How far do we have to go to avoid giving scandal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DarkLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DarkLight

Guest
I understand the concept of “giving scandal” - we should not engage in behavior that would cause others to think that we are engaged in sin. My question is where exactly is the line drawn?

I come from a very conservative background. I ask because I know a fair number of people that seems to be looking for scandal, particularly in the area of sexuality. I am in a field where I spend 90% of my time with people of the opposite sex, so naturally most of my friends are male. It’s at the point where I feel like I can’t maintain my friendships without giving scandal to someone, because simply seeking a space to have a quiet, private conversation with my friend is considered an occasion.

Like I said, I understand the desire to avoid scandal, but I also know that there are suspicious people out there. It is right to avoid the appearance of evil, but it is not right to allow ourselves to be held hostage to the whims of suspicious people. Complicating this is that different areas, generations, etc., may see different things as differently - there are things that my parents’ friends would see as horribly scandalous, but most of my generation would see as normal (for example, my friends here see going out to the bar for a drink or two as a normal activity with friends - even part of professional life - and not indicative of drunkenness or immorality, while my parents’ friends see it as a scandal for a young lady to be seen at a bar since to them it implies sexual availability). To what extent are we obligated to consider scandal, and to what extent should we ignore the suspicious?
 
There are different senses to the word “Scandal”

It can mean where something one does or does not do -even if it is not sinful in itself (though it could be too) is likely to lead another into sin.

Jesus speaks very seriously about such…about it being better to have a millstone around ones neck than to lead one of his little ones into sin (he is using of course here a particular way of speaking…and one can say he is speaking of mortal sin)

Then there is the more use where people mean that they are “scandalized”. Where others are offended in some way (others may be able to better put this into words here --but I think you get the jist).

So I focus on the first meaning here.

We need to avoid scandal yes. Especially any deliberate scandal where one intends or knowing leads someone into sin.

But the virtue of prudence and informed conscience and reason enter here. As does of course culture (and yes generational aspects too).

One has to make a prudential judgment taking into account the various aspects.

Knowing too that there can be even a scandal of the weak that needs to be avoided --see 1 Cor 8:12 and surrounding verses. Paul there speaks of this very question.
 
Now can there be very unreasonable approaches? Such as someone thinks (in the USA) that say to use a very wild example that there is to be no contact between the genders except on their wedding day in their arranged marriage. Is one to avoid then the other gender for the sake of the person? Well I would say tha unreasonable approaches? Such as one thinks (in the USA) that say to use a very wild example that there is to be no contact between the genders except on their wedding day in their arranged marriage. Is one to avoid then the other gender for the sake of the person?

One might consider though not bringing ones boyfriend to meet them…:rolleyes:
 
Another aspect is what can be referred to as “pharisaic scandal” the kind of “scandal” that they pharisees took at Jesus.

(of course we are to give the benefit of the doubt to those who may take scandal at innocent actions – they can simply be misinformed etc)
 
This isn’t entirely rhetorical, honestly…I grew up in an extremely conservative protestant church. Being alone with a member of the opposite sex, for any reason, was occasion for scandal. So was being seen in a bar or liquor store. There was a whole long list of things you weren’t supposed to do because they might cause the weaker brother to stumble.

The frustration is I do think there is a certain temperament that sees scandal in everything. When Paul’s verses become a weapon for the so-called “weaker brother” to beat others over the head with…then you have a problem. It becomes a weapon for the modern-day Pharisee, to hedge the law about so heavily with rules that are not of God, and to look down on those who do not follow their rules. And I think there were some serious negative effects - as a young woman, I remember struggling with very great problems with self-consciousness that stemmed largely from an over-emphasis on modesty and not tempting my brother to sin…to the point where I was ashamed of the body that God gave me.

nolongerquivering.com/2011/11/22/how-modesty-made-me-fat/ this article is I think a good example of where these doctrines can end up, and not too dissimilar to my own experience.
 
DarkLight said:
I understand the concept of “giving scandal” - we should not engage in behavior that would cause others to think that we are engaged in sin. My question is where exactly is the line drawn?
Click to expand...
that isn’t what scandal means. From the Catechism:

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”
 
Does that mean that wearing make-up or styling your hair can be giving scandal if your primary reason for doing so is to look attractive to the opposite sex while in public?

This is especially important for us “single” folk who might want to look better to attract a potential spouse. Lust can be a mortal sin, so then causing somebody (who isn’t your spouse) to lust should then be the sin of scandal(?)
 
MidnightSun12 said:
Does that mean that wearing make-up or styling your hair can be giving scandal if your primary reason for doing so is to look attractive to the opposite sex while in public?

This is especially important for us “single” folk who might want to look better to attract a potential spouse. Lust can be a mortal sin, so then causing somebody (who isn’t your spouse) to lust should then be the sin of scandal(?)
Click to expand...
That is a non-Catholic site…they have their particular views.
 
DarkLight said:
nolongerquivering.com/2011/11/22/how-modesty-made-me-fat/ this article is I think a good example of where these doctrines can end up, and not too dissimilar to my own experience.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this link. I found it interesting to read about the experience of someone from such a different culture/background than myself, and yet find so many similarities.

The last thing on earth that I could claim is that my parents were hung up on modesty, yet I felt much of what this lady felt. My body and how it appeared were, it seemed, very primary in my interactions with people. No only appearance, but movements were important. Being overly fat or overly thin is in many ways a relief if you have been raised to feel this self-conscious. Yet, it creates discomfort because one’s desirability matters greatly, though perhaps she felt this less than I. And yes, I find modesty debates painful, as with this lady, a losing debate no matter what.
 
DarkLight said:
I understand the concept of “giving scandal” - we should not engage in behavior that would cause others to think that we are engaged in sin. My question is where exactly is the line drawn?

I come from a very conservative background. I ask because I know a fair number of people that seems to be looking for scandal, particularly in the area of sexuality. I am in a field where I spend 90% of my time with people of the opposite sex, so naturally most of my friends are male. It’s at the point where I feel like I can’t maintain my friendships without giving scandal to someone, because simply seeking a space to have a quiet, private conversation with my friend is considered an occasion.

Like I said, I understand the desire to avoid scandal, but I also know that there are suspicious people out there. It is right to avoid the appearance of evil, but it is not right to allow ourselves to be held hostage to the whims of suspicious people. Complicating this is that different areas, generations, etc., may see different things as differently - there are things that my parents’ friends would see as horribly scandalous, but most of my generation would see as normal (for example, my friends here see going out to the bar for a drink or two as a normal activity with friends - even part of professional life - and not indicative of drunkenness or immorality, while my parents’ friends see it as a scandal for a young lady to be seen at a bar since to them it implies sexual availability). To what extent are we obligated to consider scandal, and to what extent should we ignore the suspicious?
Click to expand...
Father Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

SCANDAL. Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she foresees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)
 
thistle said:
Father Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

SCANDAL. Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she foresees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)
Click to expand...
So is indirect scandal always in itself sinful, or is it just something that we should be aware of because it can be sinful? I can see the same issues coming up here as I mentioned before, in dealing with someone who is looking for an opportunity to sin.
 
DarkLight said:
This isn’t entirely rhetorical, honestly…I grew up in an extremely conservative protestant church. Being alone with a member of the opposite sex, for any reason, was occasion for scandal. So was being seen in a bar or liquor store. There was a whole long list of things you weren’t supposed to do because they might cause the weaker brother to stumble.

The frustration is I do think there is a certain temperament that sees scandal in everything. When Paul’s verses become a weapon for the so-called “weaker brother” to beat others over the head with…then you have a problem. It becomes a weapon for the modern-day Pharisee, to hedge the law about so heavily with rules that are not of God, and to look down on those who do not follow their rules. And I think there were some serious negative effects - as a young woman, I remember struggling with very great problems with self-consciousness that stemmed largely from an over-emphasis on modesty and not tempting my brother to sin…to the point where I was ashamed of the body that God gave me.

nolongerquivering.com/2011/11/22/how-modesty-made-me-fat/ this article is I think a good example of where these doctrines can end up, and not too dissimilar to my own experience.
Click to expand...
Giving scandal isn’t the same as causing people to gossip.

And it’s not about doing something that might cause a “weaker brother” to sin.

It’s about giving the impression that your actions **are not sinful **and causing someone to err in judgement because of your example. Giving scandal is most likely when you are responsible for others, such as your children.

With your co-workers, you have less responsibility. It would only be giving scandal if your meetings with others not only had the appearance of impropriety **but also **the appearance that such impropriety was acceptable.
 
DarkLight said:
Good link. I think that’s the problem I’m sensing - we should avoid giving scandal, but we should not allow ourselves to be led around by those who seek to find it.
Click to expand...
This seems wise. Avoidance of scandal needs to be situated in a greater hierarchy of goods.

It is entirely reasonable, for instance, to say that speaking out publicly against gay marriage would be the proximate cause of others’ arousal to the sin of vengefulness, hatred, or violence. In fact, it’s probably true. But provided the expression accords with truth, is contextually appropriate, and is not itself offensive against charity in terms of tone or word choice, there should be no sin in speaking that truth. Others’ hatred of the good should never be a reason not to seek the good.
 
Corki said:
Giving scandal isn’t the same as causing people to gossip.

And it’s not about doing something that might cause a “weaker brother” to sin.

It’s about giving the impression that your actions **are not sinful **and causing someone to err in judgement because of your example. Giving scandal is most likely when you are responsible for others, such as your children.

With your co-workers, you have less responsibility. It would only be giving scandal if your meetings with others not only had the appearance of impropriety **but also **the appearance that such impropriety was acceptable.
Click to expand...
“Come on, let’s go slash the tires on the principal’s car and paint swear words on the door panels!”

I think in this case one probably is giving the impression that it will be a thrill, and it is well known to be wrong, so that increases the thrill. This is not the type of suggestion like going to use sidewalk chalks to draw flowers on the sidewalk downtown. I think all one needs to do is provoke, cause, suggest, incite, create the opportunity, guide, etc. One does not need to give the impression that it is okay by God.

However, your very choice to participate indicates that someone else out there has chosen to do it, so this gives it some social acceptability. I think a number of people confuse social acceptability with it being “not sinful” (I don’t mean you), which is one reason why doing sinful things carries a risk to the soul of others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top