Paddy1989, I would like some clarification as well. I understand that in order for a sin to be mortal, people have to know it’s a sin and deliberately choose to sin anyway, among other things. That people can’t mortally sin unintentionally, or by accident. You have stated that often, young women who dress immodestly have no idea the sort of attention it would attract. Well, if they have no idea about this, how could they be guilty of a mortal sin?
Yet, the post you quote with apparent approval does not make this distinction. So, do you think that these women are dressing immodestly but not meaning to cause scandal, are still culpable of it? That is, are they committing Mortal Sin that needs to be confessed? The people you quote seem to think so, that people can commit “the mortal sin of scandal” and be damned, regardless of whether they intend to lead others into sin.
Hmm, this seems to be another case of past saints and “Doctors of the Church” making statements that seem to be in conflict with current Church teaching…this actually is one of my barriers to crossing the Tiber…but as that would be OT, will not comment further.
I will answer this, if you won’t mind. You are probably referring to this quote:
A mortal sin of scandal is committed by women who go about with their bosom immodestly exposed, or who expose their limbs improperly. Also by actors in immodest comedies, and still more by the persons who compose such comedies; also by painters who paint obscene pictures, and by the heads of families who keep such pictures in their houses. The father who speaks obscenely, or blasphemes the saints, in presence of his children, and the mother who brings into her house to live among her daughters young men who are in love with them, or betrothed to them, or other suspected persons, are guilty of a still more grievous sin of scandal. Some mothers say: do not suspect any evil. I answer, that it is their duty to suspect; otherwise they will have to render to God an account of all the sins which may follow.
Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. Listen to a horrible thing that happened in the city of Savona in the year 1560. I have read it in the chronicles of the Capuchins, and it is also related by Father Ardia. There was a woman who, even after marriage, did not cease giving scandal. This woman one day fell into a fit, and while she was in a state of unconsciousness, she saw the Lord condemning her to eternal fire. When she recovered the use of her senses, she did nothing but cry out, “Alas! I am damned, I am damned!” A confessor came to comfort her, but she answered, “What have I to do with confession? I am damned.” Then her daughter approached the bed, in order to encourage her, but she cried out: “Ah, accursed child! on your account, too, I am damned: for through you I have given scandal to others.” After these words the devils, in presence of all who were in the apartment, raised her up to the ceiling, and then dashed her so violently against the floor that she instantly expired.’
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church
I think St. Alphonsus is talking about people who received Church instruction and are fully aware how does the Church regard the sins they are committing, yet they choose to flaunt the teachings and disobey the instructions received from the Church.
Also, people who fall short of the requirements of purity and chastity (including through immodest dress) established by God and the Catholic Church, without actually intending to sin or to cause scandal, are still guilty of a sin that needs to be confessed, however their culpability is reduced due to their ignorance. These people are still objectively harming themselves and others through their immodesty and/or other sins against purity/chastity, but they are causing harm through ignorance rather than conscious malice.
Let’s compare the above to someone who feeds an infant a lethal dose of sleeping pills. If the one who poisoned this infant to death was his/her 4-year old sibling, the child’s culpability is reduced to minimal or non-existent due to ignorance. However, if it was a parent who knew fully well that the amount of drug (barbiturate, whatever) was going to kill the child, the person’s level of culpability may amount as high as to first degree murder. The objective damage is the same, whether caused by a 4-year old or by a fully aware parent - an infant was poisoned to death. But the level of culpability is not the same.
Returning to someone who dresses immodestly, the objective damage is the same - harming the immodest person’s own dignity, and presenting a temptation/stumbling block to others (tempting others to dress in a similarly immodest fashion; tempting others to feel envious; tempting others to sins of lust). However, even though the objective damage is the same, the level of culpability of the immodest person varies according to how well he/she is aware of Church teaching, of the harm caused to others, and according to how deliberately is he/she harming others and disobeying the authority of the Church. A similar case could be made about people who engage in premarital sex (fornication), masturbation, pornography, artificial birth control, etc. They are objectively harming themselves and others through their sins, but their level of culpability depends on how well they are aware of the teachings of our Church, and of the damage being caused to others and to themselves.
