Article I: On Active Scandal

S. Th. II-II, q. 43, a. 1-6.

958. Active scandal is defined: A less right word or deed furnishing an occasion of spiritual ruin. It is said:

1. word or deed, but not something desired, because a merely internal sin cannot furnish to another an occasion of sinning. But since affirmation and negation are reduced to the same genus, therefore under the name of word or deed there also comes omission: not said, not done;

2. less right, that is, what according to itself is evil or at least has the appearance of evil; as if someone speaks of shameful things before an adolescent, or for a just cause eats meat on Friday before others who are ignorant, or works on Sunday: for nothing disposes to spiritual ruin except according as it has a defect of rectitude, because that which is properly right rather fortifies man against a fall than induces him to ruin;

3. furnishing an occasion of spiritual ruin, both a) because scandal is not the efficient cause of another's sin, but this cause is his will alone, and b) because for scandal it is not enough that someone sin before others (for scandal does not fall upon the perfect man nor upon the altogether impious),¹ nor is it required that the ruin of neighbor in fact follow, but that an occasion be furnished to him, that is, that the action, either always or in these circumstances, of itself be naturally apt to move him to sin. But if the action does not move in itself, but by accident someone is moved to sin on account of it from his own disposition, the scandal will not be active, but only passive (a. 1, ad 4).

¹ Cf. St. Thomas, q. 43, a. 5; and St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. 2, n. 47, ad 5: "He is not judged to give scandal who, although he sins publicly, nevertheless does this before those who either are so vile, or infamous or wicked, or who are so upright that no one is moved to sin, for example, if someone fornicates before others who are prepared to do the same and are not moved by his example; or if before the meek someone contends, quarrels, or strikes another."

959. Active scandal is a mortal sin. - It is proved:

a) From the words of Christ, Mt. XVIII, 6-7: "Woe to that man through whom scandal comes" (Rom. XIV, 13, 20; I Cor. VIII, 13).

b) From reason: Charity obliges under grave obligation (by an affirmative precept) to correct neighbor and to impede him from rushing into sin; therefore much more (by a negative precept) it obliges us not to impel him to sin by counsel or example.

It is mortal from its genus; because it can be venial not only on account of imperfection of the act, but also on account of smallness of matter, if the other is induced only to venial sin, even if this is formally intended.

Moreover the sin of scandal is so much graver as the ruin of neighbor is greater, and as it is more intended, and as it follows more from our action (for example, given before an adolescent or by a priest), and as the persons who are moved to sin are more numerous.

960. Active scandal is divided by reason of efficacy: into direct, when someone is the true moral cause of the sin of neighbor, which is done by command, counsel, seduction, praise, request to commit sin, etc.; - and indirect, when someone places a less right action which is only a probable occasion of sinning for neighbor, as an evil example is.

Direct scandal is a sin not only against charity but also against the virtue to the violating of which it induces neighbor; indirect scandal is a sin, but probably against charity alone. Hence if someone by command, counsel, etc., has led someone to sin mortally, for example, to commit adultery, the species of sin to which he led him, in the case adultery, must be declared in confession; on the contrary, if someone has scandalized by evil example alone, it suffices to confess: I gave grave scandal. The reason is because any virtue obliges not only that we not violate it, but also that we not be a cause and positively procure that it be violated by others; but it is not proved also to oblige that we not furnish to another the mere occasion of violating it, nor that we impede its violation. And indeed the sin of another cannot be imputed to us (directly and in itself) unless we are its cause. Whence he who only gave to another the occasion of stealing (by example or intemperance) is not bound solidarily to restitution, and this is a sign that he did not sin against justice. And similarly concerning other virtues.²

² Do not say that it is indirectly imputed to us, insofar as we are bound to impede it, while direct and indirect voluntary are of the same species; - for we are bound to impede the sin of another insofar as it is his evil and is against charity, not insofar as it is such an evil and of such a species, and is against such a virtue.

961. Active scandal is divided by reason of intention: into directly or explicitly intended, whether it is formally and in itself intended (as an end), if someone explicitly intends the sin of neighbor insofar as it is sin (which is called diabolical scandal), or is simply intended (as a means), if someone explicitly intends the sin of neighbor on account of his own utility or pleasure; - and implicit or interpretative, if someone does not intend the sin of another but only places a less right action from which it can probably be feared that another will be drawn to sin.³

³ That scandal which is formally intended is called by St. Thomas active in itself, that is, from the intention of the agent or on the part of the one operating, "when someone by his inordinate word or deed intends to draw another to sinning," and it is called a special sin, because "the end gives species in morals"; - any other active scandal whatever, even direct, is only scandal by accident, or "besides the intention of the agent, as when someone by his inordinate deed or word does not intend to give another an occasion of ruin, but only to satisfy his own will, and thus even active scandal is not a special sin, because what is by accident does not constitute a species." Thus in article 3; elsewhere St. Thomas uses similar terminology but in an entirely diverse sense, which must be carefully noted. For example, in article 1, ad 4, every active scandal is called a cause of sinning in itself, on the part of the work, "when someone by his evil word or deed intends to induce another to sinning, or even if he does not intend this, the very deed is such that by its character it has that it is inductive to sinning"; - but in merely passive scandal, the deed of one is a cause of sinning for another by accident, "when both besides the intention of the one operating and besides the condition of the work someone badly disposed takes occasion" of sin.

But just as someone can sin by a merely internal act, not indeed by the sin of scandal, but by a desire or affection for scandal, so also by an internal act someone can desire the sin of another more than he procures it externally by scandal. Hence if someone directly and explicitly intends to procure the sin of another by merely indirect scandal, as if by evil example alone he explicitly intends to lead another to lust, he indeed sins by desire or affection against the virtue (for example, of chastity) which he intends to be violated, which must be declared in confession; but the external sin of scandal, as being indirect, is against charity alone.

But if someone formally, with a diabolical intention, intends the sin of neighbor, he commits a special (that is, a distinct species) and most grave sin against charity toward neighbor, directly opposed to fraternal correction, by which he explicitly intends as an end the special and most grave harm of neighbor, which is spiritual ruin. But the end gives species to human acts. Otherwise the character of scandal is as it were a circumstance changing the species of another sin.

962. There is an obligation of repairing active scandal, as much as can be done: for if anyone from charity is bound to forestall the fall of another and to procure the amendment of one sinning (or erring), a fortiori he who through scandal was the occasion why another sinned is bound. The obligation arises from charity alone, because no injury is done to one knowing and willing; not, however, from justice or office, unless someone used unjust means, for example, deceit, force, fear, or unless a superior gave scandal to subjects for whose spiritual good, by force of his office, he ought to provide.

As regards the mode of reparation: 1. It suffices to repair implicitly indirect scandal given by example alone, namely, by cessation from scandal, good example, public reception of the sacraments, prayer for the one scandalized, etc.

2. Direct scandal, given by depraved counsel, false doctrine, depraved books, machination against the Church, etc., must be repaired explicitly, so that first its further influence is removed, and then the evil caused is compensated, so that he who suffered scandal may be recalled to good. Thus wicked counsel and false doctrine are to be recalled, machination against the Church is to be publicly detested, the diffusion of depraved books is to be impeded as much as can be done, and good books are to be written or spread.

3. Hence public scandal must also be repaired publicly, both so that its further influence may be removed, and so that the reparation, by which they are warned concerning the evil, may become known to all and profit them.

The mode of public reparation can be diverse: either a retraction drawn up in writing is published through public newspapers, or it is done before witnesses (two) who will afterwards publish the matter, or before the parish priest who will afterwards publish that the sinner has satisfied his obligations, provided it suffices for removing the scandal. But since the sacraments cannot be ministered to the unworthy, it is clear that he who has not removed public scandal cannot be publicly admitted to the sacraments; indeed, the minister would commit scandal, because he would furnish an occasion of judging that the sacraments are ministered to the unworthy and that scandalous actions are tacitly approved. Thus a public concubinary is bound first to leave the shameful commerce and its occasion before he publicly receives the sacraments. - In practice it belongs to confessors, parish priests, and bishops to determine the congruent mode of reparation.

963. Observations. - 1. It can happen that a sin grave according to itself is venial scandal, for example, if your grave theft is an occasion for another to commit light theft. Conversely, a sin light according to itself can be grave scandal of disobedience or irreverence or injury or immodesty, for example, if a religious utters a less honorable word before women or those who from it can take occasion of sinning mortally, or a priest keeps a suspect person at home.

2. Scandal can contain several other malices acceding to it, either on account of the quality of the person scandalizing, for example, if a father scandalizes children, a superior subjects, a teacher disciples: for these are bound not only from charity but also from office to forestall the ruin of subjects; or on account of the quality of the person scandalized, as if someone directly induces a married person, or one bound by a vow of chastity, to shameful things; or on account of the mode in which it is committed, if unjust means such as force or threats are employed.

3. "Some deed is not therefore scandal because another begins to suspect or think evil concerning such a man, because this latter does not sin if he suspects on account of sufficient indications. Nevertheless it is otherwise if he begins to think evil concerning the Catholic faith, the clergy, a religious order, or to be less disposed toward piety" (St. Alphonsus, l. II, n. 44, 6). For it makes no difference whether the sin by which scandal is given furnishes an occasion for sins of the same species or for sins of a diverse species. Hence those give scandal more easily who are of greater authority, or piety, or esteem.