Case V: Scandal by Immodesty in Dress

Claudia, a woman of considerable physical charm, admits in her confession that she is not over-modest in her dress. She is not, of course, positively indecent, or grossly immodest, but at the same time she admits that she would hardly pose for a model of Christian modesty in the matter of dress. She maintains that her intentions are pure, even though vain, and that if others think evil on her account, they do so because they are evil-minded, and that it is no concern of hers. She does not propose to dress like a nun, just because some people happen to be disposed to think evil. The evil that they think must be ascribed to their own impure minds, and not to her way of dressing. Though all the while she admits that her manner of dress is not as modest as it might be, nor in keeping with the general tone of dress adopted by the women of her own condition in life. The confessor knows that she has been the occasion of grave sins of thought and desire to certain young men of the parish. But he fears to insist too much, lest Claudia give up going to the Sacraments altogether. In this difficulty he desires to know:

First: How far is Claudia to be held responsible for the scandal that her way of dressing seems to occasion?

Second: What advice ought the confessor give Claudia?

Answer.—In its original sense the word scandal means a trap, or a snare, laid for an enemy. In the Greek version of the Sacred Scriptures, the word is used in a metaphorical sense, to signify a stumbling-block, an offense, scandal, etc., because one who is the occasion of the sins of others, is like a man who puts a stumblingblock in their way and becomes "a stone of stumbling, or a rock of offense" (Is. viii, 14). In this latter sense the word scandal is used by the theologians and canonists. The definition of scandal, generally accepted in theology, is the one given by St. Thomas, II. ii, q. 43, Art. 1: "Opus minus rectum, praebens proximo occasionem spiritualis ruinae." Any conversation or any conduct which is, or at least appears to those present to be sinful, and which is calculated, therefore, to lead others into sin, is scandalous.

The speech, or the actions, or conduct which give scandal, must either be sinful in fact, or else have the appearance of being sinful. If there be no sin in our speech or our conduct, and no appearance of sin, then such speech or conduct can not possibly be the occasion of another's sin. If our speech and our conduct are lawful and innocent, and have no appearance of evil, and still another takes occasion from them to commit sin, his sin can in no wise be imputed to us, but wholly to his own evil disposition, moral weakness and malice. To be guilty of scandal, one's speech or conduct must be in reality sinful, or at least have the appearance, as far as others are concerned, of being sinful. Thus, if I eat meat on Friday without a sufficient reason, I commit sin; and if another is led by my example to do likewise, my action becomes the occasion of my neighbor's sin, and therefore scandalous. But if I have a sufficient reason, or even a dispensation, to eat meat on Friday, but my neighbor is not aware of it, and takes occasion by my example to transgress the law of abstinence himself; although my eating meat on Friday is not a sin, since I have a sufficient reason or enjoy a dispensation to do so, nevertheless my conduct may seem to my neighbor to be sinful, since he is ignorant of my reasons justifying my action, and I become guilty of scandal, since by my conduct, which appears to my neighbor to be more or less sinful and reprehensible, I lead my neighbor into sin.

There is a popular use of the word scandal, which must not be confounded with its technical meaning. In ordinary parlance, the verb, to scandalize, is often used in the sense to shock, or astonish, or to cause wonder or amazement. Thus we say that such conduct is scandalous, meaning thereby that it is shocking or that it out rages our moral sense. But, strictly speaking, no conversation and no conduct is scandalous, even though it be very shocking, unless it be calculated to lead those who hear it or see it into sin. The action that scandalizes need not necessarily be sinful; it may be indifferent, or it may even be good; but if good or indifferent, it must, at least, owing to the circumstances, be connected with the spiritual damage done to our neighbor, and therefore such action, on account of this relationship, is called by St. Thomas and the theologians minus recta. Indeed, as a rule, no shock accompanies scandal. The person scandalized, instead of being shocked or astonished by, or amazed at, the conduct that scandalizes him, is pleased by it, as justifying his own sin. It palliates his own transgression, in his own view of it, and lessens his guilt, if it does not wholly excuse it.

The speech or the conduct that gives scandal is not the cause of another's sin, but only the occasion of it, the accidental or incidental cause that provokes it, but not its efficient cause or its sufficient reason. The real cause of the sin that follows on scandal is the freewill of the person taking scandal. Such a person, seeing the evil, or seemingly evil, conduct of another, is provoked or incited by it to make up his mind to commit sin. The sin that follows must be ascribed entirely to his own free will as to its efficient cause. The speech or conduct that incited him to sin was not the cause, but only the provocation, or incitement, or occasion, of the sin.

One may give scandal without another person taking scandal. It is not of the essence of scandal that it should actually lead another into sin. All that is required in order that any speech or conduct be scandalous, is that, of their nature, they should be calculated to incite another to sin. If, under ordinary circumstances, the person guilty of evil speech or evil conduct must naturally apprehend that another person will be incited or provoked by them to commit sin, then such speech or conduct is scandalous, even though the person hearing or seeing the same is not, as a matter of fact, incited by them to commit sin. On the contrary, if I know that those who are listening to my conversation or who see my evil actions will not be incited by them to commit sin, because they are too firmly founded in Christian virtue to be influenced by my bad example, then I do not give scandal.

If, while I perform an action that is sinful, or at least seems to others to be sinful, I intend to incite or provoke another to commit sin, I am guilty of direct scandal. Generally speaking, the one who gives direct scandal does so for his own advantage or pleasure. He derives or hopes to derive some benefit from the sin into which he leads his neighbor. Therefore he directly intends the sin of his neighbor, hoping to derive from it some advantage. He sins himself, in order to incite his neighbor to sin, hoping to profit by his neighbor's sin. If, on the contrary, I do not intend or desire to incite my neighbor to sin, but at the same time I foresee that, if I commit such or such a sin in the presence of my neighbor, my neighbor will be incited by my conduct to commit sin himself, and nevertheless I commit the sin, then in that case I give indirect scandal. One who gives indirect scandal does not wish, or desire, or intend to lead his neighbor into sin, but nevertheless he foresees and apprehends that his neighbor will be provoked to commit some particular sin, if he himself speaks or acts sinfully in the presence of his neighbor, and yet he proceeds to speak or act in a sinful manner, or in what at least appears to his neighbor to be a sinful manner.

One may commit a mortal sin or only a venial sin in giving scandal. It all depends on the gravity of the sin that one foresees one's neighbor will commit. The action that I perform may be only venially sinful, and yet I may by it commit a mortal sin of scandal, because I either intend to incite my neighbor to commit a mortal sin, or at least I foresee that he will be incited by my conduct to commit a mortal sin. On the other hand, I may sin mortally myself and still only give venial or slight scandal, where I foresee that my action, although mortally sinful, will lead another only into venial sin. Consequently the gravity of the scandal one gives does not depend on the gravity of the sin one commits, but on the gravity of the sin that one foresees one's neighbor will be incited to commit. Thus a priest may give grave scandal by some act that is only venially sinful, whereas a layman, by the same act, would only give slight scandal or no scandal at all.

Whoever gives direct scandal, that is, whoever intends, by his own action, to lead or incite another to sin, is guilty of sin not only against the love we owe our neighbor, but also against the particular virtue or commandment against which he incites his neighbor to sin. Thus if I, by my sinful conduct, hope to provoke my neighbor to steal, I am guilty of a sin not only against charity, but also against justice. In case I do not intend the sin of my neighbor, but only foresee it and permit it, I am guilty of indirect scandal, which is a sin only against charity. For every virtue lays an obligation onus, not only that we ourselves do not violate it, but also that we do not desire that it shall be violated by others.

Bearing these few preliminary remarks in mind, it will easy to form a just judgment of Claudia's conduct.

1. In the first place Claudia is guilty of indirect scandal. It is not Claudia's purpose, by her manner of dress, to lead others into sin. If such were her purpose she would be guilty of scandalum directum. But as her purpose is only the indulgence of her own vanity and self-complacency, she becomes guilty of indirect scandal, inasmuch as her conduct is not altogether right, and is calculated to induce or incite others to sin. Indirect scandal, as has been said above, is a sin against charity, but not against the particular virtue against which our neighbor is led to sin. In the present instance, therefore, Claudia sins, at least materially, against charity, but not against purity; that is, her conduct, in as far as it is scandalous, is only against charity.

But what kind of a sin does Claudia commit, mortal or venial? We are inclined to think that she commits a venial sin. Immodesty in dress, at least off the stage or outside of masked balls, will hardly ever amount to more than a venial sin. The custom of the country must be considered. Physical charm is more alluring than dress, and yet no one is obliged to destroy their beauty because others take scandal at it. Of course a pious woman would not be guilty even of a slight immodesty in her dress, if she thought it might lead others into even venial sin. But Claudia evidently is not pious, nor much concerned about her neighbor's spiritual welfare. If some persons unknown to her take grave scandal by her conduct, such scandal is rather scandalum sumptum et non datum. On the contrary, if it is not a question of some indetermined persons taking scandal, but of a particular and known person, then the obligation to avoid giving scandal becomes more urgent.

2. Claudia ought to be advised and exhorted to be more modest and careful in her dress, but she could scarcely be obliged, under pain of mortal sin, to change her style of dress, since it is rather her personal beauty than her dress that is the cause of the scandal. Especially since there is danger that Claudia might give up the frequentation of the Sacraments, it would be prudent not to urge a reformation in dress too vehemently.