Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus

Whether SCANDAL is a special sin.

It is CERTAIN first, that every Scandal, even per accidens given, not by direct will, but from the work, is mortal of its own nature.

It is PROVED first from D. Bonaventure p. p. Centil. sect. 31. et ad 17. Lucae from that passage Matth. 18. Vae homini illi, per quem Scandalum venit. Expedit ei ut suspendatur mola asinaria in collo eius, et demergatur in profundum maris, which the B. Lucas likewise testifies, where from Bede in the Gloss he observes, that a most grave punishment is imposed to be rather endured than eternal; and that the former will be useful to him.

It is PROVED secondly from D. Bonaventure there. Because it fights against Charity, leading souls down to hell. It is also against justice, snatching from Christ souls created, and redeemed by his blood; of which it is said Sap. 11. Tua sunt omnia Domine, qui amas animas. Hence the Apostle gravely, prima Corinth. cap. 8. says: Peribit infirmus in tua scientia frater, propter quem Christus mortuus est? Sic autem peccantes in fratres, et in Christum peccatis. Wherefore Apoc. 2. he declares: Habes tenentes doctrinam Balaam, qui docebat Balac mittere Scandalum, etc. Poenitentiam age: si quo minus, etc.

It is PROVED thirdly from S. Doctor, because as for one who builds up by good example a great reward is prepared, so for one who destroys the work of God, a great punishment. Wherefore Rom. 14. Noli propter escam destruere opus Dei.

It is PROVED fourthly from S. Doctor, because it is a great cruelty to seduce the simple, as it is said Levit. 19. Nec coram caeco pones offendiculum.

It is PROVED fifthly, because one who scandalizes is held to that penalty: Animam pro anima.

But this is a greater sin in public persons, as Prelates and religious, of whom Malach. 2. Legem requirent ex ore eius. Vos autem recessistis de via, et scandalizastis plurimos in lege: Propter quod et ego dedi vos contemptibiles.

You will OBJECT that in Matth. 18. it is said: Necesse est ut veniant Scandala. But what is necessary is not a fault.

S. Doctor ANSWERS, in the place cited that it speaks by supposition, that they are evil, and most truly of Passive Scandal by supposition of the active; nay, by supposition of malice, which is scandalized even at holy works, as the world was scandalized at Christ John 7. Matth. 13. Mark 11. prima Petri 2. and Paul says Christ was a Scandal to the Jews, and in Luke 2. it is said: Positus in ruinam multorum. Thus Valencia also answers puncto 2. and others.

It is CERTAIN also, that passive Scandal per se is a mortal or venial sin, according as the sin itself will be.

It is CERTAIN also, that Scandal from the intention of drawing into the ruin of souls, or into some crime, as such, is a special Scandal; for it is opposed to beneficent Charity.

The QUESTION is now: whether he who induced another by command, counsel, etc., even if he did not directly intend his ruin, is guilty of the special crime of Scandal. Moreover, whether also not only he who intends merely to draw others to that pleasure for himself, but also he who kindled by the sole wickedness of the work gives evil example, is guilty of a special Scandal against Charity.

The FIRST opinion is that it is a special sin. Thus Adrian in 4. dist. 38. quaest. ultim. Antoninus 2. part. titul. 7. §. 4. cap. 4. Navarre relect. in cap. Consideret, de Poenit. disp. 5. and in the Manual, cap. 6. number 19. Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 18. puncto 2. where he also cites Alensis part. 2. quaest. 189. memb. 2. The same think Peter Soto Lect. 9. de confess. Suarez de Charitate, disput. 10. sect. 2. Layman Lib. 2. tract. 3. cap. 13. Tannerus disp. 2. quaest. 6. dub. 8. citing also Victoria and the modern Thomists, Sylvius 2. 2. The SECOND opinion is, that this scandal is a mere aggravating circumstance. Thus D. Bonav. in 4. dist. 38. dub. 2. lit. D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 43. art. 3. Caietan there, and in summa, V. scandalum, Couar. relect. in cap. Peccatum, part. 1. num. 5. Bannes quaest. 43. art. 4. Durandus 4. dist. 38. quaest. 3. Palud. there, quaest. 6. Fagundez part. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 4. Ledesma Tom. 2. Tract. 4. cap. 5. concl. 5. Lorea 2. 2. quaest. 43. sect. 3. diff. 56. num. 7. Villalob. summa, Tom. 2. tract. 3. diffic. 8. Becanus 2. 2. cap. 27. quaest. 2. Coninck de act. supernaturalibus, disp. 33. dub. 5. num. 35. Filliucius in Tom. 1. tract. 28. cap 6. num. 216. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 43. art. 3. Sanchez summa, Tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 6. Vasquez prima secundae, disp. 102. cap. 4. Azor Lib. 4. cap. 7. quaestio 1. Diana part. 3. tract. 4. resol. 114. and part. 5. Tract. 2. which is entirely on scandal, where resol. 2. he refuses to recount the opinions of the Doctors, because this disputation seems metaphysical; for as to practice it matters little, because according to the common opinion of D. Bonaventure, in whatever way you give the occasion of spiritual ruin, you are bound to confess it. In the same manner speak some of those cited above, especially Layman, and Hurtado 2. 2. disp. 173. sect. 8. §. 61. Fuliensis lib. 2. cap. 12. Bassaeus, and others.

I ASSERT with this opinion, that scandal of this kind is only an aggravating circumstance.

It is PROVED from D. Bonaventure and D. Thom., because sin is not named from the person against whom it is; whence if anyone offended several with one contumely, he would commit one sin; but it is taken from the act about which it is, and about that which is per se intended, not about that which is per accidens. Therefore that which is beyond the formal intention pertains to the species of the act only reductively, as Valencia also acknowledges.

Valencia ANSWERS that the assumption is true of that which is beyond every intention and without all voluntariness; and that it does not look to the moral act, nor has anything whereby it is reckoned among moral acts. But it suffices for the Seraphic Doctor, if the act does not have moral being per se, but needs to be reduced to something else, that it not constitute a distinct species of moral act.

Valencia OBJECTS. In every other matter in which sin is specified by the harm or injury inflicted, the tacit and indirect, or virtual intention, is equivalent to an express intention, at least for the commission of a sin of such a species: Therefore also in the matter of scandal. The antecedent is proved: For he truly commits the sin of detraction who rashly says something, from which follows damage to the reputation of his neighbor. Likewise he truly commits the sin of theft who takes another's property, not with the intention of harming his neighbor, but of benefiting himself; and he who commits fornication in a sacred place commits Sacrilege, although he does not expressly intend to inflict injury on the sacred place: Therefore. Caietan admits the knot of this argument, saying he does not know how to solve it, quaest. 53. art. 2. ad 3.

Yet it is ANSWERED that the cases are different: for all have moral entity per se, nor do they need to lean on another; not so in our case. As to the first; many judge it probable that it is not a sin. As to the second case, there is a direct will, for he necessarily wills to snatch from another to benefit himself. The third case is of a different matter, about which the act per se takes place in the Church, if the fornicator wills certainly to fornicate in that place, even if he does not principally intend this.

You OBJECT secondly. He who scandalizes by a good act truly commits the sin of scandal, as Caietan and Paludanus concede; although he only indirectly wills the ruin of his neighbor: Therefore also he who scandalizes by an evil act. For the latter is not in a better condition than the former; nor does the fact that his act is otherwise evil stand in the way of its being, for another reason, at the same time in another species of sin, as appears from the doctrine of D. Thom. prima secundae, quaest. 18. art. 10. I do not think (says Valencia) this argument can be solved.

It is ANSWERED with D. Bonaventure by denying the Antecedent: For the former sins against prudence, and so that circumstance of the act is not a sin per se; and by this the third objection is answered.

You OBJECT thirdly: If the formal intention is necessary for the special sin of scandal; rarely, or never, will one sin by the sin of scandal. For how rare is the man so imbued with diabolical poison as to will the special and spiritual ruin of others? and yet in Scripture this sin is described as frequent Matth. 18. prima Corinth. 8.

It is ANSWERED easily, that a direct intention is not necessary, namely that you will to lead him directly into spiritual ruin, namely to hell; but it suffices that you will to lead him to sin in such a way, and persuade, solicit, threaten, etc. Alas, how frequent are these acts. In this sense some of the second opinion do not deny that it is a special sin. Thus D. Bonaventure in speculo animae, cap. 1. et lib. 3. Phar. cap. 39. where the SS. Fathers cited seem to think this, and ad 17. Lucae, and in 4. in the place cited he seems to speak the same.

From what has been said you will gather how one who has given scandal ought to behave in confession.

INDEED it seems that this circumstance need not be confessed, according to the doctrine of D. Bonav. de circumstantiis aggravantibus, and I shall say 3. part. Tract. de Paenit. diff. 2. sect. 3. quaest. 5. Thus many affirm on this matter.

However, COMMONLY they teach that it is to be confessed. Thus Lorea, Villalobos, Becanus, Coninck, Fagundez, Ledesma, cited above, to whom Diana almost subscribes Part 3. Tract. 4. resol. 114. with D. Bonaventure. Nay, Sylvius, Filliucius, Sanchez, Layman above, Bonacina de sacrament. disp. 5. quaest. 5. sect. 2. puncto 2. §. 3. diff. 3. num. 21. and Diana point out that the number of persons and their condition must be expressed, to whom the scandal was given, even with a single sin, and in what way, whether in conversations about fornication? about unspeakable things? or about betrothed women (conjunctis)? Wherefore these two last cry out blind confessors who do not ask these things. Diana again subscribes Part 5. Tract. 7. resol. 3. adding Paludanus, Molsheim (Molfesium), Leo, and others.

NOTE truly first, that soliciting a defiled (patatam), or a prepared (paratam) woman,¹ is a probably direct scandal, to be said in confession, according to Sanchez lib. 1. cap. 6. num. 14. Bonacina tract. 1. disp. 5. quaest. 5. puncto 2. §. 3. Vasquez quaest. 91. art. 1. disp. 4. Fill. tract. 28. num. 231. They make an exception, if by an explicit act it were sufficiently perceived, as was said, that you fornicated with a woman, one could gather that you sought this; for a woman, for the most part, is not accustomed to ask.

Others, however, admit it is not to be confessed; for it does not induce, since he finds it prepared. Thus Fagundez praecept. 2. lib. 4. cap. 5. Suarez 3. part. tract. 4. disp. 22. sect. 4. num. 18. Henriquez lib. 2. de paen. cap. 6. num. 7. Diana part. 1. tract. 7. res. 34. Azor tract. 2. lib. 12. cap. 16. quaestio 5. Bassaeus §. 1.

To SOLICIT one not yet prepared, however, is called by Diana indirect scandal; but I refuse it, for many do not excuse doing works in the face of the perfect which inflame; for even these fall, as David 2. Reg. 11. seeing Bethsabee in the bath. Solomon 3. Reg. 11. See D. Thom. art. 5. and 6. Perhaps you will excuse yourself, if you opine that the beholders are not to be moved, as many say with Diana, Tract. de scandalo, resol. 3. or if they have been so carried along that they are not moved on that account. See there.