Scandal

[flyingfish]

It seems to me people have a misconception of scandal, implying that you’re guilty of scandal if you lead people to believe you’re sinning (such as if a boyfriend and girlfriend sleep in the same room without having sex).

Here is how the Catechism defines scandal:

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.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

So for a boyfriend and girlfriend to sleep in the same room (without sex or other sexual sins) would be scandalous only if they did it deliberately to lead others into a grave offense, and succeeded at it.

So for example, a figure of authority who would give speeches encouraging premarital sex deliberately to get people to have more premarital sex and succeeded would be committing scandal. But a couple who happened to be seen having premarital sex, or gave the suspicion of it would not.

 

[LilyM]

It seems to me people have a misconception of scandal, implying that you’re guilty of scandal if you lead people to believe you’re sinning (such as if a boyfriend and girlfriend sleep in the same room without having sex).

Here is how the Catechism defines scandal:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

So for a boyfriend and girlfriend to sleep in the same room (without sex or other sexual sins) would be scandalous only if they did it deliberately to lead others into a grave offense, and succeeded at it.

So for example, a figure of authority who would give speeches encouraging premarital sex deliberately to get people to have more premarital sex and succeeded would be committing scandal. But a couple who happened to be seen having premarital sex, or gave the suspicion of it would not.

No. The catechism says that such would be a GRAVE offence, it doesn’t imply that anything less would be no offence at all.

Success or otherwise matters not a whit in terms of guilt. For example, someone who attempted to shoot another to death only to have the victim duck at the last second, or the gun misfire, would still be AS guilty as if they had been successful, just it would’ve been attempted murder rather than actual murder.

I pointed out in another thread, knowingly (which is a different thing from deliberately) leading persons to believe that someone was sexually active - with anyone if they were unmarrried - would most likely be the sin of bearing false witness against that person. You’re leading others to believe something that you know to be totally untrue about that person - ruining their reputation - by your behaviour.

Scandal? Well, by giving people the impression that you’re indulging in a particular behaviour you’re giving them the impression (absent evidence to the contrary) that you endorse that behaviour, no? That endorsement in itself, in a young person mixing with other impressionable young people, is creating peer pressure that induces others to sin in like fashion.

That may possibly not come under the label ‘scandal’, but on my understanding it would be correct to call it calumny, and in any event certainly sinful, probably gravely so, as it would be a substantial breach of the commandment.

 

[pcg2]

I pointed out in another thread, knowingly (which is a different thing from deliberately) leading persons to believe that someone was sexually active - with anyone if they were unmarrried - would most likely be the sin of bearing false witness against that person. You’re leading others to believe something that you know to be totally untrue about that person - ruining their reputation - by your behaviour.

I’m obviously not doing this, however.

 

[LilyM]

I’m obviously not doing this, however.

I didn’t necessarily say that you were

 

[flyingfish]

No. The catechism says that such would be a GRAVE offence, it doesn’t imply that anything less would be no offence at all.

Well, venial sins don’t even need to be confessed and they can’t send you to hell.

If you’re not deliberately doing something that succeeds in leading another into grave sin, then you’re only at risk of committing a venial sin.

What do you think “deliberately” means in that context? Intent to lead others into sin?

That may possibly not come under the label ‘scandal’, but on my understanding it would be correct to call it calumny, and in any event certainly sinful, probably gravely so, as it would be a substantial breach of the commandment.

Calumny is when you intentionally lie about someone and ruin their reputation (such as calling someone a child molester when they are not).

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

I don’t see how sleeping in the same room with a boyfriend/girlfriend would be calumny because someone happened to infer you were having sex.

 

[LilyM]

Well, venial sins don’t even need to be confessed and they can’t send you to hell.

If you’re not deliberately doing something that succeeds in leading another into grave sin, then you’re only at risk of committing a venial sin.

No - again, if you INTEND to lead others into sin it is sufficient. Just like if you INTEND to murder someone, as I said earlier. If either attempt fails, due to outside circumstances, the guilt remains.

What do you think “deliberately” means in that context? Intent to lead others into sin?

It would seem so.

Calumny is when you intentionally lie about someone and ruin their reputation (such as calling someone a child molester when they are not).

Yes - but remember one can lie by act as well as word. For example, if one deliberately dons the uniform of a policeman or doctor and lead others into falsely thinking you ARE a policeman or a doctor, it is a lie even if one never says the words ‘I am a policeman’ or ‘I am a doctor’. So can one commit calumny by act as well as word.

I don’t see how sleeping in the same room with a boyfriend/girlfriend would be calumny because someone happened to infer you were having sex.

Are you saying you see no harm to someone’s reputation if others think they are sexually involved with someone when they aren’t? The fact that a woman is made out to be sexually active can indeed be a grave harm to her reputation. It’s not, or is only extremely rarely, a badge of honour for a female, unlike with males.

Or are you saying that because it’s not said verbally that it’s not calumny? I’ve responded to that above.

 

[flyingfish]

No - again, if you INTEND to lead others into sin it is sufficient. Just like if you INTEND to murder someone, as I said earlier. If either attempt fails, due to outside circumstances, the guilt remains.

If someone is sleeping in the same room as their girlfriend but are not intending to lead anyone into sin by doing this, they can’t be guilty of a grave sin of scandal.

Also, the Catechism says:

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.

So intent is not enough for it to be a grave sin, you also have to succeed in leading another into a grave offense.

Are you saying you see no harm to someone’s reputation if others think they are sexually involved with someone when they aren’t? The fact that a woman is made out to be sexually active can indeed be a grave harm to her reputation. It’s not, or is only extremely rarely, a badge of honour for a female, unlike with males.

Or are you saying that because it’s not said verbally that it’s not calumny? I’ve responded to that above.

Maybe it was once so, but nowadays if people know you’re having sex it’s generally a positive to your reputation than a negative.

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

I don’t see where the lie is in sleeping in the same room with your boyfriend/girlfriend. Yes I agree you can lie without words, such as your example of pretending to be a policeman. But who is pretending when a couple sleeps in the same room? They’re both choosing to sleep in the same room, and no one is pretending to be anything. So I don’t see how it is calumny. For calumny one would have to lie and in the lie damage the reputation of another.

 

[YADA]

Jesus clearly stated that to look upon another with lust was committing adultry and identified that sin as being committed not just in body but in the heart - a sin that litterally touched the soul …

And we don’t simply committ sins of either a venial nature or grave nature - but sins that fall between the two extremes … and most sins [and sinners] start out in matters small and grow into more and more serious transgressions …

Thus any person who publically and persistently lives and or leaves the impression of sins also causes scandal . … the scandal is that the example they set and the affect/effect they have on those they influence -

Thus the un-married coouple who sleep together in the same room/bed - even if they do not engage in sexual activity - could by their hearts be engaging in sexual activity in their hearts and be giving scandal by their life - a witness to others that observe them … and are lead by their example to conduct themselves in the same matter …

And you do not have to be Catholic/Christian/Religious to know and understand this …

 

[flyingfish]

And we don’t simply committ sins of either a venial nature or grave nature - but sins that fall between the two extremes … and most sins [and sinners] start out in matters small and grow into more and more serious transgressions …

As I understand it, grave sins = mortal sins. There are only two types of sins, venial and mortal.

 

[LilyM]

If someone is sleeping in the same room as their girlfriend but are not intending to lead anyone into sin by doing this, they can’t be guilty of a grave sin of scandal.

So intent is not enough for it to be a grave sin, you also have to succeed in leading another into a grave offense

No. Saying something IS a grave sin in certain conditions is not nearly the same thing as saying that those are the ONLY conditions under which it is a grave sin.

Maybe it was once so, but nowadays if people know you’re having sex it’s generally a positive to your reputation than a negative.

Really - so people LOVED Angelina Jolie, and her reputation went up in leaps and bounds, when she became involved with Brad Pitt and broke up his marriage? And likewise, of course, with Camilla Parker-Bowles when she damaged Prince Charles’ marriage?

AND all those women who have claimed to have slept with Tiger Woods or Sandra Bullock’s husband just have such fantastically positive reputations?

I live in the real world, and in the real world women who are sexually active do not find they become more respected or esteemed as a result. On the contrary many DO get labels such as ‘slut’ put upon them, and the intent is entirely derogatory.

I don’t see where the lie is in sleeping in the same room with your boyfriend/girlfriend. Yes I agree you can lie without words, such as your example of pretending to be a policeman. But who is pretending when a couple sleeps in the same room? They’re both choosing to sleep in the same room, and no one is pretending to be anything. So I don’t see how it is calumny. For calumny one would have to lie and in the lie damage the reputation of another.

The lie comes when you are aware that people WILL assume you are sleeping together, when you are not, and you do nothing to disabuse them. In that sense you are in fact pretending to be sleeping with each other when you are not.

As an example of what I mean - I worked in a law office recently, and spoke to a lot of people who assumed, and made it clear that they assumed, that I was in fact a lawyer when I wasn’t. Knowing this, it was incumbent on me that when I spoke with ANYONE, I had to be careful to let them know that I was not a lawyer.

 

[YADA]

As I understand it, grave sins = mortal sins. There are only two types of sins, venial and mortal.

Well - as I understad it there is sin … and some sins are mortal - serious - grave … amd some sins are venial … however, not every sin is purely venial or purely mortal …

Like the question of adultry given to Jesus … it is a serious sin to engage in sexual activity with anothers spouse … but it is also serious sin to contemplete having sex with another’s spouse … and the sin is adultry either way …

And there is is vast spectrum from stealing a tootsie roll, or steaing a $100 or a $1,000,000 or an atomic ‘dirty’ bomb …

 

[flyingfish]

No. Saying something IS a grave sin in certain conditions is not nearly the same thing as saying that those are the ONLY conditions under which it is a grave sin.

I don’t know. The Catechism clearly states “Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.” I suppose it could only be stating one example of when scandal is a grave sin, but if it were so it would make more sense for the Catechism to say “one example of when scandal is a grave sin…” or “among other things…” or “in particular”. I would not read it to mean that it’s giving only an example, and that there are other unlisted cases of when it’s a grave sin. But I could be wrong.

Really - so people LOVED Angelina Jolie, and her reputation went up in leaps and bounds, when she became involved with Brad Pitt and broke up his marriage? And likewise, of course, with Camilla Parker-Bowles when she damaged Prince Charles’ marriage?

AND all those women who have claimed to have slept with Tiger Woods or Sandra Bullock’s husband just have such fantastically positive reputations?

Well, all these examples are of adultery, so they’re in an entirely different category. Being someone who sleeps around is also a negative thing (for men and women both), but someone who has sex within a relationship is not looked down on.

The lie comes when you are aware that people WILL assume you are sleeping together, when you are not, and you do nothing to disabuse them. In that sense you are in fact pretending to be sleeping with each other when you are not.

I disagree with you. I don’t think it’s a lie because some people might assume (or even will assume) that you’re sleeping together. You’re not lying to those people. You’re simply sleeping in the same room, you’re not pretending to be having sex. You’re not trying to deceive anyone into thinking you’re having sex.

In fact, nowadays people will assume you’re sleeping with your boyfriend/girlfriend regardless of whether they see you in the same room. It’s the norm in our society.

 

[flyingfish]

Well - as I understad it there is sin … and some sins are mortal - serious - grave … amd some sins are venial … however, not every sin is purely venial or purely mortal …

Like the question of adultry given to Jesus … it is a serious sin to engage in sexual activity with anothers spouse … but it is also serious sin to contemplete having sex with another’s spouse … and the sin is adultry either way …

And there is is vast spectrum from stealing a tootsie roll, or steaing a $100 or a $1,000,000 or an atomic ‘dirty’ bomb …

A sin has to be venial or mortal though, because mortal sins are those sins that would send you to hell if unrepented and venial sins would not. You can’t have a sin that’s in between. But generally I agree with you, even within venial and mortal sins there is a range of how bad they seem to us. From the perspective of eternal consequences, there are only two categories.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Flyingfish,

I think the problem that you are running into, and which you’re unlikely to overcome, is that you’re using a behavior as an example that many posters here will simply never, under any circumstances, find “OK.”

And I think that’s often the case when people throw the Scandal-flag on something that’s not really scandalous under the CCC definition.

A large part of my job is interpreting and applying ethics rules. And there is an old saying in that arena, “It’s all about perception of impropriety.” Well the perception here is the sleeping together necessarily begets sleeping together. . .

Is it is sin for a man and a woman to sleep in the same place - or even the same bed? I think we all know that the answer to that is, “not necessarily.” (And in the hypothetical from the other post, almost certainly, “No.”)

But just because it isn’t a sin doesn’t mean that people have to like it!

Pax,
OA

PS: This reminds me a story that my wife tells from her Catholic-high-school days. A nun was lecturing on masturbation and sexual sins. Of course, the students started asking some rather pointed questions. Eventually, the Nun became very flustered and yelled, “If he feels good it’s a sin!”

 

[LindaSK]

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.*

Keep reading though…

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!”

From the OP:
“It seems to me people have a misconception of scandal, implying that you’re guilty of scandal if you lead people to believe you’re sinning (such as if a boyfriend and girlfriend sleep in the same room without having sex).”

Lots of qualifiers needed in your example:
Did they all asleep watching TV?
Did they get a room at a local hotel/motel?
Did they stay in the same room in a home when they, and others, knew the parents would be gone?
Were others, younger siblings, peers, etc. aware that the couple slept in the same room?
Did they have another option than to sleep in the same room, and chose not to take it?
Was it one time, or a frequent occurrence?

If it generates gossip, which is a sin, whether you “directly or indirectly encouraged” it, it is scandal. If it implies consent of sinful behavior - to an observing peer or sibling - it is scandal. (e.g. Your younger sister happens to get up early and sees both you and your girlfriend come out of your room in the morning.) If it was done “deliberately” to damage a reputation, or to generate gossip, it is a grave sin.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Saint Jerome: “As this word ‘scandalum’ (offense or stumbling block) is of such frequent use in ecclesiastical writings, we will shortly explain it. We might render it in Latin, ‘offendiculum,’ or ‘ruina,’ or ‘impactio’. And so when we read, ‘Whoever shall scandalize,’ we understand, whoever by word or deed has given an occasion of falling to any.” [St. Jerome is commenting on Matthew 15:12, but quoting from Mark 9:41.]

Saint Thomas Aquinas: "Scandal is, therefore, fittingly defined as ‘something less rightly done or said, that occasions another’s spiritual downfall.’ " Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 43, A. 1.

The sin of scandal occurs when, as a consequence of one person’s knowingly chosen act, another person is influenced toward sin. The influence toward sin is generally by bad example, as may occur when a sin becomes publicly known.

Scandal is in the consequences of an act. Whenever the bad consequences of an act (including scandal) can be reasonably anticipated to outweigh the good consequences, then the act is a sin.

 

[LilyM]

Keep reading though…

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!”

Thankyou for that - it’s a section of the Catechism that I’m not too familiar with, but I knew there was more to the sin of scandal than OP was saying. Note the word ‘encouraged’ in the above passage - that means it doesn’t matter whether the ‘encouragement’ resulted in others ACTUALLY ‘doing wrong’ by way of sinning (ie succeeded) or not.

 

[LindaSK]

Thankyou for that - it’s a section of the Catechism that I’m not too familiar with, but I knew there was more to the sin of scandal than OP was saying. Note the word ‘encouraged’ in the above passage - that means it doesn’t matter whether the ‘encouragement’ resulted in others ACTUALLY ‘doing wrong’ by way of sinning (ie succeeded) or not.

That is how my priest explained ‘scandal’ to me. It is about the ‘perception’ that someone may have sinned. That’s what generates gossip, etc. Father uses this expression as the mentality of such gossipers, “Don’t bother me with the truth!” And, as you said, it doesn’t mean that others will actually ‘do wrong’, but, that your conduct has the**** potential**** to cause others to ‘do wrong’.

I had asked my priest about this because I didn’t understand the section of the CCC on ‘scandal’. It seemed to me that if an action was not sinful, yet others gossiped, and ‘fabricated their own truth’, the sin should be on the part of those participating in the gossip. His explanation was that such people don’t want you to “bother them with the truth”, that the original action “encouraged” the gossip, therefore, those participating in the action that ‘instigated’ the gossip are guilty of the sin of ‘scandal’ - venial, unless it was “deliberately” done to encourage others to sin. When we least expect it, and are often unaware, people are watching us and what we do. Father also referred to St. Francis, “Preach the gospel always, and, if necessary, use words”, or “We are the only Bible many will ever read”, or, simply, “Actions speak louder than words.” ‘Scandal’ is not about intent, but about perception. Each of us is called to be aware of, and responsible for, our conduct at all times. Father also reminds us that the only person we can truly change is ourselves.