What is "scandal"?

[Penny_Plain]

Discussions in another forum have pointed out that behaviour may be scandalous even if the behaviour itself is not sinful. Giving scandal itself is a sin, I am told.

I don’t understand.

Suppose I do something that is not sinful. Suppose, for example, I live chastely with a man to whom I am not married. Suppose further that I do not discuss whether we are having sex or not. People who do not know the situation assume that we are and are scandalized.

Have I sinned? How?

Suppose further that I tell people we are living chastely and they do not believe me and are scandalized. Have I sinned? How?

I think “scandal” is what people point to when somebody is doing something they don’t approve of but isn’t sinful. Your thoughts? Maybe I just don’t understand.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Penny Plain:

Discussions in another forum have pointed out that behaviour may be scandalous even if the behaviour itself is not sinful. Giving scandal itself is a sin, I am told.

I don’t understand.

Suppose I do something that is not sinful. Suppose, for example, I live chastely with a man to whom I am not married. Suppose further that I do not discuss whether we are having sex or not. People who do not know the situation assume that we are and are scandalized.

Have I sinned? How?

Suppose further that I tell people we are living chastely and they do not believe me and are scandalized. Have I sinned? How?

I think “scandal” is what people point to when somebody is doing something they don’t approve of but isn’t sinful. Your thoughts? Maybe I just don’t understand.

From the CCC:

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.

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!"

By cohabiting, you are basically telling everyone around you it is ok if they shack up with their boyfriends. Thus, they are put in an occasion of sin by your example. You become your neighbor’s tempter.

Scott

Edit: I chopped out much of the CCC quote seeing that Tom posted it.

 

[Tom]

Penny Plain:

I think “scandal” is what people point to when somebody is doing something they don’t approve of but isn’t sinful. Your thoughts? Maybe I just don’t understand.

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.
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."86 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.87
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."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 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!"90
2326 Scandal is a grave offense when by deed or omission it deliberately leads others to sin gravely.
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.140 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Scott Waddell:

By cohabiting, you are basically telling everyone around you it is ok if they shack up with their boyfriends. Thus, they are put in an occasion of sin by your example. You become your neighbor’s tempter.

Let’s talk about that. (Yes, by the way, it is hypothetical; my husband wouldn’t like it.) Assume the person is not my boyfriend. Assume I have never told anyone he is my boyfriend. Still scandalous?

If I put a notice in the parish bulletin that my roommate and I are not boyfriend/girlfriend and are living chastely, am I still giving scandal?

I do not think I am responsible for everything that narrow-minded gossips read into my behavior.

 

[Penny_Plain]

I am not sure of the point of the fornication and prostitution entries.

The point of this question is that no immoral behavior is occurring.

 

[Penny_Plain]

I didn’t see the other thread on this topic.

Shame on me.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Penny Plain:

Let’s talk about that. (Yes, by the way, it is hypothetical; my husband wouldn’t like it.) Assume the person is not my boyfriend. Assume I have never told anyone he is my boyfriend. Still scandalous?

If I put a notice in the parish bulletin that my roommate and I are not boyfriend/girlfriend and are living chastely, am I still giving scandal?

I do not think I am responsible for everything that narrow-minded gossips read into my behavior.

But the problem as I see it, is that it is not what narrow-minded people think of YOU that is the problem. It is THEIR well-being that you must be concerned about (and I might add, the well-being of the one you are cohabiting with). And giving them bad example by cohabiting weakens their ability to resist temptation and live up to a chaste life (even if you declare yourself to be living chastely). You are basically giving them a reason that, “well if she can cohabit, it must be ok for me”. We are our brother’s keepers, and that means giving them good example.

Scott

 

[Penny_Plain]

Scott Waddell:

But the problem as I see it, is that it is not what narrow-minded people think of YOU that is the problem. It is THEIR well-being that you must be concerned about (and I might add, the well-being of the one you are cohabiting with). And giving them bad example by cohabiting weakens their ability to resist temptation and live up to a chaste life (even if you declare yourself to be living chastely). You are basically giving them a reason that, “well if she can cohabit, it must be ok for me”. We are our brother’s keepers, and that means giving them good example.

So any action that could be misinterpreted as sinful is scandalous and therefore sinful?

Not sure I buy that one.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Penny Plain:

So any action that could be misinterpreted as sinful is scandalous and therefore sinful?

Not sure I buy that one.

It has nothing to do with misinterpretation, but with the hard fact that cohabitation is wrong because it tempts others to evil. Again, the focus is not that they think funny business is going on, but rather that they think they can also do it because of your example. Again, if you care about the well-being of the people around you, you won’t cohabitate under any circumstances, chaste or not.

Scott

 

[Penny_Plain]

Scott Waddell:

It has nothing to do with misinterpretation, but with the hard fact that cohabitation is wrong because it tempts others to evil. Again, the focus is not that they think funny business is going on, but rather that they think they can also do it because of your example. Again, if you care about the well-being of the people around you, you won’t cohabitate under any circumstances, chaste or not.

Can’t they do it if they do it chastely?

Can you point me to anything that says that cohabitation, in and of itself, is sinful? Something … official?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Here: FAMILY, MARRIAGE AND “DE FACTO” UNIONS

And here: Cohabitation Before Marriage

1. For society: As society no longer adheres to traditional moral values and norms, scandal becomes less and less of a concern to many people. Even so, the church still teaches clearly and consistently that premarital sexual intercourse objectively is mortally sinful. **Couples who live together, even if they are not engaging in premarital sexual relations, give the impression to the community that such an arrangement is totally acceptable. **

Scott

 

[Penny_Plain]

Scott Waddell:

Here: FAMILY, MARRIAGE AND “DE FACTO” UNIONS

And here: Cohabitation Before Marriage

Thanks, Scott.

The first document assumes that cohabitation implies sex. I am not sure of the source of the second.

Regardless of who wrote it, I think this position is silly. But I appreciate your taking the time to find it.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

THie first source is from the Vatican
The second source is from the bishops of Kansas.

Here is the Pennsylvania Catholic Bishop’s Document on Cohabitation:

People can be wrong in matters of conscience, and people often are. Where our self-interest is concerned, our capacity for self-deception is huge. Here, as in everything we do, we need an objective standard to tell us if our conscience is properly formed and able to make right judgments. Morality is not a matter of opinion or “gut feeling.” Conscience is God’s voice, speaking the truth deep within your heart. It’s unlikely - if not impossible - that God would contradict His own commandments just for your convenience or desires. You are acting in good conscience when you choose to do what God intends. **The choice to live together outside a marriage is always wrong and sinful. **

So far I’ve given the Catechism quote on scandal with a reasoned argument. I’ll wager it is enough to convice 90% of Catholics. I’ve given the Vatican document which talks about cohabitation in a general way, and two documents from Church officials, one of which specifically condemning the chaste cohabitation scenario. This is a full blown argument that should loosen the white-knuckle grip of the remaining 10% desperately clinging to the cliffs of chaste cohabitation. The only choices now are to 1.) Concede the point. 2.) Overthrow the argument with a better argument (Preferebly using Church sources that specifically permit cohabitation as evidence.)

Scott

 

[Penny_Plain]

Scott Waddell:

So far I’ve given the Catechism quote on scandal with a reasoned argument. I’ll wager it is enough to convice 90% of Catholics. I’ve given the Vatican document which talks about cohabitation in a general way, and two documents from Church officials, one of which specifically condemning the chaste cohabitation scenario. This is a full blown argument that should loosen the white-knuckle grip of the remaining 10% desperately clinging to the cliffs of chaste cohabitation. The only choices now are to 1.) Concede the point. 2.) Overthrow the argument with a better argument (Preferebly using Church sources that specifically permit cohabitation as evidence.)

Only two choices, eh? Here I cling, white-knuckled and desperate, watching my cohorts fall prey to Scott’s well-reasond arguments and one by one, loosen their grips and plunge screaming to the…

Here, the analogy breaks down, I guess.

Scott, your latest document (you didn’t provide a link) starts with this paragraph: “‘Cohabitation’ is commonly referred to as ‘living together.’ It describes the relationship of a man and a woman who are sexually active and share a household, though they are not married.”

The Pennsylvania bishops are using “living together” to mean unchaste cohabitation. That is not what I am talking about in this thread. You know that. Is that why you didn’t post a link for that one, like you did for the other two?

Tsk, tsk.

I have a third choice: Conclude that you are not being honest in this discussion and ignore you. Any reason I shouldn’t?

 

[Apologia100]

Penny Plain:

Only two choices, eh? Here I cling, white-knuckled and desperate, watching my cohorts fall prey to Scott’s well-reasond arguments and one by one, loosen their grips and plunge screaming to the…

Here, the analogy breaks down, I guess.

Scott, your latest document (you didn’t provide a link) starts with this paragraph: “‘Cohabitation’ is commonly referred to as ‘living together.’ It describes the relationship of a man and a woman who are sexually active and share a household, though they are not married.”

The Pennsylvania bishops are using “living together” to mean unchaste cohabitation. That is not what I am talking about in this thread. You know that. Is that why you didn’t post a link for that one, like you did for the other two?

Tsk, tsk.

I have a third choice: Conclude that you are not being honest in this discussion and ignore you. Any reason I shouldn’t?

Yes, because he has given you plenty of honest answers. You just don’t want to listen. Welcome to the cafeteria.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

This will be my last post on this thread.

I’ve provided a reasoned argument with plenty of substantiation. So far all you have not interacted with that argument much at all and even made declarations that the citations from the evidence provided is “silly” (again, with no supporting rationale).

I’ll leave it to any lurkers reading this to decide who has made their case.

Scott

 

[Apologia100]

Scott Waddell:

This will be my last post on this thread.

I’ve provided a reasoned argument with plenty of substantiation. So far all you have not interacted with that argument much at all and even made declarations that the citations from the evidence provided is “silly” (again, with no supporting rationale).

I’ll leave it to any lurkers reading this to decide who has made their case.

Scott

I’ve just gotten the inside line that Penny is a troll. Sorry I couldn’t find that out for you before you posted all of your informative and clear references.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Apologia100:

I’ve just gotten the inside line that Penny is a troll. Sorry I couldn’t find that out for you before you posted all of your informative and clear references.

I guess that puts me in my place, eh?

Scott made a misleading argument with a source that didn’t say what he said they said. I looked at the source. If he read it, it was obvious. I call him on it, and I’m a troll?

Please.

I asked somebody more knowledgeable than I to explain scandal. It is a concept I do not understand and never have. I posted an example and asked whether it was scandalous. The answer I got did not make sense. I asked further. I asked questions about the sources he posted. I wasn’t convinced, especially since he misrepresented one of the sources he posted.

Shame on me.

I have no interest in getting into a spat with people I don’t know, A100. If you want to ignore my posts from now on, that’s fine by me. In fact, I wish you would.

 

[Apologia100]

Penny Plain:

I guess that puts me in my place, eh?

Scott made a misleading argument with a source that didn’t say what he said they said. I looked at the source. If he read it, it was obvious. I call him on it, and I’m a troll?

Please.

I asked somebody more knowledgeable than I to explain scandal. It is a concept I do not understand and never have. I posted an example and asked whether it was scandalous. The answer I got did not make sense. I asked further. I asked questions about the sources he posted. I wasn’t convinced, especially since he misrepresented one of the sources he posted.

Shame on me.

I have no interest in getting into a spat with people I don’t know, A100. If you want to ignore my posts from now on, that’s fine by me. In fact, I wish you would.

No, on the other hand, Miss Penny, I will be watching you like a hawk… I will be documenting your every move… announcing every questionable post…I have agents everywhere.

If you want me to put you on ignore, fine. That will cost you a $15.00 administrative fee, though, non-refundable. It does guarantee that I will never, ever call you or your posts a troll again, unless I really want to. You can make the check out to A100, the bank knows me that way.

Scott did not misrepresent himself. He gave very clear and factual posts. I have no idea where the confusion is coming from. Either you are not reading and comprehending them, or your are being intentionally obtuse. I assumed the later. Sue me. I am Catholic, I ain’t a saint yet. Still working on it.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Apologia100:

No, on the other hand, Miss Penny, I will be watching you like a hawk… I will be documenting your every move… announcing every questionable post…I have agents everywhere.

If you want me to put you on ignore, fine. That will cost you a $15.00 administrative fee, though, non-refundable. It does guarantee that I will never, ever call you or your posts a troll again, unless I really want to. You can make the check out to A100, the bank knows me that way.

Scott did not misrepresent himself. He gave very clear and factual posts. I have no idea where the confusion is coming from. Either you are not reading and comprehending them, or your are being intentionally obtuse. I assumed the later. Sue me. I am Catholic, I ain’t a saint yet. Still working on it.

Will you take a check?

As for Scott… Google the letter from the Pennsylvania bishops (he didn’t provide a link). Read the first paragraph. Then tell me he didn’t misrepresent the letter. If I am reading it wrong, I’m sure you’ll explain it to me.

www.pacatholic.org/bishops’%statements/cohab.htm

If I’m reading it right, I’m sure you’ll come back and say so, too.

By the way, it’s Mrs. or Ms. Penny. Or you can just call me Tammy Faye…