Chapter III — On Scandal

I. Question I. What, and of how many kinds, is scandal? Answer. It is a word or deed less right, furnishing an occasion of spiritual ruin. Under the name of word or deed, omission also is comprehended. For those inflict most grave scandals who, in a grave matter, neglect to fulfill their parts. What incredible and irreparable losses and spiritual ruin proceed from this! It is called less right, that we may understand that not only evil, but also the appearance of evil, can beget scandal. Furnishing an occasion of ruin. It is not required that the ruin actually follow, but it suffices that an occasion of spiritual ruin be furnished, whether it follow or not.

II. Scandal is twofold, active and passive. Active is that which I have described, and which can be committed in three ways. 1. Directly and formally, when someone expressly intends the spiritual ruin of his neighbor; and this is called the scandal of demons. 2. Directly but not formally, when someone induces another to sin, not because he intends the malice, but because he wishes to satisfy his own appetite. 3. Indirectly, when it is foreseen, or can be foreseen, that from such an occasion the neighbor will take occasion of spiritual ruin.

III. Passive scandal is the very spiritual ruin of him who suffers the scandal, an occasion having been accepted from another's word or deed. Passive scandal is often joined with active, as when one gives, and another accepts, the occasion of sinning. Sometimes there is active scandal without passive, as when someone furnishes an occasion of sinning, but the other, scorning such an occasion, remains constant in virtue. Passive scandal without active occurs when someone, from an innocent occasion, seizes a handle for sinning — either from ignorance and infirmity, and this is called the scandal of the little ones; or from malice, and is called pharisaical scandal.

IV. To scandal placed in a word are referred lewd songs, immodest conversations veiled with allurements of words, with metaphors and allegories very significant, contumelious words, mocking or in whatever way unjustly irritating; likewise obscene books, commonly called romances, immodest Poets, and the like, which even today are worn thin in the very hands of weak women. Lascivious pictures, and innumerable other deeds which furnish the neighbor an occasion of spiritual ruin, are referred to the scandal of deed. It is not required that the sinner have an express intention of inducing the neighbor to sin; but it suffices that he perform an action, or utter a word, which by its own nature induces to sin. This is called indirect and interpretative scandal.

V. Question II. Is scandal a special sin? Answer. All affirm that it is a peculiar sin, distinct from the evil work itself, and opposed to charity. Wherefore in confession this twofold malice must be expressed — one against charity, the other against the virtue to which is opposed the depraved deed or word that generates the scandal. And this is plain from holy Scripture: Woe to the world because of scandals: for it must needs be that scandals come; nevertheless, woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones...

of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18. That word woe sets forth the enormous malice of scandal. In the other clause, woe to the world because of scandals, the Evangelist indicates the multitude of scandals. For the greatest part of Christians is damned by reason of scandals. Men infect one another with malice, no otherwise than lepers, and entice one another to sin. On every side the contagion of scandals rages and creeps everywhere. The earth and the air resound with the clamor of blasphemies and of oaths. The poison of unchastity pours itself out in words, in dress, in deeds, into the eyes, into the ears, and pervades the inmost senses. On every side floods of simonies, of the crimes of calumnies, of detractions, of oppressions, and of persecutions of sound doctrine, and the plague of lax opinions flattering the senses, inundate all things.

VI. Question III. How grave is the duty of declining scandal? Answer. A most grave obligation, and the utmost vigilance to be applied in avoiding scandal, Christ the Lord expresses, Matthew chapter 5, in these words: If thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; and again, Mark 9, he adds: And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell. What could be uttered by Christ more forcefully, more vehemently, to express the most grave duty of avoiding scandal? Hence gather how much the opinions of certain men oppose the doctrine of Christ, who, by various petty distinctions and inept inventions of remote and proximate scandal, frequently foster and confirm Christians in occasions of sinning.

VII. Question IV. Must the truth of life be kept silent, that scandal be avoided? Answer. The Angelic Doctor distinguishes a threefold truth, II-II, q. 43, art. 7, ad 3: of life, of doctrine, and of justice. In the truth of life, of doctrine, of justice is comprehended not only what is of the necessity of salvation, but also that by which salvation is more perfectly attained. Of these three there is discourse; now the truth of life is explained, which is placed in the conformity of human actions to the life of Christ and to his divine law. This divine law is one affirmative, another negative. It is never licit to violate a precept of the negative natural law for the sake of avoiding scandal. A precept of the affirmative law can sometimes be set aside for the sake of avoiding scandal. By this reason the precept of fraternal correction is omitted, when it is foreseen that the brother will come off worse — because then the precept does not press. Good works must never be omitted on account of pharisaical scandal. Works absolutely necessary to salvation can never be neglected on account of any scandal whatsoever, even of the little ones. But good works, without which we can still attain eternal salvation, can sometimes and must be concealed or deferred, that the scandal of the little ones be avoided, until they are instructed.

VIII. Question V. Must the truth of doctrine be kept silent, that scandal be avoided? Answer. The truth of doctrine must be preached, whether by voice or in writing, especially when from the falsity of opinions detriment threatens the integrity of morals. The precept of confessing the truth, and spiritual almsgiving, then presses. Wherefore Preachers, Theologians, and Confessors gravely sin who, either seized by a vain fear, or allured by the hope of catching popular favor, or in order to gain the favor of the World, either hide the truth of evangelical doctrine, or accommodate it, with the pigments and allurements of a harmful benignity, to the time and the temper of men. Against these Christ inveighs: He that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty. Luke chapter 9. I do not deny that there is need of prudence and dexterity, and that sometimes certain things must be deferred or omitted on account of various circumstances — provided this be done charity impelling, not cupidity seducing.

IX. Question VI. Must the truth of justice be set aside for the sake of avoiding scandal? Answer. The truth of justice directs those human actions which regard our Neighbor, and which render to each his own rights. Prelates, Superiors of a higher grade and dignity, not rarely neglect to correct offenders on account of fear of future evil and scandal. But for the most part the scandal itself is fictitious. Frequently the People suffer a most grave scandal because they see minor offenders severely punished even for light crimes, while, on the contrary, the sources of graver crimes go unpunished and free from any penalty whatsoever, because they are of some grade and dignity.

X. Question VII. Must temporal things be set aside on account of scandal? Answer. Either the discourse is of another's goods committed to our keeping, or of our own goods; as the Angelic Doctor wisely teaches and resolves, II-II, q. 43, art. 8: another's goods, of which we are keepers or administrators, are not to be set aside on account of scandals. On the contrary, goods of which we are the owners are sometimes to be neglected for the sake of avoiding the scandal of the little ones, or the scandal is to be removed by another way.

XI. Question VIII. Must spiritual works be either concealed or deferred on account of scandal? Answer. Works which are altogether necessary to salvation must never be omitted on account of any scandal whatsoever. But works of counsel, that the scandal of the little ones be avoided, must sometimes be concealed and deferred — unless, however, greater evils follow from this. Wherefore, since the preaching of evangelical doctrine is necessary to the salvation of many, it cannot be licitly dissembled or neglected, even if some little ones should thereby suffer scandal. But pharisaical scandal is to be despised.

XII. Question IX. What must be said of the scandal of Naaman the Syrian? Answer. I have treated this question at large in Tome 2 on the Decalogue, dissertation 9, chapter 7. Now I touch on it briefly. The sacred text is this: For thy servant will not henceforth offer holocaust, or victim to other gods, but this one thing there is, for which thou shalt pray to the Lord for thy servant: when my master goeth into the temple of Remmon, to worship there, and he leaneth upon my hand, if I bow down in the temple of Remmon, when he boweth down in the same place, that the Lord pardon me thy servant, for this thing. And he said to him: Go in peace. Naaman pledges that he will never in the future sacrifice to other gods. But since he was still bound to the King's service, he feared that he might have to accompany the King entering the temple, and stretch out his hand to him as he prostrated himself before the idol, and prostrate himself with him, as he had been wont to do before. This deed he feared; yet he did not know whether it must happen. Just as those who dwell in a necessary proximate occasion fear a future fall, though they be truly contrite. For Naaman did not say when I shall worship, but if I shall worship. When Elisha saw his proselyte agitated by scruples and anguishes, he answered: Go in peace; as if he had said: Take courage; nothing of the kind will happen. Be strong. God, in whose power are the hearts of Kings, will not permit you to serve the King prostrating himself before the idol. Trust in the Lord, go in peace. So we ourselves are wont to console and animate penitents converted from some depraved habit, and fearing a relapse at the sight of a mistress, or at the encounter of another occasion. Fear not: trust in the Lord; he himself who has begun will perfect his work.

XIII. Question X. Is it licit to sell idols and incense to the Heathen, to build shrines and Synagogues, and other such things whose evil use is foreseen? Answer. Several affirm that a craftsman struck by a most grave fear can construct an idol for an Infidel who asks for it. This opinion is false. The construction of an idol, and the building of a synagogue or a shrine, are works evil by their own nature, all circumstances considered, since they have no other use besides a worship polluted with superstition. By no fear, then, not even of losing one's life, can they be purged of crime. Similarly forbidden is the selling of an idol to him who buys it not for the adornment of his house, but for the purpose of practicing idolatry. Similarly they sin who sell incense to the Heathen, a lamb to the Jews, when it is certainly or probably foreseen that such merchandise will be applied to superstitious use. What several teach on this matter is opposed to the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers.

XIV. Question XI. Do Christians who row in the Turks' galleys against Christians sin gravely? Answer. The Theologians dispute on both sides. I judge the affirming opinion the more probable, explained in the true sense. Different times of rowing must be distinguished. The first, when it is known to the Christian captives that in the battle to be joined the Christians will be victors over the Turks. The second, when the war is unjust, and there threatens to the Christians the loss of liberty, of goods, and of life. The third, when there threatens to the Christians only the loss of external goods, but to the captive rowers the loss of life or the mutilation of limbs. In the first and third cases all affirm that Christian captives can licitly row. Of the second case the Theologians dispute; and the opinion which condemns as guilty of grave fault the captives rowing against innocent Christians is the more probable to me. For by no right is it permitted to bring aid to another against the innocent, whom it is a crime to injure. Now the Turks sin, killing Christians in an unjust war; therefore Christians also sin who furnish aid to the Turks in this unjust action. Nor do I see by what reason the opposite opinion is not contained in the condemnation of Innocent XI. If servants cannot help their masters, going in a boat to ravish virgins, by rowing, or, climbing through windows to fornicate or to kill, hold the ladder or support them with their shoulders — by what reason can Christian captives, by their rowing, drive the Turkish fleet forward to the destruction of Christians? Rowing is indifferent, absolutely regarded, just as holding a ladder and supporting another with one's shoulders; but, the circumstances being regarded, it is harmful, as is plain from innumerable examples.

XV. Question XII. Is it licit to receive money as a loan from a usurer ready to lend at interest? Answer. St. Thomas answers, II-II, q. 78, art. 4, in these words: To induce a man to sin is in no way licit; but to use another's sin for a good end is licit: because God uses all sins for some good, as is said in the Enchiridion, chapter XI. And therefore Augustine, to Publicola asking whether it would be licit to use the oath of one who swears by false gods ... answers that he who uses the faith of one who swears by false gods, not for evil but for good, does not associate himself with that man's sin, by which he swore by demons, but with his good pact, by which he kept faith. If, however, he induced him to swear by false gods, he would sin. So also in the matter proposed it must be said that it is in no way licit to induce anyone to lend at interest; yet it is licit to receive a loan at interest from one who is ready to do this and practices usury, for the sake of some good which is the relief of one's own necessity or another's. A man pressed by necessity asks for a good thing, namely a loan; that the other is unwilling to grant it without interest is his own fault, which rests in him, and which does not infect the exterior action of the one receiving. Rowing performed by Christian captives against innocent Christians is harmful, because it regards an exterior object that is evil, namely the ruin of guiltless Christians; climbing through windows to ravish a virgin is evil, because the object is depraved. But the borrowing of money regards a good object, namely the relief of a needy Neighbor. Hence, necessity being absent, to seek money even from a usurer ready to lend is a sin, as the more probable opinion teaches. On the contrary, grave necessity pressing, it is licit to seek a loan from anyone whatever, even one not ready to lend at interest, even though he be unwilling to lend the money without usury.

XVI. A merchant cannot seek usurious money to increase and amplify his business; but he can licitly seek it, grave necessity pressing, by which he may be relieved, that he may sustain himself and his family. Nor is it licit to deposit money with a usurer, when the depositor foresees that he will disburse that money for lending at usurious interest. Similarly it is not licit to give wine to an innkeeper, when it is certainly foreseen that he will sell it mixed with water. That if you cannot sell wine to another without grave inconvenience, you can sell it to the aforesaid innkeeper, Sanchez and Castropalao teach. But in practice it scarcely occurs that the seller cannot prevent unjust sales of this kind: because he can make such innkeepers known to the Judge or to the Community. However, if, pressed by urgent necessity, you could not sell wine to others, then you could use your right, and permit the unjust sales.

XVII. Question XIII. Is it licit to persuade one who will certainly sin to sin more lightly, that he may omit a graver crime? Answer. The more probable opinion, and the true one to me, denies it: since it is never licit to counsel an evil, however small. An offender can be asked to desist from a grave crime, by permitting a lesser and light one; but this can in no way be persuaded. Wherefore it is not licit to persuade a poor man ready to steal to snatch money by theft from a rich man rather than from a poor one, whatever Molina and Sanchez say to the contrary, for the reason given: that it is never permitted to counsel an evil. Now the theft of the rich man's goods is an evil, though the theft committed against the poor man be graver.

XVIII. Question XIV. Is it licit to invite to supper one who is ready to break his fast? Answer. The common opinion denies it, because he is invited to an action which, the prohibiting law being considered and the circumstances regarded, cannot be separated from malice. Now it is a sin to invite anyone to an action which, all things considered, is objectively harmful. Wherefore neither can servants licitly serve meat to their masters, nor innkeepers to their guests, at the time of a fast, nor can they furnish supper to those already well dined, while they know that they are not exempt from the fast either by dispensation or by necessity. In doubt, favor must be shown to the accused, and it must be presumed that they have been legitimately dispensed.

XIX. Innkeepers are excused who sell wine to soldiers who abuse it unto drunkenness, when they cannot refuse without loss either of life or of goods: because they are not bound, at so great a risk, to prevent others' sins. This grave danger being removed, innkeepers cannot...

sell wine to those whom they foresee will be made drunk by it. These sellers frequently sin, since they desire to sell wine for the sake of gain. A Parish priest is bound to refuse to administer the Eucharist to a hidden sinner publicly asking for it, that public scandal may be avoided.