Question II: Concerning Scandal, Which Is Opposed to Spiritual Goods

I. Notions. - Scandal is a saying or deed less right, furnishing an occasion of spiritual ruin, or an external action (or omission), whether evil in itself or having the appearance of evil, because, namely, it is apt to induce and draw the neighbor into sin.¹

¹ There may be consulted St. Thomas, II-II, q. 43; St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. II, n. 33-58; Aertnijs, Th. M., I, l. II, n. 57 sq., II, l. VI, n. 316-321; Noldin, Th. M., II, n. 102 sq.; Berardi, opusc. De Occasionariis.

This definition is of scandal which is active or given. For passive scandal, or scandal received, is the spiritual ruin itself or sin of the neighbor, into which he has fallen by occasion taken from another's word or deed; and this is either received because given, when it arises from active scandal, or from the less right word or deed of another, or received only, when someone takes occasion from another's action altogether right: whether this happens from his own weakness, i.e., from ignorance or frailty, and then it is called scandal of the little ones, as if a young man from the modest adornment of a girl takes occasion of desiring her; or whether it happens from malice, and then it is called pharisaical, as if someone from the good works of another takes occasion of detracting from him or of hating him.²

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 43, a. 1, ad 4.

Hence sometimes it happens that there is at once active scandal in one and passive scandal in another, as when by the inducement or evil example of one another falls into sin; sometimes active without passive, as if someone induces another to sin and the latter does not consent; sometimes on the contrary passive without active, as in the scandal of the little ones and pharisaical scandal.

Active scandal is distinguished as twofold: direct and indirect.³ It is merely indirect if the sin of another is not intended but only foreseen as probably going to follow from a less right action, which of its own nature impels to sinning, as if someone publicly commits sin or furnishes an evil example. On the contrary it is direct if the sin of another is intended and, so far as is on the part of the scandalizer, procured and caused, as happens by command, persuasion, counsel, seduction, praise, or petition that a sin be committed. This again is twofold: material, or intended simply, if the sin is intended materially on account of some advantage, i.e., utility or pleasure of the scandalizer, as if a lustful person seduces another to sin, or a prostitute or seller of evil books intends to profit by an evil business; and formal, or formally intended, if the sin is intended precisely insofar as it is sin, as is done by the impious, which truly is and therefore rightly is called diabolical.⁴

³ In handing down the division we follow the manner received among moderns; for a more accurate manner of speaking see in our Summa Theologiae Moralis, I, n. 960-961, and in Waffelaert, Etude sur l'Espece morale du scandale.

⁴ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 43, a. 3.

II. Principles. - 1. Active scandal is a grave sin from its genus. For charity binds under grave obligation, by an affirmative precept, to procuring the amendment of the neighbor by correction and to impeding his sin; hence much more, by a negative precept, to not impelling him to sin by counsel or example. Hence Christ says, Mt. XVIII, 6-7: "But he who shall scandalize one of these little ones who believe in me, it is expedient for him that a millstone turned by an ass be hung about his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals! For it must needs be that scandals come. Nevertheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes!" - Cf. Rom. XIV, 13, 19 (printed: Rom. XI, 13, 19); I Cor. VIII, 13.

Nevertheless it can be venial, not only on account of the imperfection of the act or on account of indeliberation, but also from smallness of matter, if another is induced to venial sin, even if this is formally intended, or from the lightness of the influence which the action exercises upon the sin of the neighbor: thus if someone gives an evil example to persons whom he knows will not be much moved from it.

2. Active scandal, therefore, of itself is a sin against charity toward neighbor; but per accidens it contracts several other accidental malices, sometimes also against justice, namely if the scandalizer is bound not only from charity but from office to guard against the ruin of subjects, or has used unjust means, such as force, fear, threats, fraud, or deceit.

Thus because of the quality of the person scandalizing, for example if a father scandalizes children, a superior subjects, a teacher pupils; or because of the quality of the person scandalized, as if someone directly induces to base things a married person, or one bound by a vow of chastity, or a superior so that he neglects his office; or because of the manner in which it is committed, if unjust means, such as force or threats, are employed.

3. Indirect scandal of itself seems, at least probably, to be against charity alone; for of itself charity alone commands that we procure the good of the neighbor and impede his evil, and consequently prohibits us from giving him an evil example. Direct scandal, however, in addition certainly is against the virtue which it induces the neighbor to violate: for every virtue obliges us not to act directly against it, and consequently not to intend and be the cause and positively procure that it be violated by others. But if scandal is formally intended, it is also a special sin, i.e., having a distinct species and diverse malice, against charity, and a most grave one, which is directly opposed to fraternal correction, because it explicitly intends as an end, and has as its proper object to which it tends, a special and most grave harm of the neighbor, namely his spiritual ruin: but the end and object give species to a human act; in other cases the character of scandal in a less right action is a circumstance adding and changing the species.

Moreover scandal is so much graver: a) the graver is the ruin of the neighbor, as in the corruption of an innocent person; b) the more that ruin is intended, and thus direct scandal is graver than indirect; c) the more the ruin follows from it or is more efficaciously induced by it, and thus the evil examples of parents, of a priest, of a religious, and of others who are of greater authority or esteem are wont to be graver; and d) the more numerous are the persons who are moved to sin.

III. Corollary. - Therefore a penitent in confession ordinarily does not satisfy by saying: I gave grave scandal, but in addition he ought to express:

1. his own sin by which he gave scandal;

2. at least in direct scandal, the species of mortal sin to which he induced another by command, counsel, persuasion, praise or vituperation, seduction, etc., where the quality of the scandalized person comes to be attended to as often as a different species of sin is had from it, as if someone induces to base things a married person or one bound by a vow of chastity;

3. in formally intended scandal, also the special sin against charity;

4. the quality of himself, if from this an accidental species is added because by office he is bound to guard against scandal, as if a father scandalizes a son, a superior subjects, a teacher pupils;

5. likewise the unjust manner, if he employed force, fear, threats, etc.

But the penitent is not bound to express merely aggravating circumstances, such as are, whatever several have said:

a) the circumstance of solicitation by which he led an accomplice to sin, for the accomplice by consenting becomes guilty of the same scandal, although in a lesser degree; hence scandal is sufficiently accused when complicity with another is expressed;

b) the determined number of persons whom he efficaciously induced to sin, but it suffices to accuse their plurality, because from this scandal is not multiplied but only its gravity is increased.

IV. The reparation of active scandal comes to be considered especially. It, insofar as it can be done, is obligatory: for if from charity we are all bound to guard against the fall of the neighbor and to procure the amendment of one sinning, a fortiori he who by scandal was the occasion why another sinned is so bound. The obligation arises of itself from charity alone, because the neighbor sinned knowingly and willingly, and to one knowing and willing no injury is done; and therefore the scandalizer is not bound from justice or office, unless he used unjust means, for example deceit, force, fear, or unless a superior gave scandal to subjects whose spiritual good, by force of his office, he ought to care for.

Moreover reparation generally demands two things: a) that the further influence of scandal, insofar as it can be done, be taken away; b) that the amendment of him who suffered scandal be efficaciously cared for.

To this the following principles are valid, which of themselves bind under grave obligation:

1. He who gave direct scandal and by persuasion, counsel, prayers, etc., induced the neighbor to sin or into harmful error, is bound explicitly and especially to repair it, and therefore to take away its further influence; otherwise he would persevere in being the voluntary cause of those things. Thus, for example, he who gave unjust counsels still efficacious must render them inefficacious by a revocation to be made known by himself or by another; he who proposed false doctrine must retract it; he who wrote or spread evil, impious, or obscene books is bound to impede the diffusion of the books and publicly retract them, or, if he can, to take them from the hands of others; he who ordered a plot against the Church must detest it, etc.

2. He who gave ordinary or indirect scandal by evil example alone, which is wont to cause not full perversion but only passing sins, of itself suffices to repair it implicitly and by general reparation, which is contained in the cessation itself from scandal, in good example, in public reception of the sacraments, in prayer for the one scandalized, and in other similar things.

3. He who induced the neighbor into stable perversion is bound to labor for his conversion, so that he may lead him back to virtue, whether by himself, or through others if that can more opportunely be done; namely so that the evil caused may thus be compensated.

4. He who gave public scandal is bound to repair it publicly, both so that the further harmful influence of it may be taken away, and so that the reparation, by which they are warned concerning the evil, may become known to all the scandalized and be of use to them. Wherefore notorious excommunicates and interdicted persons, or manifestly infamous persons, such as prostitutes, concubinarians, or other sinners of that kind, are to be constrained to public reparation of scandal as far as they can, if it can be done; nor can they be admitted to the sacraments unless first they have left the unspeakable business and its occasion and have publicly removed the scandal.

But the manner of public reparation can be diverse according to various circumstances: either a retraction drawn up in writing and to be spread by public papers; or pronounced before two witnesses who will afterward spread the matter; or also before the pastor or confessor, who will make known that the sinner has satisfied his obligations, etc., provided it suffices for taking away the scandal. As to the manner, it is often better to consult the Ordinary.

5. Superiors who gave scandal to subjects are bound from office to repair it. Thus, for example, the father of a family or master who scandalized his domestics is ordinarily to be bound to repairing the scandal, if it still exercises a harmful influence, so that he manifests to them displeasure concerning his evil example and paternally exhorts them not to follow it in the future.

6. He who by an unjust means, such as force, deceit, fraud, or fear unjustly inspired, induced another to sin, is bound from justice to restraining the influence of scandal, namely: a) to take away the unjust means; indeed b) also to recall the other to good, if he cannot of himself return to his former state: for although by sinning he consented, nevertheless the consent is not full, because he did not consent to the deception or violence employed. Namely each one has a strict right not to be injured unjustly in spiritual goods.

V. The case of scandal through concubinage frequently occurs and presents a special difficulty in practice.⁵ It is scandal by which the accomplices not only mutually scandalize themselves, but truly also others if the concubinage, as it is apt to happen, is now public.

⁵ There may be consulted: St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. III, n. 432, 436, 437, 441; Segneri, Instructio confessorii, c. 5 and 6; Berardi, op. De Occasionariis, n. 139-141; Aertnijs, Theol. Moralis, II, l. VI, n. 316-321; Noldin, on the sixth precept, n. 16.

Concubinage is repeated intercourse with the same woman, whom someone keeps after the manner of a wife in his own or another's house. Commonly it is exercised between unmarried persons; nevertheless it can be found in adultery and in other species of lust.

Besides the public scandal which they are wont to furnish, concubinarians are placed in great danger of damnation, because they have a firm purpose, at least virtual, of persevering in sin, and therefore with greatest difficulty can return to true penance and free themselves from the bonds of the accomplice. To this, therefore, by the pastor, or also by the confessor, an opportune and efficacious remedy of serious warning and cure is to be provided.

Among remedies: 1. before all things marriage is to be counseled, when it is morally possible and an unhappy outcome is not feared: for this radically cuts off the occasion of sin and sometimes is the only remedy. This is chiefly to be urged: when the concubinarians cohabit, as if the concubine is supported by the paramour in the same house and in another way scarcely can procure support for herself; likewise when the concubinarians pursue one another with a great ardor of true love, especially if the concubinage is long-standing or has been apparently legitimized or confirmed by civil marriage; most of all in danger of death of either party.⁶

⁶ Nevertheless secret marriage, or as they say, marriage of conscience, is rarely to be permitted, except in the case of lethal sickness, or in the case where the concubinarians are publicly thought to be spouses. Generally it is to be avoided because of the danger either of divorce, or of scandal if offspring should be born, or of onanism lest scandal arise.

But let it be noted that, in a case of necessity on account of grave evil, if a canonical impediment obstructs the celebration of marriage, and there is not time for recourse to the Holy See, the Ordinary can dispense from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, except the presbyterate and affinity in the direct line, and, if the Ordinary cannot be approached, even the pastor or also the confessor can dispense (can. 1043-1044). Thus, theologians say: if from delay of the marriage great scandal and great infamy would be feared; if delay would be the cause that the marriage would no longer be contracted and therefore either the concubine would be left pregnant, or the offspring would not be legitimized, or the concubinarians would remain in perpetual concubinage; most of all if the marriage urged in order to consult for the eternal salvation of a dying counterpart.

2. When the possibility or opportunity of marriage is lacking, or when the delay of it for some time stands, separation is to be urged, which, where it can be done, is a necessary remedy for removing the proximate and free occasion.

Separation will be easier if the concubine is supported in a different house, and the concubinarian frequents her not from love of the person but from desire of pleasure. In this case, besides the general remedy against the occasion and danger of sin, it must generally be required that the concubine's partner no longer enter the house of the concubine nor have any intercourse with her. But the concubine can refuse to open the door to the partner arriving, always cohabit with some person so that she is never found alone, or also change domicile. But if they cohabit, separation will be more difficult, but for that reason the more to be urged; but if it is impossible and the occasion is necessary, for example from very great harm, during this time opportune remedies are to be employed by which the formal danger may be warded off and the occasion may become remote from proximate.

3. When even separation is lacking, several helps are numbered as to be employed. And indeed, if the concubinarians dwell in the same house, they generally ought to avoid being alone, man with woman, at least for a long time, or also by a firm declaration and serious reproach to forestall future sin, to flee every familiarity, even, insofar as possible, the sight of the accomplice, not to think about him or her, to finish truly necessary business swiftly, and other similar things; and to exercise mortification and live more piously in prayer and frequentation of the sacraments.

Especially let the concubine, particularly if she stays with the concubinarian under the title of maidservant, openly declare that she is unwilling any longer to lead such a life, and from the beginning resist him in every way, and at night shut and secure the door of the chamber so that the master cannot open it. The same principles otherwise hold concerning a male servant with respect to a mistress. And if the maidservant afterward is cast out of the house by the master and has nowhere to turn nor the means by which she may be supported, let the pastor or confessor take care that she be placed in some refuge founded for endangered girls or in another honorable house.

VI. Especially as regards the absolution of concubinarians and their admission to the sacraments:

A. In public concubinage: 1. If the occasion is voluntary, they are not to be absolved before they have separated themselves, because otherwise they are in proximate danger of breaking their purpose, and a public sinner ought not to be absolved unless he has done penance publicly and has satisfied for the scandal. Hence before he is absolved, the concubine's partner should dismiss the concubine, or, if she dwells outside the house, he ought for some notable time not to have gone to her; but the concubine ought to depart from the house of the concubinarian, or, if she does not cohabit, it is necessary that for some notable time she have broken off intercourse with him.

2. If the occasion is necessary, absolution is to be deferred until the penitent has contained himself for a notable time and has satisfied for the public scandal. This can be done: by making known the necessity of the occasion if it is not known; by publicly showing signs of conversion through frequentation of church and a more pious life or other similar things; and, if it can be done, by entering marriage with the accomplice. And if the shameful intercourse has now long ceased, and scandal, while the reputation of concubinage remains, cannot be taken away immediately, but nevertheless the penitent is prepared to take it away as soon as possible and in a better manner, he will be able to be absolved before the scandal has been repaired, provided that he promises that he will not publicly approach Holy Communion, at least in the place where he is known.

Nevertheless the necessity of the occasion is not easily to be admitted except for a very grave cause. For the affection by which concubinarians adhere to their pleasures causes them either to oppose specious pretexts to separation or to exaggerate them; therefore let the confessor diligently examine how much the obstacles alleged are worth, so that he may discern the truth.

B. In occult concubinage: 1. If the occasion is voluntary, the accomplices regularly are not to be absolved before they have in reality separated themselves; otherwise, as experience establishes, they are in proximate danger of breaking and not carrying out their promises. This also holds if they do not dwell in the same house, because in the case the occasion properly is not interrupted, but morally continuous, and because the concubine is had after the manner of a wife, and because of continuous frequentation.

Exception is made if there is a grave and urgent reason of avoiding a greater evil, namely: a) danger of death so urgent that time or means of separation is lacking; b) or difficulty of returning for a long time; or c) danger of infamy from non-reception of the sacrament; d) or great danger of alienation from the sacrament. In these cases nevertheless the penitent is to be warned that he will not obtain absolution any longer unless he has stood by his promises; but if he has been warned uselessly, he is to be held formally as a relapser.

2. If the occasion is necessary: a) regularly the penitent can be absolved, provided he is duly disposed and is prepared to employ efficacious means, necessary or prescribed, so that the occasion may become remote from proximate; unless sometimes it is more opportune to defer, with his consent, so that he may resist more promptly and efficaciously and employ the means.

b) But if he is a relapser and, warned several times, has neglected the prescribed remedies and has relapsed in the same way, absolution is to be deferred: both because he is doubtfully disposed, and so that he may better apprehend the gravity of the sin and be compelled to amendment. Unless perhaps he offers extraordinary signs of disposition, or is prepared to employ new and more efficacious special means.

Nevertheless let the occasion not easily be believed necessary, as they sometimes use as a pretext, by reason of avoiding scandal or infamy; indeed, on the contrary: 1. if the people have not yet noticed the familiarity, dismissal of the concubine will not produce a greater mark than if a maidservant is dismissed from the house; 2. on the contrary, in long-standing concubinage it is often morally impossible that the matter not become known to others; hence separation will impede infamy and scandal.

C. In the article of death: 1. When the dying person is now deprived of the senses, generally he ought to be absolved under condition: if you are capable, and also, at least if it can be done without scandal or secretly, anointed with Holy Oil; because it can seem somewhat probable that perhaps he is disposed, and it cannot be affirmed that he is dying in manifest mortal sin; unless nevertheless not so long before the deprivation of the senses he contemptuously refused the sacraments. See the little work Concerning Various Categories of Penitents, c. 2, q. 6.

2. When he uses the senses and time and manner are at hand, first scandal and the occasion of relapse are to be taken away, insofar as he can; and therefore:

a) if he is able to join the accomplice to himself by marriage, let the sick person execute this as quickly as possible;

b) if marriage is impossible, separation is to be required; for example, in public concubinage the concubinarian ought, if it can be done, to cast out the concubine and, insofar as there is need, to hire another honorable woman who may minister necessary things to him; the concubine ought, if infirmity and condition permit, to try to be received into a public hospital.

3. When even separation is impossible, whether physically or morally, for example because infamy is to be feared, the confessor ought to try to remove the danger insofar as it can be done; for this end, besides the general remedies, these will be able to help: let the accomplice and the image of him or her be removed from the chamber, or at least let the sick person, by himself or through the confessor, ask pardon from the accomplice for the scandal given to him or her and ask that person to do penance. Moreover, publicly the concubinarian, even before witnesses, ought to declare the impossibility of separation, to be made known as soon as possible, and at the same time promise that he will remove the scandal as soon as possible and, if perhaps he recovers, will effect separation and will have no further intercourse with the accomplice.

And then he will be able to be absolved: absolutely if he certainly seems disposed, under condition if only doubtfully; and in addition to be fortified with the other sacraments.

But let it be noted: a) In the case of public concubinage, the sacraments are not to be brought publicly unless after the scandal has already been sufficiently repaired publicly; otherwise they are to be brought secretly.

b) These rules are indubitable, and therefore are altogether to be observed; nor is it understood how, as has been asserted to us, certain pastors or confessors do not observe them.

VII. Observation. - In the case in which someone is publicly thought to be a concubinarian and is not, separation is not to be urged, if no active scandal, or less right action, has given occasion to the rumor; but it suffices that he make known that an opinion of this kind is false. Then scandal will either cease, or will become pharisaical scandal of malice alone. On the contrary, if by an evil or less right work he has given occasion, separation will be urged as long as it can be done without grave harm: for the natural law obliges one to take away scandal if it is possible; but if it cannot be done, by the practice of Christian life and by the spreading of the truth the scandal will gradually be taken away.

VIII. The case of merely civil marriage is reduced to concubinage. - Merely civil marriage entered by Catholics, since it is not a valid contract of marriage, nor a legitimate union, is nothing but concubinage; hence the same principles set forth above are generally to be applied in the case.

Nevertheless there can be a special difficulty if spouses joined by a valid marriage, after obtaining civil divorce, have attempted a new marriage before the civil law; this is not only invalid, but, while the legitimate counterpart is living, cannot be convalidated. Hence separation without doubt is of itself altogether to be urged; indeed, if it can be done, civil divorce of the second marriage will have to be obtained. But these things do not always seem possible, for example on account of offspring born and hence the danger of evil education or also scandal to be furnished to the offspring, or on account of great detriments in temporal goods, or also on account of infamy if those joined are held by all as legitimate spouses. Therefore then at least they are to be separated from the bed, and to be as cohabitants brother and sister. And therefore this new question arose: can spouses who, after obtaining civil divorce, have entered a new civil marriage, be admitted to the sacraments if they cohabit as brother and sister and the nullity of the marriage is unknown?

Concerning this question we were not able to find anything explicit in manuals of moral theology; they are wont to state the general principle without exception: those joined by civil marriage give public scandal, and consequently cannot be admitted to the sacraments unless the scandal has ceased by separation and has been sufficiently repaired. Schmitt alone, in the recent edition of Noldin's moral work, II, n. 677, puts a certain restriction, saying: "at most, if the fact were wholly occult, and in that place they were commonly held to be joined by true marriage, it could be permitted for a grave cause that, continence being preserved, they dwell together." He indeed does not add that they can be admitted to the sacraments, but perhaps this can be held as implicitly contained in these words. But that this is lawful was affirmed in the periodical L'ami du clerge, 1926, p. 424, if namely separation is morally impossible, the fact is altogether occult, and there is no danger that it will be manifested, for example if those joined have gone away into a far distant region or live unknown in a very great city, since then in reality there is no scandal. From this it happened in certain regions, especially in France, that some confessors applied this manner of acting to cases wholly occult in a great city; but certain ones, proceeding more imprudently, are reported to have dared to admit to the sacraments also those who only propose to live as brother and sister and strive for this, although at times they carnally couple.

Concerning this case it seems that one must speak thus. Regularly indeed it cannot be done thus. But given a wholly occult case, and one in which there would be no danger of manifestation, not even then would it belong to the confessor to pass sentence concerning it; for the cohabitation of those civilly joined is an external and public fact, which does not pertain to the internal forum of confession but to the external forum and consequently is subject to the judgment of public authority; moreover the case concerns very grave causes, which it is in no way opportune to leave to the mind of individual confessors, but it is better to refer them to ecclesiastical authority; but so that in this matter a certain uniform and constant practice, as is fitting, can be had, the Ordinary is not to be approached, but the matter will have to be submitted to the Sacred Penitentiary, to which otherwise recourse must be had if any wish to obtain absolution from infamy of law, which by the fact itself they incurred from merely civil marriage (can. 2356). To the Sacred Penitentiary, we say, because the matter concerns an occult case; for if it were public, it would pertain to the Holy Office.

The Sacred Penitentiary will diligently inquire about three things:

1. about the absence of danger of protestation and manifestation on the part of the abandoned spouse, and of injury perhaps inflicted upon that spouse and not repaired;

2. about the absence of every danger of manifestation of occult scandal. Certain ones falsely assert that in the case there is truly no scandal. Passive scandal indeed is lacking because of ignorance; but active scandal is by no means taken away. It consists in this, that the woman continues to bear the name of the man, that both in contempt of divine law remain together as spouses, and that in addition they publicly live in a proximate occasion of sin. Nor does it suffice that they conceive the purpose of living as brother and sister, because that is not an apt means of taking away scandal: namely the fact of cohabitation of those who are civilly joined is of itself an evil example and necessarily inducing to evil. And although here and now it does not induce to evil, as being unknown, this is wholly per accidens, because it is always of itself inductive: an external fact of itself less right, furnishing an occasion of spiritual ruin, and which, being of itself public and notorious, is apt to be spread and to move others to sin;

3. about the practical possibility of cohabiting as brother and sister; hence it will subject those joined to a long probation, for example of one year, during which time they must show continence faithfully preserved.

These things being verified, the Sacred Penitentiary will exceptionally be able to grant permission of admitting them to reception of the sacraments.

This seems the prudent and right solution of the aforesaid case; and we can affirm that this solution is approved as right in the Sacred Penitentiary itself.

We wish to insist somewhat on the great inconveniences and dangers which would threaten if the aforesaid new practice of certain confessors were spread or greatly extended. The danger, namely:

1. lest spouses or confessors no longer seek a means of completing real separation;

2. lest to spouses who promise to cohabit as brother and sister, but do not fulfill the promise, absolution nevertheless be granted under the pretext that they are in a morally necessary occasion;

3. lest esteem be diminished for that great evil which is merely civil marriage;

4. lest the fact not remain occult but the practice be spread in public: for since such a fact does not easily remain secret, when cases are multiplied the probability of revelation increases;

5. finally, lest the practice be extended too much. A simple warning of theologians does not meet this danger: that it can be done thus only very rarely. For since there are confessors not sufficiently prudent, this is not so rare, it will easily happen that several, in our times very inclined to laxer benignity, will imagine that precisely that very rare case occurs to them, and thus the practice would be unduly multiplied.

IX. Other special cases. - A. Concerning evil associations by reason of faith or morals, Aertnijs, Th. M. II, on Penance, n. 332, has these things:

1. Associations in which discourses against religion and its ministers are wont to be held, or evil newspapers are wont to be read, can constitute an occasion of losing faith, and then are to be avoided under grave sin. Therefore enrollment in and frequentation of societies or circles of this kind is wont to be gravely illicit; and the same must be said concerning frequentation of unbelieving and sectarian men, who strive to weaken faith.

2. Those associations constitute a proximate occasion of lust in which evil companions either draw one on to sins of deed, namely to self-pollution, to sodomy, to approaching prostitutes, or utter foul speech of such a kind that they cannot be uttered or heard without the greatest danger.

Therefore let the confessor weigh whether this occasion is voluntary or necessary; it can be necessary if companions of this kind are found in the same college, in the same workshop, etc., or if they are one's own neighbors, insofar as (as often happens in the countryside) it is morally impossible altogether to avoid encounters with them. In this case let the confessor warn the penitent that, if it is possible, he should break off base conversations or certainly not participate in them. Finally, let him especially strive to remove adolescents still innocent from the custom of evil companions, and let him not omit to stir up the vigilance of parents in this matter.

B. Concerning service, the same author says, l. c., n. 348-349: service can be an occasion of sin, either because it is done among non-Catholics or indifferent persons, or on account of persons soliciting to sin, as especially happens to women and girls.

1. A person exposed to the temptations of a man, if because of her frailty she is exposed to proximate danger of consenting, is to be treated as constituted in a proximate occasion, and that either necessary or voluntary according as the service can be left with or without grave difficulty.

2. A person, if endowed with such piety that she constantly repels temptations, is not living in a proximate occasion, and consequently is not bound to leave the house; nevertheless it is necessary that she employ opportune remedies for cutting off solicitations of this kind.

The remedies are: a) to threaten the man tempting, namely the servant, son, or master, that she will report the matter to the master, father, or wife; b) if threats do not suffice, actually to report the matter if from this an efficacious remedy can be hoped for; c) also to take away the occasions of temptations, by not speaking to the tempter, by not remaining alone with him without a witness, by closing the door of the chamber, etc.

3. A person who, because of the frequency of falls, lives as it were in concubinage, is to be treated as a concubine.

Service among non-Catholics, impious, or indifferent persons, if danger of perversion is absent both in faith and in morals, and servants regularly are not impeded from observing the precepts of the Church, is not illicit; otherwise, as soon as they can without grave inconvenience, they are bound to leave the service. Hence at the threshold of the contract they ought to stipulate liberty for the exercise of religion.

C. Concerning dances, spectacles, evil books, and immodest dress, we have spoken in the little work Concerning Various Categories of Penitents, where it treats of the worldly, c. 3, q. 6, n. VIII, 5; concerning obscene images, in the little work Concerning Chastity and Lust, q. 5, n. V.