Priest.

INDEED many, in Diana resol. 4., beyond necessity, assert it is lawful to seek the Sacrament from an unworthy minister exposed; for he is not thereby induced to sin; indeed it is lawful to seek it even from an excommunicate who has not the absolving power. So Sanchez de Matrim. tom. 2. lib. 7. disp. 9. n. 8. Hurtado 2. 2. disp. 113. sect. 18. §. 249. They rely on the decree of the Council of Constance, and of Martin V. Therefore it will not be a scandal to ask.

SECOND, SECOND, there would not be a sin of scandal in the painter, ¶ should he paint the disgraceful image of the lover of Amasia, to avoid death. So many with Diana resol. 5. Bassaeo. §. 5.

For that cause many, in Diana resol. 6., say it is permitted to paint an Idol; nevertheless that seems so evil that no excuse is left.

The same some say, in Diana resol. 27., of servants carrying disgraceful love letters; but this seems absurd, as Peter Ledesma notes, sum. tom. 1. tract. 27. cap. 9. diff. 3. and Martinus Ledesma in 2. p. q. quaest. 17. art. 7. Alphonsus de Leone de offic. Confess. tom. 1. recoll. 14. num. 63. Rebell. p. 1. lib. 2. quaest. 14. num. 53. Bonac. de matrim. quaest. 4. p. 14. num. 6. Laym. lib. 2. tract. 3. cap. 13. and it seems Sanchez tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. num. 26. who nevertheless teaches the opposite lib. 9. de matrim. disp. 46. num. 34. as Diana notes.

SOME assert, in Diana resol. 28., that it is lawful for a servant, to avoid grave harm, to hand the ladder to his master ascending, to have intercourse with a woman. So also Bassaeus num. 10. §. 1. Similarly others, in Diana resol. 29., for a like cause, say a maidservant can lead her master's concubine into the house of the heir. Bassaeus in the place cited.

SIMILARLY many, in Diana resol. 30., say that Christian galley slaves can help the Turks in war, and in laying waste the houses of Christians, that they may avoid death. So also others with Bassaeo num. 10. excepting, however, the case in which, if they did not help in the war, they would give us the victory.

In the same manner, to avoid death, many say, in Diana resol. 33., that it is lawful to use the cap of the Jews, or the Turban of the Turks. So Gordonus Summa, Tom. 2. lib. 6. quaest. 12. cap. 9. §. 3. Duallius 2. 2. Tract. de fide, quaest. 3. art. 3. Vuigers 2. 2. quaest. 3. art. 2. num. 50. Tanner. tom. 3. disp. 1. quaest. 7. dub. 5. num. 110. Palaus Tom. 1. tract. 4. disp. 1. punct. 17. Coninch. de fide, disp. 15. dub. 3. concl. 8. Hurtadus 2. 2. disp. 48. sect. 3. §. 27.

Similarly others, in Diana resol. 34., say that under such necessity it is lawful to use garments and other signs instituted for superstitions. See them there.

SIMILARLY many say, in Diana resol. 35., that it is lawful for one passing through the lands of heretics to eat meats, to avoid grave harm.

NOR do others, on a like reasoning, assert, in Diana resol. 36., that it is lawful to sell an idol to a gentile, to avoid grave harm. See other cases in Diana himself there.

THEY ASK also: whether the rule holds that one must not seek money from a usurer, ready to commit the sin of usury, without an honest cause.

Palai ASSERTS it, Tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 6. p. 10. Poncius de matrim. lib. 5. cap. 18. num. 50. Vasquez opusc. de scandalo, art. 8. num. 33. Suarez disp. 10. sect. 3. Molina Tom. 2. tract. 2. disp. 335.

BUT Hurtad. DENIES it more probably, 2. 2. disp. 173. sect. 14. § 176. et 177. Diana resol. 8. Indeed Sanchez T. 1. lib. 3. cap. 8. num. 27. Valentia tom. 3. disp. 5. quaest. 21. punct. 4. Molina de Iustitia T. 2. disp. 335. concl. 5. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 78. art. 4. dub. 2. say that one may say to the usurer: give me a loan, even with interest, which opinion Suarez judges probable de Religione, T. 2. De Iurament. lib. 3. cap. 13. num. 9. Diana resol. 8.

From what has been said you have what must be said of the one paying usury; for the same reasoning holds in both cases. Wherefore Valentia judges the same of the one paying and the one seeking. See Diana resol. 12.

From what has been said also you have nearly the manner in which goods, whether spiritual or temporal, are to be given up on account of scandal; of which Tannerus treats dub. 9.

FIRST therefore every action having the appearance of evil is to be omitted, as D. Thom. says quaest. 43. art. 2. and commonly among Sylvestrum, Caietanum, and Sà, see Scandalum, according to that text Thessal. 5. From every appearance of evil abstain. And first Corinth. 6. All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. In a case, however, of great utility, which would greatly outweigh the ensuing scandal, Tannerus judges it not illicit. Peter seems an example of this, whom many Fathers also excuse from sin, and yet he was reproved by Paul. Galat. 3.

THEN spiritual goods, here and now necessary to salvation, are not to be omitted to avoid scandal. So with Thom. art. 7. and D. Bonav. above, all Theologians teach.

THIRDLY, spiritual goods which are not necessary to salvation are not to be omitted on account of the scandal of the Scribes. So D. Thom. art. 7. and it is established by that text Matt. 15. Let them alone. See Bassaeus.

FOURTHLY, spiritual goods, not necessary to salvation, are to be deferred, lest the weak suffer scandal, until they become capable of them.

FIFTHLY, certain works ordered to removing scandal are to be omitted, if scandal would arise from them. Such is the punishment of certain criminals. So D. August. lib. 3. contra epistolam Parmen. cap. 2. Such also is fraternal correction.

SIXTHLY, the truth of doctrine indeed is not to be abandoned on account of scandal, so that falsehood be taught; nevertheless the act of teaching is sometimes to be omitted. So D. Bonav. above, and D. Thom. art. 7. Yet not so that instruction necessary in the faith be omitted.

SEVENTHLY, the Evangelical counsels, and works of mercy, are not to be omitted simply on account of the danger of scandal. So D. Thom. and D. Bonav. above; because, according to D. Hieronym. ad 15. Matth. in Gloss. ordin. related above by the Saintly Doctor: On account of scandal everything is to be given up that can be set aside, with the threefold truth preserved, of life, of justice, and of doctrine. Under these are comprehended those things by which one comes to salvation more easily.

AS TO temporal goods. Those of which we are masters are, on account of the scandal of the weak, either to be given up, or the scandal otherwise to be settled: yet not on account of the scandal of the Scribes. So D. Thom. art. 8. and commonly.

Tanner. ADDS num. 116. that this is true, unless elsewhere, for the good of others, the loss of such temporal things is to be disregarded, as if a Prince were rather to introduce heresy into his Province than by restitution of ecclesiastical goods, as Caietan. Valentia, Bannes, and Sà teach in the places cited.

But those goods which are not ours, but handed over to us to conserve, as the goods of the Church, entrusted to Prelates, are not to be given up on account of scandal, according to D. Thom. loc. cit. and the common opinion; since we are bound to defend them under necessity: and this is confirmed by the example of S. Thomas of Canterbury.

Add nevertheless, that Prelates ought sometimes to dissemble usurpation.

YOU WILL ASK first: whether it is lawful to invite to dinner one ready to break the fast.

THE FIRST opinion is negative. So Vasquez de scandalo quaest. 43. art. 1. disp. 3. num. 17. Palai Tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 6. p. 9. Turriani, Tract. 1. in 2. 2. disp. 95. dub. 6. Poncii de matrim. lib. 3. cap. 8. §. 7. Suarez de charitate, disp. 10. sect. 3. (they say) otherwise anyone could invite one ready for venery, for that, and not for the feast.

BUT Hurtado ASSERTS this to be LICIT, 2. 2. disp. 175. sect. 12. §. 154. Azorius p. 1. lib. 7. cap. 31. quaesito 12. Salas de empt. dub. 47. num. 10. who cites Sà and others.

The same teach Naldus v. Ieiunium, Nauar. and Caietanus, v. Ieiunium, Tanner. 2.2. disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 5. num. 94. Filliuc. de offic. Sacer. Tom. 1. p. 2. lib. 3. c. 25. and Tom 2. tract. 27. p. 1. cap. 5. num. 94. Ortiz in Summa, cap. 19. mand. 2. Villalob. Sum. Tom. 1. tract. 23. diff. 3. which opinion Diana says is probable Parte 1. Tract. 9. resol. 38. et part. 5. tract. 7. resol. 7.

By these servants and maids are excused, who sell and cook forbidden foods for masters unwilling to fast. So Azorius p. 1. lib. 7. cap 31. quaestio 11. et p. 2. lib. 12. cap. ult. quaestio 5. Villalob. above, Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 147. art. 4. Bassaeus num. 9. citing others; for they do not serve the breaking of the fast. But this reason is vain.

Hence Diana Tom. 1. tract. 9. resol. 39. dispatches another question: Whether Innkeepers, setting out dinner indifferently to all on a fast day, sin.

He ANSWERS, however, negatively with Ledesma in Summa, Tom. 2. tract. 27. cap. 2. concl. 6. diffic. 4. fol. 698. For it Sanchez T. 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. num. 34. citing Saloniam, Martinum de Ledesma, Rodriquez, and others, and Homobonus follows it de exam. Ecclesiae, p. 2. tract 8. cap. 7. quaest. 21.

Yet the Opposite opinion is held by Fernandez in exam. Theol. p. 2. cap. 8. §. 2. num. 22. Toletus Summa, lib. 6. cap. 5. Nauar. in manuali, cap. 21. num. 26. Gabriel. in 4. dist. 16. quaest. 3. art. 3. dub. 9. Medina, and others.

Yet the middle opinion seems probable, that it is lawful when it cannot otherwise be done without grave inconvenience. Filliuc. holds it Tom. 2. tract. 27. p. 2. cap. 4. num. 93. Lessius lib. 4. cap. 2. dub. 4. num. 24. Sanchez Tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. num. 37. nor does Diana refuse it loc. cit. Bassaeus says, provided they would otherwise find the preparer elsewhere.

¶ You will ask secondly: Whether it is lawful to seek an oath from someone when I fear he will perjure himself.

Suarez ASSERTS it, T. 2. lib. de Relig. lib. 3. de iuram. cap. 15. Hurtado 2.2. disp. 173. sect. 15. §. 197. Diana Tract. 7. de Scandalo, resol. 9. Provided, however, that a just cause be present, and it be not sought so that he swear falsely.

The Opposite opinion is held by D. Thom. in Sylvium 2.2. quaest. 98. art. 4. D. Bonav. 3. dist. 39. art. 2. quaest. 3. and others in Suarez loc. cit. Sotus de Iust. lib. 8. quaest. 2. art. 14. Vasquez opusc. de Scandalo quaest. 43. art. 9. Basil. Ponc. de Matrim. lib. 5. cap. 18. §. 8. num. 57. But it is the opinion of D. August. serm. 2. decoll. S. Ioannis. If you say: Let him look to himself, destroying himself. S. August. answers serm. 28. de verbis Apostoli, cap. 10. That one destroys himself by his own perjury; but this one pressed the hand of the killer, as S. Bonav. relates arg. 2. to the opposite. If you say, it concerns you to receive an oath from that man. S. August. answers in that sermon 2. Was it not better that you lose your goods, than that you destroy the soul of that man by false swearing? Hence the argument of Suarez loc. cit. and of Diana is solved.

¶ You will object first. Would not men take from this an occasion for frauds, if they understood that it is not lawful for actors to seek an oath from those swearing falsely?

It is Answered, by denying the consequence; for robbers fear hanging from the testimonies of others, and tortures are applied to deniers to extort the truth.

¶ You will object secondly. It would follow that a Judge cannot require oaths from the accused; for he ought to doubt whether they wish to speak the truth.

It is Answered, that the accused can often evade and deny. But if the Judge knew that the accused would perjure himself, and could otherwise draw out the truth, he would do badly in requiring the oath.

¶ You will ask thirdly: whether I can persuade someone to swear to a thing true, yet unknown to him.

Hurtado ANSWERS disp. 173. sect. 15. §. 200. that it is not lawful, unless the one about to swear first persuades himself that the thing is so on a probable foundation, from which a practical judgment of the honesty of the oath can be formed. See also Diana loc. cit. resol. 10.

Moreover, when they are scandalized from their own malice, it is not to be heeded, as Christ says, Matt. 15. Let them alone; they are blind, as the Saintly Doctor observes, and all follow him.

Bassaeus ADDS num. 10. § 4. that masters and parents are excused, who do not take from their sons or servants the occasion of stealing, that they may test them; nor yet as it were offer them the thing; just as neither can a husband persuade his wife to pretend assent to her lover, that he may be caught.