|
Objection 1: It would seem that scandal is unfittingly defined as
"something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual
downfall." For scandal is a sin as we shall state further on
(Article 2). Now, according to Augustine (Contra Faust.
xxii, 27), a sin is a "word, deed, or desire contrary to the law
of God." Therefore the definition given above is insufficient,
since it omits "thought" or "desire."
Objection 2: Further, since among virtuous or right acts one is
more virtuous or more right than another, that one alone which has
perfect rectitude would not seem to be a "less" right one. If,
therefore, scandal is something "less" rightly said or done, it
follows that every virtuous act except the best of all, is a scandal.
Objection 3: Further, an occasion is an accidental cause. But
nothing accidental should enter a definition, because it does not
specify the thing defined. Therefore it is unfitting, in defining
scandal, to say that it is an "occasion."
Objection 4: Further, whatever a man does may be the occasion of
another's spiritual downfall, because accidental causes are
indeterminate. Consequently, if scandal is something that occasions
another's spiritual downfall, any deed or word can be a scandal: and
this seems unreasonable.
Objection 5: Further, a man occasions his neighbor's spiritual
downfall when he offends or weakens him. Now scandal is condivided
with offense and weakness, for the Apostle says (Rm. 14:21):
"It is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine, nor anything
whereby thy brother is offended or scandalized, or weakened."
Therefore the aforesaid definition of scandal is unfitting.
On the contrary, Jerome in expounding Mt. 15:12, "Dost thou
know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word," etc. says:
"When we read 'Whosoever shall scandalize,' the sense is
'Whosoever shall, by deed or word, occasion another's spiritual
downfall.'"
I answer that, As Jerome observes the Greek skandalon may be
rendered offense, downfall, or a stumbling against something. For
when a body, while moving along a path, meets with an obstacle, it
may happen to stumble against it, and be disposed to fall down: such
an obstacle is a skandalon.
In like manner, while going along the spiritual way, a man may be
disposed to a spiritual downfall by another's word or deed, in so
far, to wit, as one man by his injunction, inducement or example,
moves another to sin; and this is scandal properly so called.
Now nothing by its very nature disposes a man to spiritual downfall,
except that which has some lack of rectitude, since what is perfectly
right, secures man against a fall, instead of conducing to his
downfall. Scandal is, therefore, fittingly defined as "something
less rightly done or said, that occasions another's spiritual
downfall."
Reply to Objection 1: The thought or desire of evil lies hidden in
the heart, wherefore it does not suggest itself to another man as an
obstacle conducing to his spiritual downfall: hence it cannot come
under the head of scandal.
Reply to Objection 2: A thing is said to be less right, not
because something else surpasses it in rectitude, but because it has
some lack of rectitude, either through being evil in itself, such as
sin, or through having an appearance of evil. Thus, for instance,
if a man were to "sit at meat in the idol's temple" (1 Cor.
8:10), though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be done
with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain appearance of
evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol, it might occasion
another man's spiritual downfall. Hence the Apostle says (1
Thess. 5:22): "From all appearance of evil refrain
yourselves." Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something
done "less rightly," so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in
itself, and all that has an appearance of evil.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (FS, Question 75,
Articles 2,3; FS, Question 80, Article 1), nothing can
be a sufficient cause of a man's spiritual downfall, which is sin,
save his own will. Wherefore another man's words or deeds can only be
an imperfect cause, conducing somewhat to that downfall. For this
reason scandal is said to afford not a cause, but an occasion, which
is an imperfect, and not always an accidental cause. Nor is there any
reason why certain definitions should not make mention of things that
are accidental, since what is accidental to one, may be proper to
something else: thus the accidental cause is mentioned in the
definition of chance (Phys. ii, 5).
Reply to Objection 4: Another's words or deed may be the cause of
another's sin in two ways, directly and accidentally. Directly,
when a man either intends, by his evil word or deed, to lead another
man into sin, or, if he does not so intend, when his deed is of such
a nature as to lead another into sin: for instance, when a man
publicly commits a sin or does something that has an appearance of sin.
In this case he that does such an act does, properly speaking, afford
an occasion of another's spiritual downfall, wherefore his act is
called "active scandal." One man's word or deed is the accidental
cause of another's sin, when he neither intends to lead him into sin,
nor does what is of a nature to lead him into sin, and yet this other
one, through being ill-disposed, is led into sin, for instance,
into envy of another's good, and then he who does this righteous act,
does not, so far as he is concerned, afford an occasion of the
other's downfall, but it is this other one who takes the occasion
according to Rm. 7:8: "Sin taking occasion by the commandment
wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." Wherefore this is
"passive," without "active scandal," since he that acts rightly
does not, for his own part, afford the occasion of the other's
downfall. Sometimes therefore it happens that there is active scandal
in the one together with passive scandal in the other, as when one
commits a sin being induced thereto by another; sometimes there is
active without passive scandal, for instance when one, by word or
deed, provokes another to sin, and the latter does not consent; and
sometimes there is passive without active scandal, as we have already
said.
Reply to Objection 5: "Weakness" denotes proneness to scandal;
while "offense" signifies resentment against the person who commits a
sin, which resentment may be sometimes without spiritual downfall; and
"scandal" is the stumbling that results in downfall.
|
|