Section — Koch–Preuss
Section 2: Sins Against the Spiritual Welfare of Others
Against the duties described in the foregoing Section we may sin either directly or indirectly.
I. We sin directly against the spiritual welfare of our fellowman: a) By commanding or compelling him to do wrong ; b) By seducing him to sin, either through inciting his passions by praise or flattery, censure or fear, or by abusing such influence as we may wield over him on account of higher social position or personal superiority; c) By co-operating in sinful acts through accidental or planned meetings (conspiracy), and d) By becoming accessory to anther's sin through silence or concealment, furnishing opportunities for evil, enticing women or girls to places of prostitution or sending them to foreign lands for immoral purposes (white slave traffic), or through the positive furnishing of means for the perpetration of acts of injustice.1
1 See this Handbook, Vol. II, pp. 62 sqq.; A. Sleumer, Die Mitwirkung zur Sünde, Bonn 1907.
There is no such thing as compelling a man to sin, because the human will is free and cannot be coerced by physical force. But the organs of the body may be influenced in such a way as to make compliance almost irresistible, as in the case of rape. Grave authors say that a woman is usually able to resist physical violence when an attack is made upon her chastity; but physical violence is generally accompanied by the dread of being killed, maimed, or exposed to public disgrace, etc. Imagine the case of a good wife and mother who debates with herself whether she shall resist an attack upon her honor by risking death, and you have a concrete case of conflicting duties. To the same class belong cases in which parents force their children to steal or cheat. Here there is a collision between the respect due to parental authority on the one side, and justice and honesty on the other.
A person may become the prey of temptation without being conscious of any outside influence swaying his interior affections. A powerful means of seduction, which scarcely ever fails to attain its end, is flattery. The strongest of all in our day is the public press, when it combats the truth and caters to the base passions of the multitude.2
2 Linsenmann, Moraltheologie, pp. 4 London 28 sq.; H. Belloc, The Free Press, 1918.
When there is question of co-operating in the sins of others, we must distinguish (α) between formal and material and (β) between immediate and mediate co-operation. α) Formal co-operation (cooperatio formalis) is that in which the sin itself is willed. It is always illicit, because it involves sharing the sinful intention of the other (cooperatio in malam voluntatem).
Material co-operation (cooperatio materialis) takes place when a man participates in a wicked deed without sharing the evil intention (cooperatio ad malam actionem) of the principal. Such co-operation is permitted if the act co-operated in is in itself good, or at least objectively indifferent, or when it is dictated by a just cause, e. g., necessity, great utility, avoidance of a serious inconvenience, etc.
β) Immediate co-operation (cooperatio immediata) is a participation in the evil deed itself, not merely in some act preparatory to its commission, which latter would be merely cooperatio mediata.
Immediate co-operation in sin is illicit because it involves conscious assent to the sin itself and therefore is equivalent to formal co-operation. Mediate co-operation may be perfectly licit.
Thus a servant is allowed to perform acts for which he is hired, even though he knows that he is furnishing his master a remote occasion of sin or assists materially in carrying out a sinful plan. But he is never permitted to furnish a proximate occasion of sin, not even for the purpose of avoiding great harm to himself.3 To render a licit service to another may amount to formal co-operation in sin, as, e. g., loaning or selling a gun to a notorious poacher or "boot-legger." If there is no reason for suspecting the intention of the purchaser, it is permissible to sell him dangerous weapons, poison, etc., unless there is a statutory law to the contrary.
3 Prop. Damn. sub Innoc. XI, n. 51: “A servant who with lowered shoulders knowingly helps his master climb to the windows to violate a virgin, and repeatedly serves him by carrying a ladder, opening a door, or cooperating in some similar way, does not sin mortally if he does this through fear of notable harm, for instance lest he be badly treated by his master, looked upon with stern eyes, or expelled from the house.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1201).
A priest may give holy Communion to a secret sinner if the latter demands it publicly.
It is forbidden to make images which one knows to be intended for idolatrous worship, except for a very grave cause.4
4 S. C. Offic. d. d. Ian. 14, 1818: “Those who build temples of heretics or synagogues of Jews are not to be disturbed, provided scandal is absent and it is not done in contempt of religion.”
A Catholic is never allowed to play the organ, to sing or to direct the choir at religious services in a heretical church,5 or to call in a non-Catholic minister to give the "Lord's Supper" to a sick man.6 But to advise the minister that some one desires his services or to prepare the table for him is an indifferent act.7
5 S. C. Officii, d. d. 19 Iunii 1889.—Cfr. the Theol.-praktische Quartalschrift, of Linz, Austria, 1900, pp. 842 sqq.
6 S. C. Officii, d. d. 15 Mart. 1848: “Is it lawful for nuns caring for the sick in a hospital to summon a heretical minister who is requested for reasons of religion by a sick heretic? Resp.: According to the points set forth, it is not lawful; let them conduct themselves passively.”
7 C. S. Officii, d. d. 31 Ian. 1872; 14. Dec. 1898.
In deciding whether and to what extent Catholic officials are permitted to co-operate in the enforcement of unjust laws, for instance, a law compelling Catholic children to attend irreligious schools or assisting in a divorce case, we must first of all consider the question whether the act under consideration is one of tolerance or of positive command, and, secondly, whether or not the object directly aimed at is intrinsically evil. If it is evil, official or authoritative co-operation can not be permitted.8
8 Lehmkuhl in the Theol.-prakt. Quartalschrift, 1898, pp. 89 sqq.; P. Schnitzer, Kath. Eherecht, 5th ed., pp. 78 sqq.
There is one kind of cooperatio in malum which deserves special attention in our days, and that is what Fr. Noldin calls the cooperatio ad pravas ephemerides—co-operating with an evil press. This sin is incurred not only by the publishers, editors, and printers of wicked and scandalous newspapers and magazines, but also by their readers. Those who occasionally buy and read such a publication co-operate with the publishers only in a remote manner and may therefore be excused if the offense is not too frequently repeated and there is no danger of scandal. Those, on the other hand, who subscribe to such publications, are guilty of proximate co-operation, and their conduct can be excused only by some grave cause, such as business necessity. If any one has to subscribe to a bad newspaper or magazine for some reasonable cause, let him take due precautions: (a) against the danger of perversion, and therefore read only what he needs to know; (b) against giving scandal to the members of his household or to outsiders. This he can do by letting it be known that he has just reason for keeping the publication in question, but that he disap- proves its general tendency, and by keeping it away from those entrusted to his care.
The publishers and editors of such sheets are, of course, guilty of formal co-operation in evil. Regular contributors, who do not approve of the publication's tendency, and write only indifferent and harmless articles, can hardly be excused from more or less proximate co-operation, while occasional contributors co-operate only in a remote way, and may therefore be excused more easily.
Catholics must also refrain from supporting anti-Christian and immoral publications by advertising in them.
Those who sell or distribute such publications co-operate proximately in the evil done by them, though less proximately than those who print them; those engaged in such work should try to obtain other employment if they can.9
9 Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 141 sq.
- We sin indirectly against the spiritual welfare of our fellowmen by giving scandal.
Scandal (scandalum) is defined by St. Thomas, following St. Jerome, as "something less rightly done or said that occasions another's spiritual downfall."10
10 St. Jerome, In Matth., l. II, c. 15 (Migne, P. L., XXVI, 107); St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, 43, art. 1.
If the "thing less rightly said or done" is immoral, either in itself or at least according to outward appearance, the scandal is called active or objective (scandalum activum). If the act or utterance in question is apt to give scandal merely in an accidental way, and the offense to others, therefore, arises from their own intellectual or moral condition, the scandal is called passive or subjective (scandalum passivum). Subjective or passive scandal, consequently, is identical with the sin caused by the act by which scandal is given (ruina spiritualis).11
11 See Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 214: “A distinction is made between direct or indirect scandal, accordingly as the neighbor’s sin is intended by the agent or only foreseen, at least in general. Direct scandal is also called diabolical when the spiritual ruin of the neighbor is precisely intended. But if the sin of another is intended for one’s own advantage, it is called simply direct. Theologians commonly distinguish active and passive scandal. Active scandal is that to which the given definition applies. Passive scandal is the spiritual ruin of the neighbor itself and therefore is improperly called scandal, and should better be called the effect of scandal.”
It follows from what we have said that not every active scandal entails passive scandal, while, conversely, passive scandal may exist where no active scandal has been given. The reason for this is the spiritual and moral disposition of men.
If one takes scandal because of his own ignorance or indecision, this is called scandalum pusillorum vel infirmorum; if malice is the cause of the scandal taken, we speak of scandalum pharisaicum.12
12 Matth. XV, 11–20; XVIII, 6 sqq.; John VI, 62; Gal. V, 11; 1 John II, 10.—Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 214: “Scandal can be active or given without being passive or accepted, because an action may be posited which is of itself apt to give scandal without the effect following. And conversely, scandal may be accepted without being given; but then the accepted scandal is not properly to be attributed to any action of one’s neighbor, but rather to the ignorance, imagination, or even malice of him who suffers the scandal—or rather admits it without foundation. This is called the scandal of the little ones if it is taken from the weakness or ignorance of one’s neighbor; but it is called pharisaical if it proceeds from the mere malice of the subject.”
READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 43 (Rickaby, Aquinas Ethicus, II, 413 sqq.).—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. II, n. 43–80 (ed. Gaudé, I, 336).—J. P. Gury, Compend. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 214–247.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. II, 7th ed., pp. 62 sqq.—Aug. Lehmkuhl, S. J., Casus Conscientiae, Vol. I, 3rd ed., n. 419–445.—A. Sleumer, Die Mitwirkung zur Sünde, Bonn 1907.—H. Noldin, S. J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 131 sqq., 102 sqq., 116 sqq.—Villada, Casus Consc., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 95 sqq.—Chas. S. Devas, The Key to the World’s Progress, London 1906, pp. 161 sqq.—J. E. Ross, C.S.P., Christian Ethics, pp. 226 sqq., 232 sqq.