"causing scandal"

[IrishAm]

The concept of causing (or not causing) scandal is often used as a reason to do – or not to do – something. Like a politcian receiving communion or a gangster having a funeral mass.

But, is there a real definition or determination – criteria, I guess is the word I want – of what “causes scandal”? As opposed to that which just really irritates a large chunk of the parish.

On the whole, people seem to have a very high threshhold of what would “scandalize” (and a very low threshhold of what irritates). Or does an action only have to scandalize a maiden Victorian to qualify? And who decides? Your thoughts?

 

[LilyM]

The concept of causing (or not causing) scandal is often used as a reason to do – or not to do – something. Like a politcian receiving communion or a gangster having a funeral mass.

But, is there a real definition or determination – criteria, I guess is the word I want – of what “causes scandal”? As opposed to that which just really irritates a large chunk of the parish.

On the whole, people seem to have a very high threshhold of what would “scandalize” (and a very low threshhold of what irritates). Or does an action only have to scandalize a maiden Victorian to qualify? And who decides? Your thoughts?

You ever read ‘Jane Eyre’? Some of those Victorians weren’t quite such maidens as you think

remember too, ‘scandal’ in the Catholic sense isnt wrong or sinful necessarily because it upsets or irritates people - Jesus himself upset and irritated a lot of people in His day, as has the Church throughout its history.

Rather ‘scandal’ is simply that which may lead people away from the faith or give them an inaccurate idea or low opinion of it.

Hence giving communion to politicians who’ve voted to legalise abortion gives the impression that the Church is either OK with or neutral on such behaviour - or, God forbid, with abortion itself.

And inviting a layperson or Episcopalian minister to give the homily at Mass gives the impression that a) the priesthood and the Sacrament of Holy Orders don’t have much significance and b) the rubrics (the way Mass is to be said) don’t matter - which means the Mass itself doesn’t have much significance.

 

[Brendan]

“Scandal” in Church terms is somewhat different to modern, secular use of “Scandal”

Scandal, to the Catholic Church, means behavior that portrays sinful behavior as being acceptable.

So no, there is no requirement that Victorian blushing maidens be involved, but rather any behavior that is potentially sinful being protrayed as either non sinful or acceptable is, by definition, scandalous.

 

[IrishAm]

But, who decides what causes scandal? A local priest, the bishop, a diocesan tribunal, “community mores” (rather like the Supreme Court defined pornography)? Is it invoked in a systematic manner, or is it just an excuse for some to bully or a reason for outcry by others?

I don’t mean to sound flippant, but this is a phrase I have always heard, but never really seen it discussed – or implemented – with any kind of authority.

I guess the final question would be, is the concept of scandal actually hierarchically defined and enforced or just the ecclesiastic equivalent of an urban myth?

 

[Brendan]

But, who decides what causes scandal?

It is an objective reality. It is anytime that something sinful is presented as being ‘normal’ In other words, Scandal is anything sinful that is presented as anything other than sinful.

I guess the final question would be, is the concept of scandal actually hierarchically defined and enforced or just the ecclesiastic equivalent of an urban myth?

No myth. It was defined in its eccesial form by St. Thomas Aquinas

newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think any action that, by example, induces another to sin is considered scandal. It is for these that Jesus suggested a millstone and deep six would be better than what awaits them.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think much of what moderns typically class under scandal/scandalous would best be placed under the category of admiratio - “surprise/astonishment.” That’s where Victorian maidens would come in, if you did something such that though morally licit they were shocked by it for some reason or another. This isn’t sinful but many old liturgical books and other manuals counsel avoiding certain actions lest one cause admiratio.

Scandal, on the other hand, has been sufficiently explained as, roughly, that which leads another to sin.

 

[Pug]

On the whole, people seem to have a very high threshhold of what would “scandalize” (and a very low threshhold of what irritates). Or does an action only have to scandalize a maiden Victorian to qualify? And who decides? Your thoughts?

In some situations, what matters is what you think. For the particular brother that will observe you, do you think for him it will prove to lead him to sin? If you know him well, the answer can easily be different from if he is unknown to you. If he is unknown to you, I don’t think you have to go gonzo. Just assume he is average.

Concerning “irritation”, depending on what that leads them to do, it could matter. For example, if I know speaking on certain topics will cause my brother to become irritated and then rant and storm around the house, scaring people, then I don’t do it unless I have a suitable reason.

 

[IrishAm]

No myth. It was defined in its eccesial form by St. Thomas Aquinas

newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm

Thank you! That is exactly what I was seeking.