Scandal!

[Rose71]

that makes sense…and also deomnstrates that the way the term ‘scandal’ is used is often way off the mark.

What I personally find very sad is that people (not on this Forum) seem to sometimes want there to be some scandal - be it when I am enjoying the friendship with my male friend or holidaying with my female friend. It’s like there is a self-appointed “No Smoke Without Fire-Brigade”

However, the last post writes about people who present themselves as Catholics and blatantly or furtively go right against the teachings of the Church. In England, where I live, I witness this on a regular basis. Couples who openly admit to using contraception; who live together outside marriage; celebrities (in UK and US) who tell the media how Catholic they are and frankly go through relationships like a dose of salts; our own former PM, Mr. Blair and his wife, who make a big play of their faith while also saying contraception is fine…

I’ve yet to hear a priest or member of the congregation use the term ‘scandalous’ to describe this behaviour. I’m sorry, but it really does give the message that so long as one keeps up appearances - it’s all okay! Conversely, anyone whose behaves in a way that because of the messages pushed down our throats by the media and the increasing secularisation of society, people see as ‘impossible’ (like keeping your knickers on unless you are married for instance or just having the self discipline and morals to enjoy and value close friendships and treat friends with respect) is seen as fair game for the gossips and rumour-mongerers

I don’t get it! When did it become ‘okay’ to blatantly pick and choose which bits of the Church’s teaching you like? To me, that’s the real scandal, because the behaviour of these people is the very thing that undermines people’s expectations of one another and of themselves.

This is why a lot of single, practicing Catholics feel terribly let down by the Chuch! We are doing our best to live according to the teachings of the Church, but as I think it was Norseman ( sorry if it wasn’t you!) has posted a few times - we are sociable creatures and it is natural to want companionship. When we try to do it properly - we are castiagated by people who want to find fault. We plod on - knowing that we could quite easily let things slip (oops!) and find ourselves a spouse…do everything secular socieity would expect and consider the norm (use contraception, move in together…) and them suddenly remember we are Catholics when it comes to the Big Day and go crazy sorting our outfits, venues and annulments (which we suddenly realise our D/H needs and ‘obviously’ must be entitled to because if he doesn’t get one it will send Great Aunts and Uncles over the edge )

So please everyone - can we be careful how we use the terms ‘scandal’ and ‘scandalous’ . If any Priests are reading this, please speak up for those of us who are trying our best and explain once and for all what scandal and scandalous actually mean?!

 

[Castello]

Remember, we can cause scandal when we do something that is morally neutral but it appears to be sin. As Scripture teaches us, we are not to put a stumbling block in front of our weaker brothers, if eating meat causes my brother to sin then I will eat no more meat.

 

[Rose71]

Remember, we can cause scandal when we do something that is morally neutral but it appears to be sin. As Scripture teaches us, we are not to put a stumbling block in front of our weaker brothers, if eating meat causes my brother to sin then I will eat no more meat.

With respect, Castello, it’s that sort of statement that I find confusing. How can you say for certain that ‘eating meat causes my brother to sin’? Are you absolving your brother of any responsibility for his own actions? Where is the concept of Free Will in all this? If your brother is somehow incapable of making a rational judgement about eating meat, surely if he eats it following your example, he would not be sinning anyway, as he lacks the moral discretion to do so?

Where does one draw the line? If, as an example, I stayed over at a male friend’s house, in a separate room and on the understanding that there was either no physical attraction between us or we had resolved to keep it platonic; is it then our responsibility to inform everyone in the street that nothing hapenned - or the responsibility of everyone in the street to refrain from jumping to conclusions?

How are you supposed to know if it was ‘your’ specific action that ‘caused’ someone to sin? It reminds me of something I learned as a 5 year old at school (a Catholic one) If we behaved in a naughty way and out excuse was ‘Jimmy did it’ - all we got was a clip around the ear and the question, “if Jimmy poked his finger in the fire, would you do it too?”

I can absolutely take the point that a person who is famous and knows their movements are going to be under scrutiny ought to exercise a lot of discretion even if their actions are morally neutral - but I find it hard to accept that any morally neutral behaviour can be deemed sinful because a third party chooses to speculate on its neutrality.

I’m grateful that you’ve taken the time to post and I respect your opinion - but I’m here to learn and I’m one of those annoying people who learns by asking and asking until the penny drops

 

[Castello]

With respect, Castello, it’s that sort of statement that I find confusing. How can you say for certain that ‘eating meat causes my brother to sin’? Are you absolving your brother of any responsibility for his own actions? Where is the concept of Free Will in all this? If your brother is somehow incapable of making a rational judgement about eating meat, surely if he eats it following your example, he would not be sinning anyway, as he lacks the moral discretion to do so?

Where does one draw the line? If, as an example, I stayed over at a male friend’s house, in a separate room and on the understanding that there was either no physical attraction between us or we had resolved to keep it platonic; is it then our responsibility to inform everyone in the street that nothing hapenned - or the responsibility of everyone in the street to refrain from jumping to conclusions?

How are you supposed to know if it was ‘your’ specific action that ‘caused’ someone to sin? It reminds me of something I learned as a 5 year old at school (a Catholic one) If we behaved in a naughty way and out excuse was ‘Jimmy did it’ - all we got was a clip around the ear and the question, “if Jimmy poked his finger in the fire, would you do it too?”

I can absolutely take the point that a person who is famous and knows their movements are going to be under scrutiny ought to exercise a lot of discretion even if their actions are morally neutral - but I find it hard to accept that any morally neutral behaviour can be deemed sinful because a third party chooses to speculate on its neutrality.

I’m grateful that you’ve taken the time to post and I respect your opinion - but I’m here to learn and I’m one of those annoying people who learns by asking and asking until the penny drops

I did not just make an opinion, I quoted St Paul’s opinion (also known as Sacred Scripture). Have you done a study of Scripture and the documents of the Church on sin and our responsibility to our fellow Christians?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I did not just make an opinion, I quoted St Paul’s opinion (also known as Sacred Scripture). Have you done a study of Scripture and the documents of the Church on sin and our responsibility to our fellow Christians?

Ahem Cough Sounds like the reason many Protestant sects had to get alcohol prohibited by the government in the U.S. The Church has not taken this position.

 

[Castello]

Ahem Cough Sounds like the reason many Protestant sects had to get alcohol prohibited by the government in the U.S. The Church has not taken this position.

It is so tiring, anytime one actually references Scripture someone calls them a Protestant.

Believe it or not, the Church has long taught that we are responsible if we lead others into sin.

 

[grandfather]

Ahem Cough Sounds like the reason many Protestant sects had to get alcohol prohibited by the government in the U.S. The Church has not taken this position.

It is a sin to be the cause of scandal. We also need to be careful to not give the appearance of scandal, even in a society that has very lax moral standards, if any.

So for example assume a young man and woman were dating and lived in different cities and were following Christian morals regarding sex, waiting until marriage. They are also both Sunday school teachers, teach Bible studies and wear crucifixes openly.

When they visit one another’s city they should not stay at one another’s apartments for two reasons. The first reason is it would be a cause of temptation for them both. The second reason it would be improper is the appearance it gives.

I have a friend who is a dedicated priest. Every year during his vacation he filled in for another priest at a parish. He lived a frugal lifestyle, had a heart for the poor and tried to help care for them and encouraged others to do so. While visiting the parish someone let him borrow an expensive luxury car to drive while he was there. He felt uncomfortable being seen in the car, because it gave the appearance that he did not practice what he preached and lived an opulant lifestyle.

I know of a new religious order that has several young priests and several young consecrated women. The priests live in a house next door to the women in a complex where both work with young people. During the course of their day they have reason to interact. The men never go into the women’s house under any circumstances. There are occassional meetings in the men’s house, because it has a meeting room. One of the women might attend a meeting there, but never alone and only if there are members of the public present. They do not want to give the appearance that something could be going on.

We can not live our lives worried about what others think, but we also do not want to be careless about giving the appearance of scandal.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

With respect, Castello, it’s that sort of statement that I find confusing. How can you say for certain that ‘eating meat causes my brother to sin’? Are you absolving your brother of any responsibility for his own actions? Where is the concept of Free Will in all this? If your brother is somehow incapable of making a rational judgement about eating meat, surely if he eats it following your example, he would not be sinning anyway, as he lacks the moral discretion to do so?

Where does one draw the line? If, as an example, I stayed over at a male friend’s house, in a separate room and on the understanding that there was either no physical attraction between us or we had resolved to keep it platonic; is it then our responsibility to inform everyone in the street that nothing hapenned - or the responsibility of everyone in the street to refrain from jumping to conclusions?

How are you supposed to know if it was ‘your’ specific action that ‘caused’ someone to sin? It reminds me of something I learned as a 5 year old at school (a Catholic one) If we behaved in a naughty way and out excuse was ‘Jimmy did it’ - all we got was a clip around the ear and the question, “if Jimmy poked his finger in the fire, would you do it too?”

I can absolutely take the point that a person who is famous and knows their movements are going to be under scrutiny ought to exercise a lot of discretion even if their actions are morally neutral - but I find it hard to accept that any morally neutral behaviour can be deemed sinful because a third party chooses to speculate on its neutrality.

I’m grateful that you’ve taken the time to post and I respect your opinion - but I’m here to learn and I’m one of those annoying people who learns by asking and asking until the penny drops

I know you are in the UK, but some time, it would be great if you could go to the March for Life in Washington DC. You would be so encouraged by the number of young Catholics there! You can watch the coverage of the March and the events leading up to it on EWTN.com, too. It always gives me so much joy to see a whole generation of young Catholics ON FIRE to change the world!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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."85 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.86

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."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 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!"89

So, it seems to me, someone must commit “scandal” on purpose.

So if a woman counsels a teen to have premarital sex, and get “protection” from PP, that would be the sin of scandal.

I’m not sure if “neutral” behaviors that other misinterpret are scandal.

Years ago women would worry if their babies were born 8 month and 25 days after their weddings because people would assume they had had premarital sex.

 

[grandfather]

So, it seems to me, someone must commit “scandal” on purpose.

 

[divinefaith]

Is it really my problem if people think what im doing is sinful when I personally know I’m not sinning? For e.g suppose you lived in a society where long term dating was looked at as being immoral because people assume you’re not being chaste
Now you go on dating a guy and people assume you are unchaste? Is that your problem?

And can you please post a link of that thread where the married woman was befriending her ex? I didn’t come across it.
Thank you

 

[hazcompat]

again i post

Words and Prayers of St. Isaac the Syrian

Let yourself be persecuted, but do not persecute others.
Be crucified, but do not crucify others.
Be slandered, but do not slander others.
Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep: such is the sign of purity.
Suffer with the sick.
Be afflicted with sinners.
Exult with those who repent.
Be the friend of all, but in your spirit remain alone.
Be a partaker of the sufferings of all, but keep your body distant from all.
Rebuke no one, revile no one, not even those who live very wickedly.
Spread your cloak over those who fall into sin, each and every one, and shield them.
And if you cannot take the fault on yourself and accept punishment in their place,
do not destroy their character.

christianmystics.com/trad…thesyrian.html

peace

 

[EvelynEVF]

Is it really my problem if people think what im doing is sinful when I personally know I’m not sinning? For e.g suppose you lived in a society where long term dating was looked at as being immoral because people assume you’re not being chaste
Now you go on dating a guy and people assume you are unchaste? Is that your problem?

Our USAmerican culture really stinks that way. Now that anything goes, people assume that anything is going. Yuck. My best suggestion is to listen closely to a well-formed conscience, making sure you/I/whoever doesn’t ever give the appearance of sin (so that any speculation is totally baseless), and pay attention big time if someone close to you or a spiritual director/pastor has any concerns.

 

[grandfather]

Is it really my problem if people think what im doing is sinful when I personally know I’m not sinning? For e.g suppose you lived in a society where long term dating was looked at as being immoral because people assume you’re not being chaste
Now you go on dating a guy and people assume you are unchaste? Is that your problem?

And can you please post a link of that thread where the married woman was befriending her ex? I didn’t come across it.
Thank you

You should not worry about what anyone assumes you are doing or not doing.

At the same time if you are a Christian, you should not carelessly give people reason to assume you are not practicing what you preach.

If a couple is chastely courting for a long time and others assume they are unchaste that is not the couple’s problem.

If that couple goes on vacation together and shares a cabin on a cruise ship that is giving the appearance that they are unchaste.