SCANDAL. — Here it signifies everything that can constitute a difficulty in the exercise of good and serve as a direct incentive to sin, that is, to moral evil.
In this sense, even in the Old Testament it is said, for example, that God, to test the virtue of the just, will place “offendiculum coram eo” (Ez. 3, 20); and in the New Testament, Jesus says that the world is full of scandal and that, in the present order of things, it cannot be otherwise. It can originate from the malice of men. The Saviour sternly warns especially those who offend the little ones, saying that it would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and be cast into the sea (Mt. 18, 6; Mc. 9, 41; Lc. 17, 2). At other times, the fault lies in the nature of things — our very nature, our faculties, etc. — and it is in relation to this kind of scandal that Jesus says that if our foot or hand scandalizes us, it is better to cut them off without pity. At other times, scandal arises even from the very loving action of God in the world; as when it is said that the Saviour came for the fall and the resurrection of many, thus becoming a sign of contradiction (Lc. 2, 34). And blessed are those who do not find in the humiliations of the Saviour a cause of scandal (Mt. 11, 6; Lc. 7, 23).
The duty to avoid giving scandal is emphasized with particular insistence in the New Testament. To avoid it, Jesus miraculously provides Peter with the coin to pay the tribute (Mc. 17, 26), and St. Paul, although he had shown that there is in itself nothing wrong with the use of unclean foods according to the Mosaic law, forbids it to the Christian whenever it might cause difficulty for the brethren (I Cor. 8–10; Rom. 10).
I. The sin of scandal
In this case, scandal consists in what leads to sin, not in the sin to which one is led; for scandal, an external act or deed, evil in effect or in appearance, capable in concreto of exercising a morally deleterious influence on others, is sufficient and necessary. Only under such conditions can there be scandal; on the other hand, one can sin without there having been that particular stimulus called scandal.The impulse to evil, included in the concept of scandal, can derive either from the nature of the act and the external scandalous phenomenon itself, or from the condition of the subject upon whom that act exerts its influence. In the first case, the scandal will have universal value; in the second, it will be such only for certain persons. There can, however, be a great variety in scandals, ranging from the extreme of acts objectively very dangerous but not actually dangerous due to the particular conditions of the persons, to the extreme of acts objectively little dangerous but in fact very dangerous for the same reason. Therefore, both facts and persons, as well as conditions of time and place, must be taken into account: what could have been a cause of scandal in the past is no longer so today, and vice versa; thus, in other cases, physically and spiritually unchanged persons may receive scandal, while mature persons may not.
The evil that occasions scandal may be neither foreseen nor willed by the author of the scandal, or it may be foreseen and willed; or it may be foreseen but not willed; moreover, it may be willed solely for the advantage hoped to be gained, or for the sake of the spiritual harm of the scandal and the offense to God. When the fault resulting from the scandal is foreseen but not willed, moralists speak of indirect scandal; when it is foreseen and willed, they speak of direct scandal. Scandal is called diabolical when the fault is willed for the spiritual harm of the scandal and for the offense that will be done to God; it is called pharisaical when the evil derives solely from the malice of the one who commits it, without there having been an incentive or true scandal proper, but only a pretext. Moralists then proceed to examine in depth the motives for avoiding scandal. The first and fundamental motive is the obligation to love one’s neighbor as oneself, thus avoiding what can harm him and seeking his good.
Its gravity will vary according to the nature of the impulse included in the scandal and according to the person who exercises it and the person upon whom it falls; that is, it will be all the more grave insofar as the impulse to sin is greater either by the nature of the act itself, or by the quality of the person who commits it, or by the person who is scandalized. In direct scandal leading to a fault against charity, there is added a fault against the virtue against which, through the scandal, one is led to sin.
The main difficulty in this matter concerns the possibility of avoiding all scandal and the consequent obligation. This difficulty has been resolved by the well-known principle of the double effect, or, in other words, by the principle of the greater good or the lesser evil. The entire difficulty lies in determining in concreto where the greater good or the lesser evil lies; which, obviously, can have the most varied solutions in different cases.
The crime of scandal. — The external and harmful aspect toward one’s neighbor included in scandal has drawn the attention of the ecclesiastical legislator, who in more than one case has established penalties against the authors of scandal. Can. 2218 §1 of the CIC states that “in determining penalties, a just proportion shall be observed with the delict, taking into account imputability, scandal, and harm...”. And Can. 2222 §1 states that “although the law has imposed no specific penalty, nevertheless a legitimate Superior may, even without prior threat of punishment, punish the transgression with some just penalty, if the scandal given or the special gravity of the transgression so requires.” In particular, special provisions are envisaged against religious (Can. 653, 668), parish priests (Can. 2147 §2), non-resident clerics (Can. 2168–75), clerics living in concubinage (Can. 2176–81), and negligent parish priests (Can. 2182–85). The reparation of the scandal or the serious promise to do so is a condition for evaluating the cessation of contumacy in the case of censure (Can. 2242 §3). Absolution from every censure in the internal forum, apart from scandal, can be invoked in the external forum (Can. 2251).
The civil legislator has also repeatedly dealt with scandal, for example, in Art. 527 of the Italian Penal Code, where penalties are imposed on “whoever in a public place or open to the public or exposed to public view, commits obscene acts”; in Art. 726, where other penalties are imposed for “acts contrary to public decency.” More detailed ministerial provisions on the matter have recently been issued; specifically, with the provisions of the Ministry of the Interior regarding morality on beaches.
For shows and entertainments contrary to morality and good customs, measures are taken under Art. 70 of the Public Safety Law and Art. 126 of the Public Safety Regulations, with the law of April 26, 1934, No. 653, and Art. 138 of the Public Safety Regulations. For the public display of printed matter and, in general, of objects that offend the moral sense of modesty and good customs, provisions are made in Arts. 528, 529, and 725 of the Penal Code, in Arts. 112 and 69 of the Public Safety Law, and in Art. 125 of the Public Safety Regulations. From the standpoint of scandal, incest is treated in Art. 564 of the Penal Code. A specific offense, envisaged in Art. 530 of the Penal Code, is the corruption of minors (cf. Arts. 519–21 and the entry MINORENNI). Art. 553 of the Penal Code punishes “whoever publicly incites to practices against procreation or propagandizes in favor of them.” For prostitution V. ARTE. 192 of the Public Safety Law, which authorizes the local Public Safety authority to prevent a place from being used for prostitution whenever it deems it opportune in the interest of public morality, good customs, or public order.
As can be seen, civil legislation on scandal is neither scarce nor inadequate; provided that there is constant and vigorous determination on the part of those who should ensure its execution.
GIOVANNI B. GUZZETTI