Ad quartum dicendum, quod illae quae per violentiam corrumpuntur, si nullo modo consentiant, virginitatis gloriam quo ad Deum non perdunt. Sed quia valde est difficile quod in tali delectatione aliquis placentiae motus non insurgat, ideo Ecclesia quae de interioribus judicare non potest, cum exterius corrupta sit, eam inter virgines non velat; unde Leo Papa dicit: illae famulae Dei quae integritatem pudoris oppressione barbarica perdiderunt, laudabiliores erunt in humilitate et verecundia, si se incontaminatis non audeant copulare virginibus.
Reply Obj. 4: Those women who are corrupted through violence, if they do not consent in any way, do not lose the glory of virginity in the sight of God. But since it is extremely difficult that in such pleasure some impulse of enjoyment does not surge forth, therefore the Church, which cannot judge interior matters, does not veil a woman among virgins when she has been externally corrupted. For which reason Pope Leo says: Those servants of God who have lost the integrity of their chastity by barbaric oppression will be more greatly praiseworthy in their humility and modesty, if they do not dare to unite themselves with uncontaminated virgins.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod nullo modo illae quae sunt corruptae occulte sive a viris, sive alio modo, sunt velandae; quia propter vitandum scandalum non debent Ecclesiae sacramenta vel sacramentalia variari. Sed, sicut quidam dicunt, potest aliqua cautela adhiberi ad vitandum scandalum, ut scilicet illa quae non sunt de substantia virginalis veli (ut accensio candelarum, et alia hujusmodi) fiant, mutatis occulte his quae sunt de substantia virginalis veli, puta ut quod nomen virginitatis in castitatem varietur.
Reply Obj. 5: Those women who have been corrupted secretly, whether by men, or in another way, are in no way to be veiled; for the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church should not be changed for the sake of avoiding scandal. But as some people say, some caution can be employed for avoiding scandal, that namely those things may be done which are not of the substance of virginal veiling (like the lighting of candles, and other things like this), with those things that are of the substance of virginal veiling being secretly changed, for instance, the word ‘virginity’ being changed into ‘chastity.’
Deinde quaeritur de scandalo; et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor:
Next we inquire about scandal; and concerning this, four questions arise:
primo, quid sit;
first, what it is;
secundo, utrum sit peccatum;
second, whether it is a sin;
tertio, quibus competat;
third, to whom it pertains;
quarto, quae sunt dimittenda propter scandalum.
fourth, what things should be omitted for the sake of scandal.
What it is
Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter assignetur definitio scandali, quae sumitur ex Glossa interlineali, Matth. 18, super illud: vae mundo a scandalis, scilicet: scandalum est dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens aliis occasionem ruinae. Scandalum enim dividitur in activum et passivum. Sed haec definitio non potest convenire scandalo passivo. Ergo non convertitur cum definito; et sic est incompetens
Obj. 1: To the first question, we proceed thus. It seems that the definition of scandal is unfittingly assigned, which is taken from the interlinear gloss on Matthew 18:8: woe to the world from scandals, that is: scandal is something not quite right that is said or done which presents an occasion of ruin to others. For scandal is divided into active and passive. But this definition cannot include passive scandal. Therefore, it is not convertible with the thing defined; and thus it is insufficient.
Praeterea, Num. 31, super illud: ulciscere prius filios Israel etc., dicitur, quod scandalum est, cum recte ambulanti deceptio submittitur ad ruinam. Sed non omne dictum vel factum minus rectum est deceptio. Ergo scandali definitio est incompetenter assignata.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, it says about Numbers 31:2: Avenge first the children of Israel, etc., that scandal is when a deceit is put forth to someone walking rightly, for his ruin. But not everything said or done not quite rightly is a deceit. Therefore, the definition of scandal is insufficiently assigned.
Praeterea, sicut peccatum oris et operis potest alteri praestare occasionem ruinae; ita et peccatum cordis, praecipue quando per exteriora signa in notitiam aliorum prodit. Sed in definitione praemissa tangitur peccatum oris et operis, non autem cordis. Ergo inconvenienter assignatur.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as a sin of the mouth and of deed can present an occasion of ruin to another, so also can a sin of the heart, especially when, by its external signs, it comes to the notice of others. But in the definition given the sin of the mouth and the sin of deed are touched upon, but not the sin of the heart. Therefore, it is unfittingly assigned.
Praeterea, occasio significat causam per accidens. Sed etiam bona interdum per accidens sunt causa malorum. Ergo non solum dictum vel factum minus rectum praebet alteri occasionem ruinae, sed etiam si sit rectum, debet dici scandalum.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, ‘occasion’ signifies an incidental cause. But even good things are sometimes the cause of bad things incidentally. Therefore, not only saying or doing something not quite right may present to another the occasion of ruin, but even if it is right it should be called scandal.
Praeterea, Isai. 8, 14, dicitur de Christo: erit in lapidem et in petram scandali. Sed in Christo non fuit aliquid minus rectum. Ergo non est de ratione scandali quod sit aliquid minus rectum.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, it says of Christ in Isaiah 8:14: He shall be for a stone or a rock of scandal. But in Christ there was not anything not quite right. Therefore, it is not of the definition of scandal that it is something not quite right.
Respondeo dicendum, quod scandalum nomen Graecum est, et impactionem significat in Latino; quae quidem proprie dicitur in corporalibus, in spiritualibus autem transumptive. Unde oportet quod spirituale scandalum, de quo loquimur, sumatur ad similitudinem corporalis impactionis; quae quidem non fit nisi ambulanti aliquid in via objiciatur quod ei sit occasio cadendi, etiam si non cadat. Nihil autem ab alio factum, est natum casum facere ejus qui in via Dei ambulat, nisi sit aliquod minus rectum in notitiam ejus procedens vel verbo vel facto; et ideo dictum vel factum minus rectum est id ad quod spiritualiter fit impactio, et occasio datur alterius ruinae, in quo ratio consistit scandali.
I answer that, ‘scandal’ is a Greek word, and in Latin means ‘a stumbling against’; which is used in its proper sense indeed in physical matters, but by extension in spiritual ones. Thus it is fitting that spiritual scandal, which we are discussing, is expressed by a likeness to a physical stumbling. Now, physical falling does not happen unless something is thrown into the path of someone walking that may be the occasion of his falling, even if he does not actually fall. But nothing done by another is naturally such as to make someone fall if he is walking in the way of God, unless it is something not quite right, either in word or in deed, that comes to his attention. And therefore, saying or doing something not quite right is what causes a spiritual blow, and gives occasion of ruin to another, and in this the notion of scandal consists.
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sicut in corporali impactione est duo considerare; scilicet ipsam impactionem cadentis, aut ejus qui ad causam disponitur, et illud ad quod fit impactio, quod dicitur obex; ita et in spirituali; et utrumque nomen scandali accepit, sed non univoce; sicut etiam fides dicitur ipsa res credita, et actus credendi. Ipsa ergo spiritualis impactio, qua aliquis ad casum disponitur, dicitur scandalum passivum; sed obex spiritualis ad quem fit impactio, dicitur scandalum activum; et sic definitur hic scandalum, quia ex dicto vel facto minus recto aliquis ad ruinam disponitur.
Reply Obj. 1: In a corporeal stumbling there are two things to consider, namely, the very stumbling of the one who falls or of the one who is disposed to fall, and the thing on which he stumbles, which is called a stumbling-block. So it is also in spiritual matters. And both of these things are called ‘scandal,’ but not univocally, just as faith is said of both the very thing believed and of the act of believing. Therefore, the spiritual stumbling by which someone is disposed to fall is called passive scandal. But the spiritual stumbling-block which occasions the stumbling is called active scandal. And this is the way scandal is defined here, for by a word or a deed that is not quite right, someone is disposed to ruin.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod tunc aliquis per se loquendo peccatum aliquod facit, quando ex intentione operatur, et non quando praeter intentionem ejus peccatum accidit, sicut patet in homicidio casuali; et ideo tunc proprie aliquis scandalum facit quando ruinam proximi procurare intendit. Quicumque autem ad peccandum inducitur, decipitur: quia omnis malus ignorans, ut Philosophus dicit in 3 Ethic., et ideo ubicumque est scandalum per se loquendo, dictum vel factum minus rectum est deceptio quaedam, quae submittitur ambulanti ad ruinam. Vel dicendum quod dicitur esse deceptio, inquantum est deceptionis occasio vel causa: quia omnis peccans decipitur, ut dictum est.
Reply Obj. 2: A person commits a certain sin, speaking per se, when he acts intentionally, and not when a sin happens without his intention, as is clear in accidental homicide; and therefore a person commits scandal, properly speaking, when he intends to bring about the ruin of his neighbor. But whoever is led into sinning is deceived: for every wicked man is ignorant, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 3. And therefore wherever there is scandal, speaking per se, the word or deed that is not quite right is a kind of deception, which is put before someone walking, for his ruin. Or it may be said that it is called a deception inasmuch as it is the occasion or the cause of deception: for everyone sinning is deceived, as was said.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod spiritualis obex, qui scandalum dicitur, oportet quod in via ambulanti objiciatur; quod fit dum in notitiam ejus venit. Peccatum autem cordis in notitiam alterius venire non potest, nisi per signa aliqua, quae reducuntur ad peccatum oris vel operis; et ideo in definitione scandali ponitur tantum dictum vel factum minus rectum, et non fit mentio de peccato cordis.
Reply Obj. 3: A spiritual stumbling block, which is called scandal, must be thrown into the path of the one walking, which happens when it comes to his notice. However, the sin of the heart can only come to the notice of another by some sign, which is reducible to a sin of mouth or of deed; and thus in the definition of scandal is included only saying or doing something not quite right, and no mention is made of the sin of the heart.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod occasio non semper nominat causam, sed quandoque causam per se insufficientem; et sic in definitione praemissa sumitur. Peccatum enim non potest habere ab exteriori aliquam causam sufficientem, eo quod voluntarium est; sed potest habere aliquam causam inducentem: quae quidem causa quandoque per se nata est inclinare ad peccatum vel ex suo genere, vel ex intentione alicujus proponentis eam ad hoc quod aliquis inducatur ad peccatum; et tunc illud dicitur dare occasionem ruinae: quandoque autem per accidens aliquis inclinatur ab aliquo in peccatum, quod de se non est natum inclinare in illud; sicut etiam in corporalibus aliquis in via plana impingit, et cadit; et tunc dicitur ipsemet sumere occasionem ruinae, nulla sibi occasione ab exteriori data. Sed talis causa ruinae non potest scandalum nominari; quia causae etsi quandoque nomina sortiantur ex per se effectibus, nunquam tamen ab his quae per accidens eveniunt, nominari consueverunt.
Reply Obj. 4: ‘Occasion’ does not always mean cause, but sometimes it means a cause that is insufficient in itself; and this is how it is taken in the foregoing definition. For a sin, because it is voluntary, cannot have any sufficient cause from outside. But it can have some inducing cause: and this cause indeed is sometimes per se such as to incline to sin either by its own genus or by the intention of the one who sets it forth in order to induce someone to sin; and then it is said to give an occasion of ruin. But when a person is inclined to sin by something incidental, which in itself is not such as to incline to it, as it also happens in physical things that someone stumbles on a flat road and falls; then that person is said to have taken up an occasion of ruin, though no occasion was given to him from outside. But such a cause of ruin cannot be named scandal; for although the names of a cause are sometimes allotted by its essential effects, they are never customarily taken from things that result accidentally.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod Christus non dicitur esse petra scandali quasi per se scandali causa, quia ipse non dedit alicui occasionem scandali; sed dicitur esse in petram scandali, ita quod propositio non ordinem causae, sed consecutionem importet; quia ex his quae Christus fecit, consecutum est scandalum Judaeorum.
Reply Obj. 5: Christ is not said to be a rock of scandal as though he were per se a cause of scandal, for he himself did not give anyone an occasion of scandal; but he is said to be a rock of scandal in such a way that the proposition conveys not an order of causality but a consequence; for from the things that Christ did, the scandalizing of the Jews did result.
Utrum sit peccatum
Whether scandal is a sin
Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod scandalum non sit peccatum semper. Nullum enim necessarium est peccatum. Sed necesse est ut veniant scandala, ut dicitur Matth. 18, 7. Ergo scandalum non est peccatum.
Obj. 1: To the second question, we proceed thus. It seems that scandal is not always a sin. For nothing necessary is a sin. But it is necessary that scandals come, as it says in Matthew 18:7. Therefore, scandal is not a sin.
Praeterea, omne peccatum est ex diaboli incentivo, non ex pietatis affectu. Sed Matth. 16, ubi dicitur Petro: vade retro me, Satanas; scandalum mihi es; dicit Glossa: error apostoli ex pietatis affectu venit potius quam ex incentivo Diaboli. Ergo non omne scandalum est peccatum.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, every sin arises from the incitement of the Devil, not from the affection of piety. But in Matthew 16:23 where it is said to Peter, Get behind me, Satan; you are a scandal for me, the Gloss says: The error of the apostle comes rather from the emotion of piety than from the incitement of the Devil. Therefore, not every scandal is a sin.
Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit: parum distant in vitio scandalizare et scandalizari. Sed scandalum passivum, ut videtur, potest esse sine peccato, sicut et impactio corporalis quandoque est sine casu. Ergo et scandalum activum potest esse sine peccato.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, Jerome says: Being scandalized is not so distant in vice from scandalizing. But passive scandal, it seems, can be without sin, just as also a physical stumbling sometimes happens without a fall. Therefore, active scandal too can be without sin.
Sed contra, omne dictum vel factum minus rectum est peccatum. Sed scandalum est hujusmodi. Ergo, etc.
On the contrary, everything said or done not quite right is a sin. But this is what scandal is. Therefore, etc.
Praeterea, Numer. 31, dicitur in Glossa: longe gravius peccatum est dare peccati causam, quam peccare. Sed quicumque scandalizat, dat causam peccandi. Ergo peccat.
Furthermore, it says in the Gloss on Numbers 31: it is a far more serious sin to give the cause of sin, than to sin. But whoever scandalizes gives the cause of sinning. Therefore, he sins.
Ulterius. Videtur quod non sit speciale peccatum. Quia secundum Philosophum in 5 Ethic., omnis specialis injustificatio quandoque invenitur separata ab omnibus aliis injustificationibus. Sed scandalum non invenitur separatum ab aliis peccatis, quia semper est dictum vel factum minus rectum. Ergo non est speciale peccatum.
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is not a specific sin. For according to the Philosopher in Ethics 5: every special act of injustice is sometimes found separate from all other acts of injustice. But scandal is not found separate from other sins, for it is always something said or done not quite right. Therefore, it is not a specific sin.
Praeterea, secundum quodlibet genus peccati contingit aliquod dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens occasionem ruinae. Sed haec est definitio scandali. Ergo scandalum non est aliquod speciale peccatum.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, one can say or do something not quite right that offers an occasion of ruin via any kind of sin whatsoever. But this is the definition of scandal. Therefore, scandal is not a specific sin.
Praeterea, quicumque peccat coram alio, scandalizat. Sed coram alio peccare non addit supra peccatum simpliciter aliquam differentiam specificam, sed circumstantiam quamdam, sicut nec occulte peccare. Ergo scandalum non est speciale peccatum.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, whoever sins in the presence of another gives scandal. But to sin in the presence of another does not add any specific difference above sinning simply speaking, but rather it adds a certain circumstance, just like sinning in secret. Therefore, scandal is not a specific sin.
Praeterea, agens proportionatur patienti. Sed scandalum passivum non est speciale peccatum: quia quocumque peccato aliquis ruat exemplo alterius, scandalum pati dicitur. Ergo nec scandalum activum est speciale peccatum.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, the acting force is proportionate to what is acted upon. But passive scandal is not a special sin: for whenever someone falls into sin by the example of another, he is said to suffer scandal. Therefore, neither is active scandal a special sin.
Sed contra, contingit peccare in se, in Deum, et in proximum. Sed scandalum est peccatum in proximum. Ergo est in speciali genere peccati.
On the contrary, one can sin against oneself, against God, and against one’s neighbor. But scandal is a sin against one’s neighbor. Therefore, it is in a specific genus of sin.