The sin of "Scandal"

[Peepers]

I have been reading the Catholic Catechism and came across the explanations of the sin of Scandal:

II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS
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.

This suggests to me that the Church’s teaching is that a libertarian legislator or judge is as guilty, or even more so in some cases, than the person actually performing and abortion or engaging in certain sexual acts, because they have passed laws which encourage people to commit sin which they may otherwise not commit. Yet, a legislator is elected as a secular official. A president is expected to represent the will of all the people, including those who disagree with him. President Carter was the first president to be elected after Roe V Wade. Today, as a private citizen he openly expresses his pro-life view. My reading on the subject indicates that he did not do so, as president.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Are you asking a question or stating a disagreement somewhere in your paragraph?

Could you clarify?

Scandalous behavior is usually defined as behavior by people who are of all people not supposed to behave in a certain way. We have pedophile priests who give scandal to the Church … a reaction that defames the Church. We have doctors who openly commit abortions … giving scandal to the medical profession which is supposed to heal rather than kill. We have politicians who openly thwart the will of the people by catering to a certain subset of voters whose behavior is hardly admirable. We have soldiers on the battlefield who kill civilians and brag about it. Etc. etc.

All of these behaviors set a bad example for others to follow. This is my understanding of giving scandal, and therefore of participating actively or passively in wrong behavior.

But I’m not sure why you brought this up.

 

[Peepers]

I was just “thinking out loud”, i guess. The sin of scandal as i understand its definition in the catechism is the act of leading another person to sin. It occurs to me that the President of the US, as the chief law enforcement official of the land, would be put into a “no win” situation. If he (or she) eventually signs a bill allowing gay marriage, which is not a far-fetched idea at the rate that things are going, or if he enforces the abortion laws, then he is committing a grave sin. On the other hand, if he does not fulfill his official duties as President, then is he not committing another sin? This leads me to wonder if an ethical person by Catholic standards (or most religious standards) can seek the office of the Presidency?

 

[1ke]

The sin of scandal as i understand its definition in the catechism is the act of leading another person to sin. It occurs to me that the President of the US, as the chief law enforcement official of the land, would be put into a “no win” situation. If he (or she) eventually signs a bill allowing gay marriage, which is not a far-fetched idea at the rate that things are going, or if he enforces the abortion laws, then he is committing a grave sin.

Yes, this would be grave sin.

However, you state he is in a “no win” situation. What do you mean by that?

On the other hand, if he does not fulfill his official duties as President, then is he not committing another sin?

I don’t understand this question. He can do what is morally right and fulfill his obligation as President.

This leads me to wonder if an ethical person by Catholic standards (or most religious standards) can seek the office of the Presidency?

Of course they can. And we would be much better off if such a person would run.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

If he (or she) eventually signs a bill allowing gay marriage, which is not a far-fetched idea at the rate that things are going, or if he enforces the abortion laws, then he is committing a grave sin.

You might look for a different example. How likely is it that Congress would pass a bill legalizing gay marriage that the President would be asked to sign? If most of Congress and the President would like to be unemployed in two years, that’s all they have to do is pass such a law and he signs it.

 

[Peepers]

By a “no win” situation, let me give a specific hypothetical. The President, as the chief executive, it required by law to protect the right of a woman to have an abortion. His AG and the Dept of Justice have this mandate. Protecting this right facilitates the behavior. As I understand it, this is the sin of scandal. A President swears an oath to uphold the laws of the land and to protect the Constitution, but those laws may disagree with his own morality. This is the bind which I refer to.

 

[Peepers]

Peepers

If he (or she) eventually signs a bill allowing gay marriage, which is not a far-fetched idea at the rate that things are going, or if he enforces the abortion laws, then he is committing a grave sin.

You might look for a different example. How likely is it that Congress would pass a bill legalizing gay marriage that the President would be asked to sign? If most of Congress and the President would like to be unemployed in two years, that’s all they have to do is pass such a law and he signs it.

DOMA has been struck down along with DADT. The military actually requested that the Congress repeal DADT because if they did not, then the courts would have stepped in. The same thing could happen with gay marriage. The Congress could find its hand forced. There is a case pending in California which will end up in the US Supreme Court. Depending on how that goes, it could legalize gay marriage in all 50 states immediately. At that point in time, the President would be required to enforce the law. That could mean sending the National Guard into Kansas. Nobody knows how all of this will come down, but big changes are going on.

 

[1ke]

By a “no win” situation, let me give a specific hypothetical. The President, as the chief executive, it required by law to protect the right of a woman to have an abortion.

I don’t know of any situation in which the President is personally called upon to defend a woman having an abortion.

His AG and the Dept of Justice have this mandate. Protecting this right facilitates the behavior.

And, both have wide latitude in their pursuit of cases, which they exercise daily.

As I understand it, this is the sin of scandal.

It would be a sin were he to lobby Congress for, and sign into law, bills that extend the reach of abortion, fund abortion, or promote abortion. It would also be a sin to veto legislation presented to him that curbs, defunds, or outlaws abortion.

A President swears an oath to uphold the laws of the land and to protect the Constitution, but those laws may disagree with his own morality. This is the bind which I refer to.

His obligation is to change unjust and immoral laws as he is able. His sphere of influence is considerable in this regard.

 

[Peepers]

I don’t know of any situation in which the President is personally called upon to defend a woman having an abortion.

And, both have wide latitude in their pursuit of cases, which they exercise daily.

It would be a sin were he to lobby Congress for, and sign into law, bills that extend the reach of abortion, fund abortion, or promote abortion. It would also be a sin to veto legislation presented to him that curbs, defunds, or outlaws abortion.

His obligation is to change unjust and immoral laws as he is able. His sphere of influence is considerable in this regard.

To the extent that he personally does his job every day, which includes decisions on budgeting, and executive decisions on the disposition of Federal law enforcement, yes of course he is called upon personally to uphold a woman’s right to an abortion. That is how I see it. Maybe we just differ on that.

 

[1ke]

To the extent that he personally does his job every day, which includes decisions on budgeting, and executive decisions on the disposition of Federal law enforcement, yes of course he is called upon personally to uphold a woman’s right to an abortion. That is how I see it. Maybe we just differ on that.

He has a veto pen,

 

[Peepers]

He cannot veto a law which is on the books. It is his duty to uphold and enforce that law. The President may appoint judges, but he may not change their decision, or remove a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**He cannot veto a law which is on the books. It is his duty to uphold and enforce that law. The President may appoint judges, but he may not change their decision, or remove a Supreme Court Justice. **

The President is obliged to follow a ruling of the Supreme Court. By the same token, the Supreme Court can overrule its own decisions or can overrule as unconstitutional enactments of Congress and any practice of the Executive branch. Nine people have an awful lot of power. But we have checks and balances. The President can be frustrated by Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress can be frustrated by the Supreme Court and the veto power of the President. The Supreme Court can be frustrated by Presidential appointments that can tip the balance of opinion, not to mention Congressional power to initiate Amendments that may counter the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and discretionary powers.

The game of power politics is always fluid and surprising, to say the least! The Framers meant it to be that way so that if the country goes in the wrong direction, the people ultimately at the ballot box can change the course of that direction by defeating any or all three branches of government controlled by either party.

HURRAH!

 

[Peepers]

**He cannot veto a law which is on the books. It is his duty to uphold and enforce that law. The President may appoint judges, but he may not change their decision, or remove a Supreme Court Justice. **

The President is obliged to follow a ruling of the Supreme Court. By the same token, the Supreme Court can overrule its own decisions or can overrule as unconstitutional enactments of Congress and any practice of the Executive branch. Nine people have an awful lot of power. But we have checks and balances. The President can be frustrated by Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress can be frustrated by the Supreme Court and the veto power of the President. The Supreme Court can be frustrated by Presidential appointments that can tip the balance of opinion, not to mention Congressional power to initiate Amendments that may counter the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and discretionary powers.

The game of power politics is always fluid and surprising, to say the least! The Framers meant it to be that way so that if the country goes in the wrong direction, the people ultimately at the ballot box can change the course of that direction by defeating any or all three branches of government controlled by either party.

HURRAH!

It is surprising how well the system endures, in spite of the various and presidents, etc… It was intentionally designed tom operated slowly and deliberately. I wonder as the rate of change in the world increases how any legislative body can keep up with the pace. The questions in bioethics and genetic engineering alone are staggering, and have not even begun to be addressed… but that is another thread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

You designate your religion “Learning about Catholicism.”

That is not a religion. That is a study. A study can be used for many purposes … to search for the truth, to refute an adversary, to while away the time, etc.

Really, what is your religion?

 

[Peepers]

I was baptized as a Catholic and received instruction in Catholicism in my early years. I have explored various spiritual tradition ranging from Buddhism to Protestantism. I am not avowed to any religious tradition at this time. I am enjoying learning about Catholicism here, and I am considering committing myself to it, but I want to learn more first. Why do you ask, Charlemagne?

 

[Peepers]

Peepers

You designate your religion “Learning about Catholicism.”

That is not a religion. That is a study. A study can be used for many purposes … to search for the truth, to refute an adversary, to while away the time, etc.

Really, what is your religion?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Why do you ask, Charlemagne? **

Just curious. This is certainly a good place to start learning about Catholicism.

Starting with the sin of scandal is a peculiar interest. Then again, the Church has a long history of scandals, so you you will no doubt pick up some history too.

Enjoy your study.

 

[Peepers]

**Why do you ask, Charlemagne? **

Just curious. This is certainly a good place to start learning about Catholicism.

Starting with the sin of scandal is a peculiar interest. Then again, the Church has a long history of scandals, so you you will no doubt pick up some history too.

Enjoy your study.

Thank you. My interest in the sin of scandal was not in the sense that I think you are using it, but in the sense that it is defined in the Cathchism. The “scandals” of the history of the Church may be interesting from an historic sense, but that was not the point of this post, and I think those events have little bearing on my primary interest here.

To put my cards on the table, for anyone who may be interested in where my biases are: I am a 28 year old male medical student. I attended an elite private university majoring in Humanities, and I was considering Divinity School. But I was not getting a lot of traction in my studies. I decided for a number of reasons to postpone my education and service my country in the military. I was deployed twice to Iraq as a US Marine. Those experiences sharpened many of my opinions regarding life and death, the use and abuse of power, the nature of human suffering and pain… to name a few.

While in Iraq, I also realized that the job which I identified the most with was that being done by the medical corpsman. Upon returning to civilian life, I continued my education at a public university. I was able to use my previous class work to complete a double major in English Literature and in Molecular Biology. I am now in Medical School at a public university.

On a yet more personal note, and I reveal this because it may color my “arguments” here, I am homosexual. I have struggled with this, and as you may surmise, it has complicated my relationship with the Church. There is no “community” which truly accepts a celibate gay man of my age. My experience of the Catholic Church as a community and social institution has not been entirely positive, when compared to some of the Protestant denominations, in this respect.

So there you go. More than anyone probably wanted to know about me.

 

[roseofshannon]

Wow! Thanks for your service to our country!

BTW, I just finished listening to this show which might interest you:
gloria.tv/?media=143336

It’s an interview with Scott McDermott who is a former atheist, who lived the gay lifestyle, and converted to the Catholic faith.

Also, he recommends Courage as a good resource for support for gays in the Catholic community.

God Bless!

 

[Peepers]

Wow! Thanks for your service to our country!

BTW, I just finished listening to this show which might interest you:
gloria.tv/?media=143336

It’s an interview with Scott McDermott who is a former atheist, who lived the gay lifestyle, and converted to the Catholic faith.

Also, he recommends Courage as a good resource for support for gays in the Catholic community.

God Bless!

Thanks, RoseOfShannon. I know Scott. I don’t really want to push this toward being yet another thread on homosexuality and the Church, with all the rancor which that usually brings. I would offer the observation, though, that one’s sexuality is not merely a “lifestyle choice.” It runs deeper than that.

As for the personal challenge, I don’t see mine as any more nor as any less, than as a heterosexual male who, for any of a number of reasons, may not marry or have a family. I can’t put myself into my straight brother’s head, but my sense is that the yearning to have a family is the same and occurs at around my age for many men. From these feelings within me, I believe that I understand why gays are pushing for secular marriage and adoption, etc… I hope these observations don’t start yet another acrimonious debate on “gay marriage”.