|
As long as we live in this
world there will be scandals. Jesus said so, and promised
great punishment for those who give scandal to His little
ones, the devout faithful (Mt. 18:6). To give scandal
means to lead others into sin by one’s bad example. This
is called active sandal or giving scandal. It is
something we should not do, as it is a second sin, of the
same gravity, as the sin we committed that gives scandal.
There is also what is
called passive scandal, that is, to take scandal at the
sin of others. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches,
I answer that, Passive scandal
implies that the mind of the person who takes
scandal is unsettled in its adherence to good. Now
no man can be unsettled, who adheres firmly to
something immovable. The elders, i.e. the perfect,
adhere to God alone, Whose goodness is unchangeable,
for though they adhere to their superiors, they do
so only in so far as these adhere to Christ,
according to 1 Cor. 4:16: "Be ye followers of me, as
I also am of Christ." Wherefore, however much others
may appear to them to conduct themselves ill in word
or deed, they themselves do not stray from their
righteousness, according to Ps. 124:1: "They that
trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion: he shall
not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem."
Therefore scandal is not found in those who adhere
to God perfectly by love, according to Ps. 118:165:
"Much peace have they that love Thy law, and to them
there is no stumbling-block [scandalum]." [Summa
Theologiae II-II, q43 a5]
Reply to Objection 3. Perfect men
sometimes fall into venial sins through the weakness
of the flesh; but they are not scandalized (taking
scandal in its true sense), by the words or deeds of
others, although there can be an approach to scandal
in them, according to Ps. 72:2: "My feet were almost
moved." [ibid.]
This answer of St. Thomas shows us what
our reaction to scandals, including liturgical scandals,
ought to be: holding fast in peace to the Supreme Good,
that is, to God. The righteous reaction to scandal might
involve circumstantially appropriate anger, but it would
not involve losing our peace. It would not involve losing
respect for and obedience to authority because those
exercising that authority have sinned. It would not
involve self-righteousness, as the perfect man is not
puffed up by the sins of others. He knows that “there but
for the grace of God go I.” It would not involve sadness,
which would show a lack of trust in God’s Providence.
Few of us are perfect yet, so we are
easily scandalized by the faults of others. We need to
resist the inclination to take scandal, however, by
recognizing our moral obligation "not to be moved," and
by adhering to God in prayer. To have virtue means to
have the habit of doing good without struggle,
peacefully, gracefully.
Matthew 18:15-17 "If your brother
sins (against you), go and tell him his fault
between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you
have won over your brother. [16] If he does not
listen, take one or two others along with you, so
that 'every fact may be established on the testimony
of two or three witnesses.' [17] If he refuses to
listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to
listen even to the church, then treat him as you
would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Another part of a virtuous response is
giving correction to the sinner for the sake of the
common good. Such correction is absolutely necessary for
the good of a society, whether the family, the Church or
the nation. Without it, men would continue to do evil
without rebuke, leading others into sin and depriving
society of justice, charity and peace. Correction means
pointing out the objective evil of sin. It does not mean
judging the culpability, or condemning, the person
committing the sin. Unfortunately, many today incorrectly
equate giving correction with being judgmental, and so
refrain from giving it out of a false sense of charity.
True charity seeks the salvation of one's brother and
desires the removal of any obstacle to salvation, among
which ranks serious sin. It also has concern for the
common good, and the effect of scandal on others in the
society.
Correction belongs, in the first place,
to those in authority. Superiors have a duty to maintain
the order of justice in the society they lead. That order
would break down if public authorities exempted
themselves from the common law of the society. So, the
common good demands that those who are superior
authorities correct inferior authorities who commit sins
or violations of the law. In a Christian society, such as
the Church, this obligation receives added force from the
law of charity, which obliges Christians to seek the
salvation of others. When superior authorities correct
inferior authorities they show a paternal concern for the
good of the sinner, as well as for the good of the other
members of the society.
There is also what is called
fraternal correction. This means correction of faults
by private individuals who do not have an official duty
to correct. In the Church this would include such peer to
peer correction as priest to priest, or laity to laity,
as well as the correction of the clergy by the laity, or
higher clergy by lower.
The following principles on fraternal
correction are derived from the moral theology tradition
of the Church:
Who should correct? Fraternal
correction should be given by someone with the
requisite knowledge and temperament to give it
correctly and effectively. Those whose response to
sin is to be scandalized and become ill-tempered are
probably NOT the ones to give fraternal correction.
They will give it badly, and therefore
ineffectively.What
should be corrected? We are obligated to correct
grave sins, and grave liturgical abuses are the
matter of grave sins, if the following conditions
are met:
1. It is not likely that the
sinner will be corrected, either by acquiring
the knowledge himself, or by the correction of
an equally or better qualified person than
myself. In other words, he is unlikely to be
corrected by his superior, by his peers, or by
a better qualified person than me.
2. There is a well-founded hope
that the sinner will profit from the
correction. If such a hope does not exist then
correction is not morally obliged, except when
to not correct would itself give
scandal.
3. Correction can be given
without great personal detriment. While those
in authority have a duty to correct grave
faults, private individuals do not have such a
duty if giving correction entails great cost to
themselves.
We may prudently correct outside
of these conditions, but observing them guarantees
the probity of our fraternal correction. Correction
of each and every venial sin (or all minor abuses)
is clearly not envisioned by the moral tradition of
the Church. One should weigh the gravity and the
circumstances carefully. As I have often counseled
people, pick the gravest abuses and start there. If
you can’t have an impact on those the possibilities
are slim to none for the rest.
Where should it be given?
Following the order commanded by Christ in Mt. 18,
fraternal correction should be given privately to
the individual himself, then by a number of
individuals together in private, and only publicly
as a last resort. Immediate public correction
is justified , however, where the common good is at
stake and immediacy is necessary to avoid scandal,
or, where the fault is a public one and private
correction would be manifestly ineffective.
When should it be given?
Circumstances can make or break the effectiveness of
fraternal correction. Prudence requires making the
best judgment about when and how to give correction.
An anonymous flyer on the windshields of cars in the
church parking lot, or an angry voice mail, is
unlikely to work. Pick a time, a place, and a manner
with prayer, whether a letter, a private
conversation, the gift of a book on the subject or
some other means. Within families especially,
fraternal correction is often undone by the
vehemence and imprudence of how it is given.
How should it be given? One
should maintain the order of justice oneself by
treating the other person with respect, especially
if in authority, and the order of charity by giving
the correction in a Christian manner, regardless of
the response of the other. This insures that the one
giving correction does not sin in the process, and
provides the best chance that the correction will
produce fruit. Otherwise, it is “a resounding gong
or a clashing cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:13).
It should be clear that correction,
especially fraternal correction, is done with great
difficulty, being more of an art than a science. In the
case of liturgical abuses, since grave matter is often
involved (see
Redemptionis sacramentum 169-171 on this point), and
the common good always at risk, there can frequently be a
need to give it. However, it should be given by the best
suited person, at the right time, in the right way, and
observing the conditions noted above for correcting grave
matters.
|
