|
Objection 1: It would seem that scandal is not a sin. For sins do
not occur from necessity, since all sin is voluntary, as stated above
(FS, Question 74, Articles 1,2). Now it is written
(Mt. 18:7): "It must needs be that scandals come."
Therefore scandal is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, no sin arises from a sense of dutifulness,
because "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Mt.
7:18). But scandal may come from a sense of dutifulness, for
Our Lord said to Peter (Mt. 16:23): "Thou art a scandal
unto Me," in reference to which words Jerome says that "the
Apostle's error was due to his sense of dutifulness, and such is
never inspired by the devil." Therefore scandal is not always a sin.
Objection 3: Further, scandal denotes a stumbling. But he that
stumbles does not always fall. Therefore scandal, which is a
spiritual fall, can be without sin.
On the contrary, Scandal is "something less rightly said or done."
Now anything that lacks rectitude is a sin. Therefore scandal is
always with sin.
I answer that, As already said (Article 1, ad 4), scandal is
of two kinds, passive scandal in the person scandalized, and active
scandal in the person who gives scandal, and so occasions a spiritual
downfall. Accordingly passive scandal is always a sin in the person
scandalized; for he is not scandalized except in so far as he succumbs
to a spiritual downfall, and that is a sin.
Yet there can be passive scandal, without sin on the part of the
person whose action has occasioned the scandal, as for instance, when
a person is scandalized at another's good deed. In like manner active
scandal is always a sin in the person who gives scandal, since either
what he does is a sin, or if it only have the appearance of sin, it
should always be left undone out of that love for our neighbor which
binds each one to be solicitous for his neighbor's spiritual welfare;
so that if he persist in doing it he acts against charity.
Yet there can be active scandal without sin on the part of the person
scandalized, as stated above (Article 1, ad 4).
Reply to Objection 1: These words, "It must needs be that
scandals come," are to be understood to convey, not the absolute,
but the conditional necessity of scandal; in which sense it is
necessary that whatever God foresees or foretells must happen,
provided it be taken conjointly with such foreknowledge, as explained
in the FP, Question 14, Article 13, ad 3; FP, Question
23, Article 6, ad 2.
Or we may say that the necessity of scandals occurring is a necessity
of end, because they are useful in order that "they . . . who are
reproved may be made manifest" (1 Cor. 11:19).
Or scandals must needs occur, seeing the condition of man who fails to
shield himself from sin. Thus a physician on seeing a man partaking of
unsuitable food might say that such a man must needs injure his health,
which is to be understood on the condition that he does not change his
diet. In like manner it must needs be that scandals come, so long as
men fail to change their evil mode of living.
Reply to Objection 2: In that passage scandal denotes any kind of
hindrance: for Peter wished to hinder Our Lord's Passion out of a
sense of dutifulness towards Christ.
Reply to Objection 3: No man stumbles spiritually, without being
kept back somewhat from advancing in God's way, and that is at least
a venial sin.
|
|