Shouldn't we avoid scandal?

[Neithan]

There have been sad cases where bishops grossly mishandled sexual sins of priests and religious brothers/sisters in their dioceses (e.g. Ireland); however, why is it ipso facto wrong for a bishop to avoid publicly denouncing his priest and turning him over to civil authorities? Why is this criticized as a “cover-up”?

We have a duty to avoid scandal:

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

While it may be impossible to defend some bishops’ ill-informed decisions in recent decades to move an abusive priest from one parish to another, their secrecy in dealing with his sins can hardly be criticized; they were simply acting according to their moral duty to avoid scandal. Ironically, this has created an even greater scandal, but can the bishops be blamed for not foreseeing this?

As for the objection that the priests should have been turned over to civil authorities: *why? *What happened to the separation of Church and State? There is a double standard at work here. Why isn’t ecclesiastical law and order sufficient? Of course it remains the right of any victim to alert the police and lay charges, but ought we to expect a bishop to incriminate his priest?

 

[Santi2]

As for the objection that the priests should have been turned over to civil authorities: why? What happened to the separation of Church and State?

“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is God’s” points towards respect for civil authorities which the Church is not exempted from. Although we have our own courts, it does not impose penalties like the civil courts. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but, ours is a holistic approach towards the person. The Church does not have prisons where people who commit the same crime is sent to for reparation if found guilty.

While it may be impossible to defend some bishops’ ill-informed decisions in recent decades to move an abusive priest from one parish to another, their secrecy in dealing with his sins can hardly be criticized; they were simply acting according to their moral duty to avoid scandal. Ironically, this has created an even greater scandal, but can the bishops be blamed for not foreseeing this?

I agree with you on the moral duty to avoid scandal however, I reckon, scandal cannot be avoided once it reaches the realm of civil authorities because of the media and lawyers.

Quote:
2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

It is unlikely that civil authorities will understand what it means. In the same way that they do not understand the substance of our Sacrament of Penance.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

As for the objection that the priests should have been turned over to civil authorities: why? What happened to the separation of Church and State? There is a double standard at work here. Why isn’t ecclesiastical law and order sufficient? Of course it remains the right of any victim to alert the police and lay charges, but ought we to expect a bishop to incriminate his priest?

This sounds like having your cake and eating it too…

The biggest reason this scandal has become so venomous and powerful is because of the fact that the Church authorities will keep it hushed when laymen and victims/victims families will demand that civil authorities deal with these criminal priests. Not only that but thus far Ecclesiastical law does NOT seem sufficient considering all the cases of priests retaining power and simply being moved to a new parish…

Honestly I’m sure people would still have problems with the Church dealing with these Priest in their own laws even if they actually were sufficient and meeting what civil authorities would do.

I truly wish some world wide Inquisition could be reinstated, one keeping tabs entirely on Priests instead of laymen like the old Inquisitions. That and perhaps the Vatican building prisons to house these men who drag the Church’s reputation into the filth…those two things would definately revive my vigor of being a Catholic in these dark times…

 

[Ron_Conte]

The sin of scandal pertains to the consequences of an act, not to the intention or moral object. So the mere fact that an act causes scandal does not imply that the act is immoral. Only when the bad consequences of an act, including any scandal, outweigh the good consequences, would the act be immoral due to scandal.

So the preaching of Jesus scandalized the Pharisees, but His preaching was not immoral.

 

[CD_Michels]

The sin of scandal pertains to the consequences of an act, not to the intention or moral object.

So if a person intends to cause scandal, that person sins ONLY if he succeeds in doing so?

And if a person does not intend to cause scandal and does, that person sins where the first does not??

 

[Ron_Conte]

So if a person intends to cause scandal, that person sins ONLY if he succeeds in doing so?

And if a person does not intend to cause scandal and does, that person sins where the first does not??

A bad intention makes any act a sin.

Scandal occurs when an act can be reasonably anticipated to lead some persons into sin. It is a consequence of a knowingy chosen act, so scandal is in the third font of circumstances. If the good consequences of an act outweigh the bad consequences, including any scandal, then the act has a good third font. If that same act is also done with good intention, and is not intrinsically evil, then the act has three good fonts and is moral.