176. Denouncing public sins
176. DENOUNCING PUBLIC SINS
While we’re on the dangerous topic of playing the prophet, what about public sins, that are clear to everyone? If no one denounces them, people will assume it’s OK. So we have some responsibility not only toward the spiritual good of the sinner but also to the public, don’t we? How should we discriminate when to speak (and where and how) and when to keep silent? For instance, what about Catholic politicians (or, worse, priests or theologians) who publicly support abortion, fornication, or homosexual sex?
With regard to the public denunciation of sins, it is necessary to make a distinction, because sins may be either public or secret. In the case of public sins, a remedy is required not only for the sinner, that he may become better, but also for others, who know of his sin, lest they be scandalized. (“Scandalized” means not just shocked but being spiritually harmed by bad example. See below.) Wherefore such like sins should be denounced in public, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Tim 5:20): Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear, which is to be understood as referring to public sins, as Augustine states. . . (II-II,33,7).
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 as one man, by his injunction, inducement, or example, moves another to sin; and this is scandal properly so called (II-II,43,1).
Our Lord said (Mt 18:16): Take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two, etc. The right way to go from one extreme to another is to pass through the middle space. Now Our Lord wished the beginning of fraternal correction to be hidden, when one brother corrects another between this one and himself alone, while He wished the end to be public, when such a one would be denounced to the Church. Consequently it is befitting that a citation of witnesses should be placed between the two extremes, so that . . . thus his sin be amended without dishonoring him before the public (II-II,33,8).
“Scandal” has come to mean anything that elicits a large number of strong negative emotional reactions when made public. But in traditional moral philosophy “scandal” meant something quite different: something more specific, something moral rather than emotional, and something not relative to publicity. As with many other words, we have changed it to something more shallow, subjective, and relative.
St. Thomas’ advice follows Christ’s. Christ was personally very sensitive to scandal (in the old sense) because He was very sensitive to others being harmed spiritually; and this made Him unafraid to speak out against evil even when it made Him unpopular (in fact so unpopular that He was martyred!). On the other hand, St. Thomas is also following another, complementary aspect of Christ’s character: Christ was gentle and reasonable. Christ’s recommended treatment of public scandal was private, gradual, and incremental, with no rancorous attempt to dishonor the sinner in public.
This was especially remarkable when we remember that pre—modern cultures, especially Jewish culture, were capable of great moral outrage and simple passion against evil, unlike our current “live and let live” relativistic culture. The same Christ Who seems “judgmental” to our modern sophists must have seemed “soft” to the Pharisees.
Like Christ, St. Thomas would have made a very poor Spanish Inquisitor.