Godfollower;5226043:
You keep assuming that any man spending the night in his girlfriend’s apartment is automatically “incited or enticed to sin” – as if we are all inherently slaves to our sexuality. Contrary to popular opinion (especially as portrayed in the media), we are capable of resisting our passions. And, with respect to third parties, as Christians we are required to assume the best, not the worst. So we are supposed to assume that he did the right thing and stayed on the couch.
It has nothing to do with the subjective situation between the two individuals involved; it has to do with the *objective *sin of giving scandal.
No, that’s incorrect. If he said to his girlfriend, “Hey, as long as I need to stay the night, let’s have sex,” that would be a direct scandal: intentionally inducing another to sin. There’s no hint of any such thing here. So you’re left with trying to prove indirect scandal: an act or omission by this teacher that was an
occasion of sin for another – e.g., by teaching the watchers/hearers/etc. that it’s okay to do what he did. That would be true in the case of his girlfriend if he actually tried it, but there’s no evidence that he did. So you’re left with arguing that he committed indirect scandal with respect to his students. But there are two problems with this analysis: first, he had to know they were there (and he clearly did not); second, even if he knew they were watching, he would only be demonstrating that it’s okay to spend the night at someone else’s house. You are making an unjustified assumption that he also slept with his girlfriend (which is unfair to him and to her); and for your analysis to work you also have to assume that the kids would also make that assumption –
even though charity requires us to assume that he obeyed God’s precepts.
Godfollower;5226043:
You seem to admit that it would not be a near occasion of sin if he were, say, trapped by a blizzard.
Right, because that would have been an **unforeseen ***emergency. *
What if he weren’t trapped, but he spent the night there awake the whole time for some other reason? What if he was painting a room in the evening and it took all night? What if they were studying together all night? What if they just watched movies together all night? What if he accidentally dozed off watching Monday Night Football, she threw a blanket over him and went to bed herself, and he woke up the next day? What if he tried to leave but his engine wouldn’t start, and he decided to wait until the next morning to call a tow truck on a regular call instead of an emergency call? Which of these scenarios constitute near occasions of sin as opposed to perfectly acceptable conduct?
The giving of scandal has no relation to what happens *inside. *It pertains to what is happening from the outside.
Wow. Really?! If he goes over to his girlfriend’s house at night to help with a renovation, paints walls and ceilings all night, and leaves in the morning to go home, change, and go to work, without ever a single sexual thought occurring, you would call that a sin? That theology is Puritan, not Catholic.
Godfollower;5226043:
As for the alcohol, we don’t know that he was “so drunk” (your italics) that he had to spend the night; all we know is that he had enough that he didn’t want to drive home. That might’ve been six bottles of wine, but it might’ve been only one glass. Personally, in light of the ongoing tragedies caused by drunk driving, I support people erring on the side of caution and avoiding driving even if their tipsiness is merely questionable.
Drinking one or more alcoholic beverages is still voluntary, as far as I know. How difficult would it have been for him to say, Hey! I have an hour’s drive tonight, I better not have anything to drink?
As for the students, I challenge the assumption that he was setting an example for impressionable students. {Snip} according to other posts, the students were secretly following him to play a practical joke on him. Under those circumstances, he couldn’t possibly know that any students would see him. {Snip} To say that whether one’s actions are sinful depends on the existence of a secret observer is to overturn 2,000 years of Catholic theology.
As it turned out, the students were there. Maybe the students wouldn’t have been there. Maybe one student would have been staying with a relative across the way and seen what happened. It doesn’t matter. He committed the act–that’s what matters. What are you saying: that it’s not stealing if no one sees you?
No; the sin of theft doesn’t require a witness to be sinful. But you’re accusing him of scandal. And that’s a different story: by definition, if no one sees it, it isn’t scandal! More to the point, for it to be scandal,
he has to know they’re there! Otherwise, you’re accusing him of the mortal sin of leading astray people he doesn’t know he’s leading. That would be like God banishing Adam and Eve from the Garden for eating from the one tree without first having told them not to eat from it. Sin requires intent; the sin of scandal requires the knowledge that you’re leading someone astray.
Godfollower;5226043:
Let me ask you this: {snip} So, since you’re saying he commited scandal, whom did he tempt?
By his act, he was basically saying that that act was acceptable. Giving scandal does not mean directly tempting to sin but *inducing *–and saying that something sinful is all right is inducing.
Saying
to whom?! You can’t induce someone to sin who isn’t there; and, for the sin of scandal, if you don’t know they’re there, they aren’t.
