Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that scandal is unfittingly defined as "something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall." For scandal is a sin as we shall state further on (Article 2). Now, according to Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii, 27), a sin is a "word, deed, or desire contrary to the law of God." Therefore the definition given above is insufficient, since it omits "thought" or "desire."

Objection 2: Further, since among virtuous or right acts one is more virtuous or more right than another, that one alone which has perfect rectitude would not seem to be a "less" right one. If, therefore, scandal is something "less" rightly said or done, it follows that every virtuous act except the best of all, is a scandal.

Objection 3: Further, an occasion is an accidental cause. But nothing accidental should enter a definition, because it does not specify the thing defined. Therefore it is unfitting, in defining scandal, to say that it is an "occasion."

Objection 4: Further, whatever a man does may be the occasion of another's spiritual downfall, because accidental causes are indeterminate. Consequently, if scandal is something that occasions another's spiritual downfall, any deed or word can be a scandal: and this seems unreasonable.

Objection 5: Further, a man occasions his neighbor's spiritual downfall when he offends or weakens him. Now scandal is condivided with offense and weakness, for the Apostle says (Rm. 14:21): "It is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother is offended or scandalized, or weakened." Therefore the aforesaid definition of scandal is unfitting.

On the contrary, Jerome in expounding Mt. 15:12, "Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word," etc. says: "When we read 'Whosoever shall scandalize,' the sense is 'Whosoever shall, by deed or word, occasion another's spiritual downfall.'"

I answer that, As Jerome observes the Greek {skandalon} may be rendered offense, downfall, or a stumbling against something. For when a body, while moving along a path, meets with an obstacle, it may happen to stumble against it, and be disposed to fall down: such an obstacle is a {skandalon}.

In like manner, while going along the spiritual way, a man may be disposed to a spiritual downfall by another's word or deed, in so far, to wit, as one man by his injunction, inducement or example, moves another to sin; and this is scandal properly so called.

Now nothing by its very nature disposes a man to spiritual downfall, except that which has some lack of rectitude, since what is perfectly right, secures man against a fall, instead of conducing to his downfall. Scandal is, therefore, fittingly defined as "something less rightly done or said, that occasions another's spiritual downfall."

Reply to Objection 1: The thought or desire of evil lies hidden in the heart, wherefore it does not suggest itself to another man as an obstacle conducing to his spiritual downfall: hence it cannot come under the head of scandal.

Reply to Objection 2: A thing is said to be less right, not because something else surpasses it in rectitude, but because it has some lack of rectitude, either through being evil in itself, such as sin, or through having an appearance of evil. Thus, for instance, if a man were to "sit at meat in the idol's temple" (1 Cor. 8:10), though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be done with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain appearance of evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol, it might occasion another man's spiritual downfall. Hence the Apostle says (1 Thess. 5:22): "From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something done "less rightly," so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil.

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (1.2, Question 75, Articles 2,3; 1.2, Question 80, Article 1), nothing can be a sufficient cause of a man's spiritual downfall, which is sin, save his own will. Wherefore another man's words or deeds can only be an imperfect cause, conducing somewhat to that downfall. For this reason scandal is said to afford not a cause, but an occasion, which is an imperfect, and not always an accidental cause. Nor is there any reason why certain definitions should not make mention of things that are accidental, since what is accidental to one, may be proper to something else: thus the accidental cause is mentioned in the definition of chance (Phys. ii, 5).

Reply to Objection 4: Another's words or deed may be the cause of another's sin in two ways, directly and accidentally. Directly, when a man either intends, by his evil word or deed, to lead another man into sin, or, if he does not so intend, when his deed is of such a nature as to lead another into sin: for instance, when a man publicly commits a sin or does something that has an appearance of sin. In this case he that does such an act does, properly speaking, afford an occasion of another's spiritual downfall, wherefore his act is called "active scandal." One man's word or deed is the accidental cause of another's sin, when he neither intends to lead him into sin, nor does what is of a nature to lead him into sin, and yet this other one, through being ill-disposed, is led into sin, for instance, into envy of another's good, and then he who does this righteous act, does not, so far as he is concerned, afford an occasion of the other's downfall, but it is this other one who takes the occasion according to Rm. 7:8: "Sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." Wherefore this is "passive," without "active scandal," since he that acts rightly does not, for his own part, afford the occasion of the other's downfall. Sometimes therefore it happens that there is active scandal in the one together with passive scandal in the other, as when one commits a sin being induced thereto by another; sometimes there is active without passive scandal, for instance when one, by word or deed, provokes another to sin, and the latter does not consent; and sometimes there is passive without active scandal, as we have already said.

Reply to Objection 5: "Weakness" denotes proneness to scandal; while "offense" signifies resentment against the person who commits a sin, which resentment may be sometimes without spiritual downfall; and "scandal" is the stumbling that results in downfall.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod scandalum inconvenienter definiatur esse dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens occasionem ruinae.

Scandalum enim peccatum est, ut post dicetur.

Sed secundum Augustinum, XXII contra faust., peccatum est dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem dei.

Ergo praedicta definitio est insufficiens, quia praetermittitur cogitatum sive concupitum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, cum inter actus virtuosos vel rectos unus sit virtuosior vel rectior altero, illud solum videtur non esse minus rectum quod est rectissimum. Si igitur scandalum sit dictum vel factum minus rectum, sequetur quod omnis actus virtuosus praeter optimum sit scandalum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, occasio nominat causam per accidens. Sed id quod est per accidens non debet poni in definitione, quia non dat speciem. Ergo inconvenienter in definitione scandali ponitur occasio.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, ex quolibet facto alterius potest aliquis sumere occasionem ruinae, quia causae per accidens sunt indeterminatae.

Si igitur scandalum est quod praebet alteri occasionem ruinae, quodlibet factum vel dictum poterit esse scandalum.

Quod videtur inconveniens.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, occasio ruinae datur proximo quando offenditur aut infirmatur. Sed scandalum dividitur contra offensionem et infirmitatem, dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. XIV, bonum est non manducare carnem et non bibere vinum, neque in quo frater tuus offenditur aut scandalizatur aut infirmatur.

Ergo praedicta definitio scandali non est conveniens.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Hieronymus, exponens illud quod habetur Matth. XV, scis quia Pharisaei, audito hoc verbo, etc., dicit, quando legimus, quicumque scandalizaverit, hoc intelligimus, qui dicto vel facto occasionem ruinae dederit.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus ibidem dicit, quod Graece scandalon dicitur, nos offensionem vel ruinam et impactionem pedis possumus dicere.

Contingit enim quod quandoque aliquis obex ponitur alicui in via corporali, cui impingens disponitur ad ruinam, et talis obex dicitur scandalum. Et similiter in processu viae spiritualis contingit aliquem disponi ad ruinam spiritualem per dictum vel factum alterius, inquantum scilicet aliquis sua admonitione vel inductione aut exemplo alterum trahit ad peccandum. Et hoc proprie dicitur scandalum. Nihil autem secundum propriam rationem disponit ad spiritualem ruinam nisi quod habet aliquem defectum rectitudinis, quia id quod est perfecte rectum magis munit hominem contra casum quam ad ruinam inducat.

Et ideo convenienter dicitur quod dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens occasionem ruinae sit scandalum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cogitatio vel concupiscentia mali latet in corde, unde non proponitur alteri ut obex disponens ad ruinam. Et propter hoc non potest habere scandali rationem.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod minus rectum hic non dicitur quod ab aliquo alio superatur in rectitudine, sed quod habet aliquem rectitudinis defectum, vel quia est secundum se malum, sicut peccata; vel quia habet speciem mali, sicut cum aliquis recumbit in idolio. Quamvis enim hoc secundum se non sit peccatum, si aliquis hoc non corrupta intentione faciat; tamen quia habet quandam speciem vel similitudinem venerationis idoli, potest alteri praebere occasionem ruinae.

Et ideo apostolus monet, I ad Thess. V, ab omni specie mala abstinete vos.

Et ideo convenienter dicitur minus rectum, ut comprehendantur tam illa quae sunt secundum se peccata, quam illa quae habent speciem mali.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra habitum est, nihil potest esse homini sufficiens causa peccati, quod est spiritualis ruina, nisi propria voluntas. Et ideo dicta vel facta alterius hominis possunt esse solum causa imperfecta, aliqualiter inducens ad ruinam.

Et propter hoc non dicitur, dans causam ruinae, sed, dans occasionem, quod significat causam imperfectam, et non semper causam per accidens.

Et tamen nihil prohibet in quibusdam definitionibus poni id quod est per accidens, quia id quod est secundum accidens uni potest per se alteri convenire, sicut in definitione fortunae ponitur causa per accidens, in II physic..

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod dictum vel factum alterius potest esse alteri causa peccandi dupliciter, uno modo, per se; alio modo, per accidens. Per se quidem, quando aliquis suo malo verbo vel facto intendit alium ad peccandum inducere; vel, etiam si ipse hoc non intendat, ipsum factum est tale quod de sui ratione habet ut sit inductivum ad peccandum, puta quod aliquis publice facit peccatum vel quod habet similitudinem peccati.

Et tunc ille qui huiusmodi actum facit proprie dat occasionem ruinae, unde vocatur scandalum activum.

Per accidens autem aliquod verbum vel factum unius est alteri causa peccandi, quando etiam praeter intentionem operantis, et praeter conditionem operis, aliquis male dispositus ex huiusmodi opere inducitur ad peccandum, puta cum aliquis invidet bonis aliorum. Et tunc ille qui facit huiusmodi actum rectum non dat occasionem, quantum in se est, sed alius sumit occasionem, secundum illud ad Rom. VII, occasione autem accepta, etc..

Et ideo hoc est scandalum passivum sine activo, quia ille qui recte agit, quantum est de se, non dat occasionem ruinae quam alter patitur. Quandoque ergo contingit quod et sit simul scandalum activum in uno et passivum in altero, puta cum ad inductionem unius alius peccat.

Quandoque vero est scandalum activum sine passivo, puta cum aliquis inducit verbo vel facto alium ad peccandum, et ille non consentit. Quandoque vero est scandalum passivum sine activo, sicut iam dictum est.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod infirmitas nominat promptitudinem ad scandalum; offensio autem nominat indignationem alicuius contra eum qui peccat, quae potest esse quandoque sine ruina; scandalum autem importat ipsam impactionem ad ruinam.