Now, THAT is a sin... there is no need to use such crude language. I don't know anyone who doubts himself more than I do. Can't you even tell from reading my posts? And again, that was not the topic.
Forget whether person B at 06:12:05 PM could reasonably expect to get tempted or not. The issue is that person B does not want to inconvenience himself for person A, and that person B holds that it is NOT a sin for him to do that. Is person B a heretic? No, then good, you agree.
Now, THAT is a sin... there is no need to use such crude language.
No, it is not a sin, it is using blunt speech to attempt to penetrate your thick, prideful skull.
I don't know anyone who doubts himself more than I do. Can't you even tell from reading my posts?
No, you do not doubt yourself, if you did, you would not be arguing with people who have
vastly greater understanding than you possess.
The issue is that person B does not want to inconvenience himself for person A, and that person B holds that it is NOT a sin for him to do that.
It's all about poor you. What a terrible burden you have to bear (dripping with sarcasm).
If you would bother to take the time to consider, you might just notice that the people who have taken their own time to respond to you in this thread are offering lessons learned from decades of study and real-life experience. Do you have either? These same people can see you headed for some hard falls and are trying to help you avoid them.
Below I have posted a selection from the
Summa on scandal for your perusal.
Question 43. Scandal
Article 1. Whether scandal is fittingly defined as being something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall?
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 (
Romans 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
Matthew 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 Corinthians 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 Thessalonians 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 (
I-II:75:2;
I-II:75:3;
I-II:80:1), 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. On 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
Romans 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.
Article 2. Whether scandal is a sin?
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 (
I-II:74:1 and
I-II:74:2). Now it is written (
Matthew 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" (
Matthew 7:18). But
scandal may come from a sense of dutifulness, for
Our Lord said to
Peter (
Matthew 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, Reply to Objection 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 succuмbs 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. On 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, Reply to Objection 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
I:14:13 ad 3;
I:23:6 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 Corinthians 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. On 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.
Article 3. Whether scandal is a special sin?
Objection 1. It would seem that
scandal is not a special
sin. For
scandal is "something said or done less rightly." But this applies to every kind of
sin. Therefore every
sin is a
scandal, and consequently,
scandal is not a special
sin.
Objection 2. Further, every special kind of
sin, or every special kind of
injustice, may be found separately from other kinds, as stated in Ethic. v, 3,5. But
scandal is not to be found separately from other
sins. Therefore it is not a special kind of
sin.
Objection 3. Further, every special
sin is constituted by something which specifies the moral act. But the notion of
scandal consists in its being something done in the presence of others: and the fact of a
sin being committed openly, though it is an aggravating circuмstance, does not seem to constitute the
species of a
sin. Therefore
scandal is not a special
sin.
On the contrary, A special
virtue has a special
sin opposed to it. But
scandal is opposed to a special
virtue, viz.
charity. For it is written (
Romans 14:15): "If, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to
charity." Therefore
scandal is a special
sin.
I answer that, As stated above (
Article 2),
scandal is twofold, active and passive. Passive
scandal cannot be a special
sin, because through another's word or
deed a man may fall into any kind of
sin: and the fact that a man takes occasion to
sin from another's word or
deed, does not constitute a special kind of
sin, because it does not imply a special deformity in opposition to a special
virtue.
On the other hand, active
scandal may be understood in two ways, directly and accidently. The
scandal is
accidental when it is beside the agent's
intention, as when a man does not intend, by his inordinate
deed or word, to occasion another's
spiritual downfall, but merely to satisfy his own will. On such a case even active
scandal is not a special
sin, because a
species is not constituted by that which is
accidental.
Active
scandal is direct when a man intends, by his inordinate word or
deed, to draw another into
sin, and then it becomes a special kind of
sin on account of the
intention of a special kind of end, because moral actions take their
species from their end, as stated above (
I-II:1:3;
I-II:18:4;
I-II:18:6). Hence, just as
theft and
murder are special kinds of
sin, on account of their denoting the
intention of doing a special injury to one's neighbor: so too,
scandal is a special kind of
sin, because thereby a man intends a special harm to his neighbor, and it is directly opposed to
fraternal correction, whereby a man intends the removal of a special kind of harm.
Reply to Objection 1. Any
sin may be the
matter of active
scandal, but it may derive the formal aspect of a special
sin from the end intended, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2. Active
scandal can be found separate from other
sins, as when a man scandalizes his neighbor by a
deed which is not a
sin in itself, but has an appearance of
evil.
Reply to Objection 3. Scandal does not derive the
species of a special
sin from the circuмstance in question, but from the
intention of the end, as stated above.
Article 4. Whether scandal is a mortal sin?
Objection 1. It would seem that
scandal is a mortal
sin. For every
sin that is contrary to
charity is a mortal
sin, as stated above (
II-II:24:12;
II-II:35:3). But
scandal is contrary to
charity, as stated above (Articles
2 and
3). Therefore
scandal is a mortal
sin.
Objection 2. Further, no
sin, save mortal
sin, deserves the punishment of
eternal damnation. But
scandal deserves the punishment of
eternal damnation, according to
Matthew 18:6: "He that shall
scandalize one of these little ones, that
believe in Me, it were better for him that a mill-stone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." For, as
Jerome says on this passage, "it is much better to receive a brief punishment for a fault, than to await everlasting torments." Therefore
scandal is a mortal
sin.
Objection 3. Further, every
sin committed against
God is a mortal
sin, because mortal
sin alone turns
man away from
God. Now
scandal is a
sin against
God, for the
Apostle says (
1 Corinthians 8:12): "When you wound the weak
conscience of the brethren [
Vulgate: 'When you
sin thus against the brethren and wound their weak
conscience'], you
sin against
Christ." Therefore
scandal is always a mortal
sin.
On the contrary, It may be a venial
sin to lead a
person into venial
sin: and yet this would be to give
scandal. Therefore
scandal may be a venial
sin.
I answer that, As stated above (
Article 1),
scandal denotes a stumbling whereby a
person is disposed to a
spiritual downfall. Consequently passive
scandal may sometimes be a venial
sin, when it consists in a stumbling and nothing more; for instance, when a
person is disturbed by a movement of venial
sin occasioned by another's inordinate word or
deed: while sometimes it is a mortal
sin, when the stumbling results in a downfall, for instance, when a
person goes so far as to commit a mortal
sin through another's inordinate word or
deed.
Active
scandal, if it be
accidental, may sometimes be a venial
sin; for instance, when, through a slight indiscretion, a
person either commits a venial
sin, or does something that is not a
sin in itself, but has some appearance of
evil. On the other hand, it is sometimes a mortal
sin, either because a
person commits a mortal
sin, or because he has such contempt for his neighbor's
spiritual welfare that he declines, for the sake of procuring it, to forego doing what he wishes to do. But in the case of active direct
scandal, as when a
person intends to lead another into
sin, if he intends to lead him into mortal
sin, his own
sin will be mortal; and in like manner if he intends by committing a mortal
sin himself, to lead another into venial
sin; whereas if he intends, by committing a venial
sin, to lead another into venial
sin, there will be a venial
sin of
scandal.
And this suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
Article 5. Whether passive scandal may happen even to the perfect?
Objection 1. It would seem that passive
scandal may happen even to the perfect. For
Christ was supremely perfect: and yet He said to
Peter (
Matthew 16:23): "Thou art a
scandal to Me." Much more therefore can other perfect men suffer
scandal.
Objection 2. Further,
scandal denotes an obstacle which is put in a
person's spiritual way. Now even perfect men can be hindered in their progress along the
spiritual way, according to
1 Thessalonians 2:18: "We would have come to you, I
Paul indeed, once and again; but Satan hath hindered us." Therefore even perfect men can suffer
scandal.
Objection 3. Further, even perfect men are liable to venial
sins, according to
1 John 1:8: "If we say that we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves." Now passive
scandal is not always a mortal
sin, but is sometimes venial, as stated above (
Article 4). Therefore passive
scandal may be found in perfect men.
On the contrary, Jerome, in
commenting on
Matthew 18:6, "He that shall
scandalize one of these little ones," says: "Observe that it is the little one that is
scandalized, for the elders do not take
scandal."
I answer that, Passive
scandal implies that the
mind of the
person who takes
scandal is unsettled in its adherence to
good. Now no
man can be unsettled, who adheres firmly to something immovable. The elders, i.e. the perfect, adhere to
God alone, Whose
goodness is unchangeable, for though they adhere to their superiors, they do so only in so far as these adhere to
Christ, according to
1 Corinthians 4:16: "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of
Christ." Wherefore, however much others may appear to them to conduct themselves ill in word or
deed, they themselves do not stray from their righteousness, according to
Psalm 124:1: "They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion: he shall not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem." Therefore
scandal is not found in those who adhere to
God perfectly by love, according to
Psalm 118:165: "Much peace have they that love Thy
law, and to them there is no stumbling-block [scandalum]."
Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (
Article 2, Reply to Objection 2), in this passage,
scandal is used in a broad sense, to denote any kind of hindrance. Hence
Our Lord said to
Peter: "Thou art a
scandal to Me," because he was endeavoring to weaken
Our Lord's purpose of undergoing His
Passion.
Reply to Objection 2. Perfect men may be hindered in the performance of external actions. But they are not hindered by the words or
deeds of others, from tending to
God in the internal acts of the
will, according to
Romans 8:38-39: "Neither death, nor life . . . shall be able to separate us from the love of
God."
Reply to Objection 3. Perfect men sometimes fall into venial
sins through the weakness of the flesh; but they are not scandalized (taking
scandal in its
true sense), by the words or
deeds of others, although there can be an approach to
scandal in them, according to
Psalm 72:2: "My feet were almost moved."
Article 6. Whether active scandal can be found in the perfect?
Objection 1. It would seem that active
scandal can be found in the perfect. For passion is the effect of action. Now some are scandalized passively by the words or
deeds of the perfect, according to
Matthew 15:12: "Dost thou
know that the
Pharisees, when they heard this word, were
scandalized?" Therefore active
scandal can be found in the perfect.
Objection 2. Further,
Peter, after receiving the
Holy Ghost, was in the state of the perfect. Yet afterwards he scandalized the gentiles: for it is written (
Galatians 2:14): "When I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the
truth of the Gospel, I said to
Cephas," i.e. Peter, "before them all: If thou being a
Jєω, livest after the manner of the gentiles, and not as the
Jєωs do, how dost thou compel the gentiles to live as do the
Jєωs?" Therefore active
scandal can be in the perfect.
Objection 3. Further, active
scandal is sometimes a venial
sin. But venial
sins may be in perfect men. Therefore active
scandal may be in perfect men.
On the contrary, Active
scandal is more opposed to perfection, than passive
scandal. But passive
scandal cannot be in the perfect. Much less, therefore, can active
scandal be in them.
I answer that, Active
scandal, properly so called, occurs when a man says or does a thing which in itself is of a
nature to occasion another's
spiritual downfall, and that is only when what he says or does is inordinate. Now it belongs to the perfect to direct all their actions according to the rule of
reason, as stated in
1 Corinthians 14:40: "Let all things be done decently and according to order"; and they are careful to do this in those matters chiefly wherein not only would they do wrong, but would also be to others an occasion of wrongdoing. And if indeed they fail in this moderation in such words or
deeds as come to the
knowledge of others, this has its origin in
human weakness wherein they fall short of perfection. Yet they do not fall short so far as to stray far from the order of
reason, but only a little and in some slight
matter: and this is not so grave that anyone can reasonably take therefrom an occasion for committing
sin.
Reply to Objection 1. Passive
scandal is always due to some active
scandal; yet this active
scandal is not always in another, but in the very
person who is
scandalized, because, to wit, he scandalizes himself.
Reply to Objection 2. In the opinion of
Augustine (Ep. xxviii, xl, lxxxii) and of
Paul also,
Peter sinned and was to be blamed, in withdrawing from the gentiles in order to avoid the
scandal of the
Jєωs, because he did this somewhat imprudently, so that the gentiles who had been converted to the
faith were scandalized. Nevertheless
Peter's action was not so grave a
sin as to give others sufficient ground for
scandal. Hence they were guilty of passive
scandal, while there was no active
scandal in
Peter.
Reply to Objection 3. The venial
sins of the perfect consist chiefly in sudden movements, which being hidden cannot give
scandal. If, however, they commit any venial
sins even in their external words or
deeds, these are so slight as to be insufficient in themselves to give
scandal.
Article 7. Whether spiritual goods should be foregone on account of scandal?
Objection 1. It would seem that
spiritual goods ought to be foregone on account of scandal. For
Augustine (Contra Ep. Parmen. iii, 2) teaches that "punishment for
sin should cease, when the peril of
schism is feared." But punishment of
sins is a
spiritual good, since it is an act of
justice. Therefore a
spiritual good is to be foregone on account of
scandal.
Objection 2. Further, the Sacred Doctrine is a most
spiritual thing. Yet one ought to desist therefrom on account of
scandal, according to
Matthew 7:6: "Give not that which is
holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine lest . . . turning upon you, they tear you." Therefore a
spiritual good should be foregone on account of
scandal.
Objection 3. Further, since fraternal correction is an
act of
charity, it is a
spiritual good. Yet sometimes it is omitted out of
charity, in order to avoid giving
scandal to others, as
Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei i, 9). Therefore a
spiritual good should be foregone on account of
scandal.
Objection 4. Further,
Jerome [
Hugh de S. Cher, In Matth. xviii; in Luc. xvii, 2 says that in order to avoid
scandal we should forego whatever it is possible to omit without prejudice to the threefold
truth, i.e. "the
truth of life, of
justice and of doctrine." Now the observance of the counsels, and the bestowal of
alms may often be omitted without prejudice to the aforesaid threefold
truth, else whoever omitted them would always be guilty of
sin, and yet such things are the greatest of
spiritual works. Therefore
spiritual works should be omitted on account of
scandal.
Objection 5. Further, the avoidance of any
sin is a
spiritual good, since any
sin brings
spiritual harm to the sinner. Now it seems that one ought sometimes to commit a venial
sin in order to avoid scandalizing one's neighbor, for instance, when by
sinning venially, one would prevent someone else from committing a mortal
sin: because one is bound to hinder the damnation of one's neighbor as much as one can without prejudice to one's own
salvation, which is not precluded by a venial
sin. Therefore one ought to forego a
spiritual good in order to avoid
scandal.
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. Super Ezech. vii): "If people are scandalized at the
truth, it is better to allow the birth of
scandal, than to abandon the
truth." Now
spiritual goods belong, above all others, to the
truth. Therefore
spiritual goods are not to be foregone on account of
scandal.
I answer that, Whereas
scandal is twofold, active and passive, the present question does not apply to active
scandal, for since active
scandal is "something said or done less rightly," nothing ought to be done that implies active
scandal. The question does, however, apply to passive
scandal, and accordingly we have to see what ought to be foregone in order to avoid
scandal. Now a distinction must be made in
spiritual goods. For some of them are
necessary for
salvation, and cannot be foregone without mortal
sin: and it is evident that no
man ought to commit a mortal
sin, in order to prevent another from
sinning, because according to the order of
charity, a man ought to love his own
spiritual welfare more than another's. Therefore one ought not to forego that which is
necessary for
salvation, in order to avoid giving
scandal.
Again a distinction seems
necessary among
spiritual things which are not
necessary for
salvation: because the
scandal which arises from such things sometimes proceeds from
malice, for instance when a man wishes to hinder those
spiritual goods by stirring up
scandal. This is the "scandal of the
Pharisees," who were scandalized at
Our Lord's teaching: and
Our Lord teaches (
Matthew 15:14) that we ought to treat such like
scandal with contempt. Sometimes
scandal proceeds from weakness or
ignorance, and such is the "scandal of little ones." On order to avoid this kind of
scandal,
spiritual goods ought to be either concealed, or sometimes even deferred (if this can be done without incurring immediate danger), until the
matter being explained the
scandal cease. If, however, the
scandal
Topic: Opposite Gender Proximate Presence Not Sinful (Read 5422 times)