Summa Theologiae Moralis, vol. I: De Principiis

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

958. Active scandal is defined: a word or deed less right giving occasion of spiritual ruin. It is called

1° word or deed, not however desired, because a merely internal sin cannot give another occasion of sinning. Since however affirmation and negation are reduced to the same genus, therefore under the name of word or deed omission also comes: not said, not done;

2° less right, i.e. which according to itself is evil or at least has the appearance of evil; as if one speaks of base things in the presence of a young person, or for a just cause eats meat on Friday in the presence of others who do not know, or works on the Lord's day: for nothing disposes to spiritual ruin except inasmuch as it has a defect of rectitude, because what is properly right rather guards man against a fall than induces him to ruin;

3° giving occasion of spiritual ruin, both a) because scandal is not the efficient cause of another's sin, but this is only the will itself, and b) because for scandal it is not enough that one sins in the presence of others (for scandal does not fall upon a perfect man nor upon one altogether wicked¹), nor is it required that the ruin of the neighbor in fact follow, but that occasion be given him, i.e. that the action either always or in these circumstances of itself be apt to move him to commit sin. But if the action of itself does not move, but accidentally because of it someone is moved to sin from his own disposition, it will not be active scandal, but only passive (a. 1, ad 4).

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 affirmative precept) to correct the neighbor and to prevent him from falling into sin; therefore much more (by negative precept) not to impel him to sin by counsel or example.

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

Moreover the sin of scandal is so much the graver as the ruin of the neighbor is greater, and as it is more intended, and as it follows more from our action (e.g. given in the presence of a young person or by a priest), and as the persons moved to sin are more numerous.

960. Active scandal is divided by reason of efficacy: into direct, when one is the true moral cause of the neighbor's sin, which is done by command, counsel, seduction, praise, petition to commit sin, etc.; — and indirect, when one places a less right action which is only a probable occasion of sinning for the neighbor, as is a bad example².

direct, when one is the true moral cause of the neighbor's sin, which is done by command, counsel, seduction, praise, petition to commit sin, etc.;—and indirect, when one places a less right action which is only a probable occasion of sinning for the neighbor, as is a bad example.

Direct scandal is sin not only against charity but also against the virtue to the violation of which one induces the neighbor; indirect scandal is sin, but probably against charity alone. Hence if by command, counsel, etc. one has brought someone to mortal sin e.g. to adultery, the species of the sin to which he has led him, in this case adultery, is to be declared in confession; on the contrary if by bad example alone one has scandalized, it suffices to confess: I gave grave scandal. The reason is because every virtue obliges not only not to be violated by oneself but also not to be the cause and positively procure that it be violated by others; but it is not proved also to oblige not to give another the mere occasion of violating it, nor to prevent its violation. And surely the sin of another (directly and per se) cannot be imputed to us unless we are its cause; whence he who has only given another occasion of stealing (by example or intemperance) is not bound in solidum to restitution, and this is a sign that he has not sinned against justice. And similarly of other virtues³.

961. Active scandal is divided by reason of intention: into directly or explicitly intended, whether it be formally and per se intended (as end), if one explicitly intends the sin of neighbor inasmuch as it is sin (which is called diabolical scandal), or whether it be simply intended (as means), if one explicitly intends the sin of neighbor for one's own utility or pleasure; — and implicit or interpretative, if one does not intend the sin of another but only places a less right action, from which it can probably be feared that another may be drawn to sin⁴.

But just as someone by internal act alone can sin, not indeed by the sin of scandal, but by the desire or affect of scandal, so also by internal act one can more desire the sin of another than procure it by external scandal. Hence if one directly and explicitly intends to procure the sin of another by only indirect scandal, as if by bad example alone he explicitly intends to lead another to lust, he indeed sins by desire or affect against the virtue (e.g. chastity) which he intends to be violated, which is to be declared in confession; but the external sin of scandal as being indirect is against charity alone.

But if one formally with diabolical intention intends the sin of the neighbor, he commits a special (i.e. distinct in species) and gravest sin against charity toward the neighbor, directly opposed to fraternal correction, by which he explicitly intends as end the special and gravest harm of the neighbor which is spiritual ruin; the active end however of human acts gives the species. Otherwise the notion of scandal is as a circumstance changing the species of another sin.

962. There is an obligation of repairing active scandal, as far as possible: for if each one out of charity is bound to prevent the fall of another and to procure the amendment of the sinner (or of the erring), a fortiori he who has given scandal has been the occasion why another sinned. The obligation arises from charity alone because to one knowing and willing no injury is done; not however from justice or office, unless someone has used unjust means, e.g. fraud, force, fear, or unless a superior has given scandal to subjects whose spiritual good, by virtue of his office, he must safeguard.

As to the manner of reparation: 1° Scandal indirect, given by example alone, is to be repaired implicitly, namely by ceasing from scandal, by good example, by public reception of the sacraments, by prayer for the scandalized one, etc.

2° Scandal direct, given by evil counsel, false doctrine, bad books, machination against the Church, etc., must be repaired explicitly, so that first its further influence be removed, and then the harm caused be compensated so that the one who suffered the scandal be recalled to good. Thus evil counsel and false doctrine must be revoked, machination against the Church must be publicly detested, the diffusion of bad books must be prevented as far as possible, and good books must be written or spread.

3° Hence public scandal is also to be repaired publicly, both so that its further influence be removed, and so that the reparation, that they may be warned of the evil, be known to all and be profitable.

The manner of public reparation can be various: either a retraction written out is published through public papers, or it is done before witnesses and the matter is afterwards made known, or it is done before the parish priest and afterwards made known; the sinner is bound to have satisfied all, provided it suffices to remove the scandal. Since however the sacraments cannot be ministered to the unworthy, it is clear that one who has not removed public scandal is not to be publicly admitted to the sacraments; indeed the minister would commit scandal, because he would give occasion for judging that the sacraments are ministered to the unworthy and scandalous actions are tacitly approved. Thus a public concubinary is bound to first leave the shameful commerce and its occasion before he publicly receives the sacraments. — In practice it belongs to confessors, parish priests, bishops to determine the suitable manner of reparation.

963. Remarks. — 1. It can happen that a sin grave in itself is venial scandal, e.g. if your grave theft is an occasion for another to commit light theft. Conversely a sin light in itself can be grave scandal of disobedience or irreverence or injury or unchastity, e.g. if a religious utters a less honest word in the presence of women or of those who can therefrom take occasion of sinning mortally, or if a priest retains a suspect person at home.

2. Scandal can contain several other added malice, either because of the quality of the scandalizing person, e.g. if a father scandalizes children, a superior subjects, a teacher disciples; for these are bound not only out of charity but also by office to prevent the ruin of their subjects; or because of the quality of the scandalized person, as if one directly induces to base things a married person, or one bound by vow of chastity; or because of the manner in which it is committed, if unjust means such as violence or threats are employed.

3. "A deed is not scandal because another begins to suspect or think ill of such a man, because he does not sin if he suspects on sufficient indications. It is otherwise however, if he begins to think ill of the Catholic faith, clergy, religious order, or to be less inclined to piety" (S. Alph., l. II, n. 44, 6°). For it makes no difference whether one gives occasion by sin to sins of the same species, or to sins of a different species. Hence those who are of greater authority, or piety, or repute more easily give scandal.