No, I’m saying there is no “actual church teaching” beyond the definition of scandal to prove it. Therefore it is a matter about which we must use our prudential judgement (which in a matter like this includes experience) about the matter. Scandal of necessity includes facts about the outside world in its judgement - namely facts about what is indeed likely to cause others to sin. Those facts are based on the conclusions others will draw.
Again I will draw the parallel to modesty - there are things that are culturally determined. There are places in the world where a knee-length, short-sleeved dress would be immodest. That hardly means I am following the crowd by wearing such a dress. I know people who would consider a sexual relationship to be occurring merely because I met a man in a public place, or even stayed late at work with a male coworker present - should I refrain as well from such things out of fear of scandal?
Actually, as far as that phrase, I’m going to resort to XCKD. My friends are, by and large, good solid sensible people who follow God. I’ve also had plenty of good solid priests I know and respect in real life. I know and respect their faith and sense much more than random people on the internet. If they all jumped off a bridge, I would at least seriously check that there wasn’t something wrong with the bridge that warranted jumping off, because I don’t hang out with stupid people, nor with those given to immorality!
And you claim to not be mocking people, and yet use phrases as though you were speaking to a little child. Your words certainly come off as mocking, and you accuse those who disagree with you of sins you cannot tell over the internet.
