Scandal!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rose71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rose71

Guest
Since I began to look on this forum, I’ve seen a lot of posters use the argument of, “this kind of behaviour is likely to cause scandal” as a reason for advising OPs to refrain from a particular course of action.

A few recent examples have been a married lady who was wondering about her friendship with an ex; a question about a gay couple who share a home but are committed to celibacy and having housemates / room-mates of the opposite sex.

I have to admit to being confused here, because surely what really matters is what the intention and resolve of the people involved is - not what people ‘might’ think? Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but to me, worrying about ‘scandal’ is tantamount to saying that gossiping, jumping to conclusions and rumour-mongering are fine and good, if the instigators are adopting the moral ‘high ground’.

Personally, as a single woman, I find this a very sad state of affairs. I was brought up to believe that fundamentally, I was born with Free Will: to me, this means there is allways a choice. Therefore - I can for example, develop a close, platonic friendship with a person of the opposite sex and I can choose to be honest about my beliefs and intentions. If somebody chose to draw attention to the friendship and speculate as to its nature with other people, surely this person is the one at fault and the one responsible for any ‘scandal’ that might ensue?

To me, there is a world of difference between, say, deliberately acting in a way that will alert the concern of those around you - for example maybe, teenagers who brag about sexual experience when actually they haven’t done a thing:D and in doing so, lead their more gullible peers to consider ‘catching up’. Even in this case though - the responsibility ultimatley lies with the individual, does it not?

If we say ‘no’, then where do we draw the line? Can I say that if I decided to marry a divorced man then cheat on him with a married man I would be somehow less culpable because Liz Hurley did it first, miss?

I find the readiness of people to condemn on the basis of ‘might’ cause scandal to be quite scary and more than a little patronising and lacking in faith. Going back to the post about the same-sex-but-celibate couple; if they have the Faith to attend Mass and the desire to participate in the sacraments and are committed to one another’s beliefs by undertaking to have a celibate relationship - but choose to live together because (let’s be honest here) it’s actually much nicer to share one’s life with someone you find good company than to live alone - who are we to suggest that their faith will not be strong enough to see them right? Who are we to speculate and this generate scrutiny of their relationship?

Likewise, as has been said before, as Christians, we should be ‘out there’ in the world (unless called to a contemplative life) and this means putting ourselves ‘at risk’ - our sword and shield are our Faith and the concept of Free Will.

To me, the concepts of ‘near occasion of sin’ and ‘likely to cause scandal’ are used in a way to undermine this :confused:

Did Jesus turn his back on Mary Magdalen in case people thought his intentions were dodgy? In the Good Samaritan, did the Samaritan walk on by because picking another man up, bandaging him up and booking him into an inn for the night might give a few Biblical curtain-twitchers the wrong idea?

I know, Jesus was the Son of God, but surely one of the most wonderful things about the Gospels is to bring us the Good News that Jesus came to Earth to live as one of us - and subject himself to all the feelings of temptation and pain and suffering and confusion that all of us go through?
 
I find the readiness of people to condemn on the basis of ‘might’ cause scandal to be quite scary and more than a little patronising and lacking in faith. Going back to the post about the same-sex-but-celibate couple; if they have the Faith to attend Mass and the desire to participate in the sacraments and are committed to one another’s beliefs by undertaking to have a celibate relationship - but choose to live together because (let’s be honest here) it’s actually much nicer to share one’s life with someone you find good company than to live alone - who are we to suggest that their faith will not be strong enough to see them right? Who are we to speculate and this generate scrutiny of their relationship?
I hear what you are saying. People are responsible for their own actions.

However, we don’t live in a vacuum. Our actions, attitudes, words, etc… have impacts on others. If what we do or say leads someone to sin, we do have some responsibility. I don’t believe that we have any grave responsibility for someone else’s actions unless we intentionally lead them to sin, but, as Christ said, “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.”.

We cannot condemn anyone because we don’t have that authority (thank God!), but when someone comes to this forum and asks a question, they generally will get an answer. We only have their post to respond to and, if it appears that they are in a postion to create scandal (and you might look that up in the Catechism, no one is making this stuff up), they will be told so. I think that if one has been told that they are creating a scandal and they don’t change, then the culpability becomes grave if the scandal leads another to sin.

Peace

Tim
 
Please read the Catechism section on the sin of scandal.

Scandal is not about “what people might think.”

The term scandal is often misused in daily speech. Or rather, people use a more general/secular definition meaning to cause outrage.

It means something very specific in Church teaching and that isn’t it. It is a sin against the Fifth Commandment.
 
Please read the Catechism section on the sin of scandal.

Scandal is not about “what people might think.”

The term scandal is often misused in daily speech. Or rather, people use a more general/secular definition meaning to cause outrage.

It means something very specific in Church teaching and that isn’t it. It is a sin against the Fifth Commandment.
Thank you for posting that, it helps me to understand the meaning of scandal. I am not sure I truly understand but I am going to read this again, and hopefully I will get it soon.

Edit: If I am understanding the Catechism, scandal could be my husband telling me that I don’t need to go to confession because I haven’t sinned, yes? Or someone in the family telling our son that having sex at age 16 is healthy and natural? Please correct me if I am wrong. I want to understand.
 
You are quite mistaken about the scandal bit… it isn’t an acceptance of gossip mongerers, but rather a condemnation of it… namely, by causing scandal we tempt others to sin, be it in the form of rash judgement (such as assuming two coed roommates are having sex), or in the form of spiritual suicide… such as those abandoning the sacraments and even God because of the priest abuse scandal.

In the first case, the scandal caused is very minor… but it is still a temptation to sin for others. In the latter case, due to the nature of the offense and the office of the person involved, the act of causing scandal is a grave sin.

Another thing to mention is that avoiding scandal is not merely avoiding outrage… it also has to do with the respect for the fundamental dignity of a fellow human being. A person might have a roommate of the opposite sex, but if he allows rumors to start of a sexual relationship, or doesn’t immediately squash such rumors, then he is failing to protect the modesty of his roommate, and allowing her dignity to be trampled upon (and the same in reverse). This is a distinct lack of charitable love in action, which seeks to elevate the human being rather than break it down.

The size of scandal is also important to note as well. Let’s say in the example above that the two roommates have separate rooms and bathrooms… that would cause MUCH less of an issue than two roomates in a studio apartment who share a bathroom… largely because the sinful speculation and rash judgement caused in the latter case is far more likely to be prevalent.

At the same time, it is not always sinful to cause scandal… for certainly there are SOME people who will be outraged at anything other than totally celebate and segregated lives, but we DO have a reasonable responsibility not to cause deliberate scandal (in other words, there’s basically a “common sense” check: if a reasonable person would look at a situation and assume X is happening, then it is a scandal)
 
Edit: If I am understanding the Catechism, scandal could be my husband telling me that I don’t need to go to confession because I haven’t sinned, yes? Or someone in the family telling our son that having sex at age 16 is healthy and natural? Please correct me if I am wrong. I want to understand.
I hope what I just posted helps. I’d like to add that while we have a duty to avoid causing any major scandal, the primary duty in resisiting temptation to sin still lies on the person who would sin… in the case of scandal, this would be the outside observer.

As to your examples, these are not cases of scandal, but rather of promulgating false teachings (perhaps minor heresy?)… they are, however, in the same line of thought.
 
“Might cause scandal,” is a polite way of saying, “does cause scandal”. As 1ke said, scandal has a narrower meaning in Catholic teaching.

To use the example of platonic roommates, people only believe that it is acceptable because it is widely “acceptable” to for an unmarried couple to live together and have sex. Having sex outside of marriage is itself wrong according to Catholic teaching, and the scandal is that so many are doing it, that others don’t realize its wrong. Likewise, living together should be reserved to married couples or siblings.

By Catholic standards, this is axiomatic as an extension of the definition of marriage and family. Marriage is defined as wholly sharing in one and other’s lives, including the mundane business of maintaining a household, as well as the more exciting production of children within the household.

By living with an a member of the opposite sex even in a non-sexual relationship, one is diluting the definition of marriage, by removing the household portion and turning it into purely a sexual relationship. Thus one is contributing to the scandal of ramped sex outside of marriage, by further devaluing marriage.

It is perhaps not helpful to say that living with a member of the opposite sex might cause scandal, as the fact that one is considering such behavior in the first place is a sign that scandal has already already taken hold!
Please read the Catechism section on the sin of scandal.

Scandal is not about “what people might think.”

The term scandal is often misused in daily speech. Or rather, people use a more general/secular definition meaning to cause outrage.

It means something very specific in Church teaching and that isn’t it. It is a sin against the Fifth Commandment.
 
Thank you for posting that, it helps me to understand the meaning of scandal. I am not sure I truly understand but I am going to read this again, and hopefully I will get it soon.

Edit: If I am understanding the Catechism, scandal could be my husband telling me that I don’t need to go to confession because I haven’t sinned, yes? Or someone in the family telling our son that having sex at age 16 is healthy and natural? Please correct me if I am wrong. I want to understand.
Yes. You are getting it.
 
Scandal has nothing to do with gossip. It has nothing to do with some people speculating about what others might be doing.

Scandal is when a person who professes religion, moral standards, fails to live up to them and the failure becomes public, scandalizing others.

The old Penny Catechism asked the question which commandment is scandal a sin against. The answer is, thou shalt not kill, because scandal kills the life of my neighbor’s soul.

Scandal drives people away from God. When those who purport to be godly live secret lives opposed to how they represent themselves.

If a minister of the gospel is caught stealing money, in sexual sin, selling drugs, it scandalizes people. It may cause others to give up faith, or keep others from empracing faith. In Florida a bishop was exposed in a scandal and I knew one of his priests who was tempted to leave the priesthood.

When those who profess certain moral standards and fail to keep them they cause scandal.
 
I had always thought of scandal in terms of a politician or authority figure misrepresenting the teachings of the Church. Or insisting that a Catholic could, in good faith, oppose the teachings of the Church. Am I incorrect in that?
 
I had always thought of scandal in terms of a politician or authority figure misrepresenting the teachings of the Church. Or insisting that a Catholic could, in good faith, oppose the teachings of the Church. Am I incorrect in that?
You are quite correct that these are examples of scandal as is facilitating legislation in furtherance of immoral acts.
 
When I give these passages of Scripture a read, it helps me understand the sin of scandal.

1 Cor chapter 8

Romans chapter 14

1 Tim chapter 4

And the passages where Christ talks about causing one who is younger to sin

Matt 18, Luke 17, Mark 9
 
Please read the Catechism section on the sin of scandal.

Scandal is not about “what people might think.”

The term scandal is often misused in daily speech. Or rather, people use a more general/secular definition meaning to cause outrage.

It means something very specific in Church teaching and that isn’t it. It is a sin against the Fifth Commandment.
From this I would say about 90% of what people on this forum call scandal really isn’t.
 
From this I would say about 90% of what people on this forum call scandal really isn’t.
Exactly. Many on this forum are petty and childish and are seemingly out there to make sure no one has any fun. The mods let this perpetuate. When it comes to scuropulicity/scandal/harry potter its best to ask a trusted priest. You have better chances of getting a good anser from a street preacher than from some on caf.
 
From this I would say about 90% of what people on this forum call scandal really isn’t.
I always thought that scandal was what happened with someone in a position of power or influence or a celebrity did something naughty that made the headlines…
 
I always thought that scandal was what happened with someone in a position of power or influence or a celebrity did something naughty that made the headlines…
It is when someone who professes religion does something evil. When the person and the evil is exposed it causes scandal and drives people away from God.
 
🙂 Thank you everyone! That’s certainly cleared up a lot of confusion in my mind and I hope it’s helped others too.

I was concerned by the way scandal was implied on some of these fora, because to me, it was seemingly undermining the responsibility of the individual.

When I read the link 1ke provided to the Catechism (:thumbsup:thanks 1ke) I realised that the term ‘scandal’ is actually used incorrectly a lot of the time .

So, have I got this right now…
  1. I spend a lot of time with a close male friend, who I see more as a surrogate brother than anything else. One of his friends recently refered to me as, “Rose, that **** is ****-ing!” My friend immediately set him straight (hurray!) and explained that I actually had very strong views on sex and marriage, which he totally respected. So - in this case, my friend had acted well and not in a way likely to cause scandal.
  2. If my friend had just winked and said, “hey - what do you think?” or worse, pretended the relationship is more than platonic - he would be responsible for behaviour likely to cause scandal.
  3. I often go on holiday with a female friend who is also a Catholic and single and we share a twin room. At the risk of stating the obvious, travelling with a companion is safer, cheaper and just nicer! Last time, we befriended a married couple who actually jumped to the conclusion we were a ‘couple’ :eek: and asked how we met. We tactfully explained that we were just friends without causing them further embarassment by just bringing it up in conversation to say, “it’s great we’re both single and have the same taste in holidays, because it means we can travel together.”
  4. However, if the couple had broadcast that they knew 2 lesbians all over the hotel - they would be creating a scandal - and if my friend and I had thought it would be funny to behave in a way that lead to ambiguity about the relationship - that would be behaviour likely to cause a scandal?
  5. If I were in a position of power in the media, or in a religious organisation or educational foundation or youth group and I behaved in the way I’ve described in no.4 - this would be far worse, because I am in a position of influence. Same goes for the way my friend behaved in Point 2 (although he actually didn’t)
 
I think you’ve got it. Scandal is leading others to believe that sin isn’t sin. It’s sad that people now wonder about two women travelling together 😦 Or about a platonic mixed houseful of people, which was common when I was in college and nobody thought anything of it. Now the culture has changed so much that the possibility of scandal exists in places where it never did before.

Here’s an easy example: two Catholics who live together before marriage. Yes, those of us who practice our faith are upset, but that’s not the scandal. The scandal is that another young couple might interpret those actions to believe that living together before marriage is actually okay for Catholics, and do it themselves, not realizing it is sin.

That’s where the politicians are making such a mess–there are tons of people out there who believe that it’s okay to be Catholic and pro-abortion, or Catholic and married many times. They are publicly saying that sin isn’t sin, possibly leading the unknowing into sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top