You are on page 1of 3

SEDUCTION

Seduction is the inducing of a previously virtuous woman to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse. The seducer may have brought about the surrender of his victim's chastity either with or without a promise of subsequent marriage. The obligation of restitution in either hypothesis for the bodily damage wrought, considered specifically as such, cannot be imposed. The obvious reason is that its performance is impossible. We are speaking of course only of the court of conscience. n certain cases the civil tribunal may !ustly mulct the seducer to make pecuniary compensation, and he will be bound to obey. f the woman has been lured into carnal relations by the promise of marriage, it is the generally received and practically certain teaching that the man is bound to marry her. This is true, independently of whether she has become pregnant or not. "ranted that the bargain is a vicious one, still she has executed her part of it. What remains is not sinful, and unless it is carried out she is sub!ected to an in!ury reparable ordinarily only by marriage. This doctrine holds well whether the promise is real or only feigned. #oralists note that this solution does not cover every situation. t will not apply, for instance, if the woman can easily gather from the circumstances that her seducer has no serious intention to wed her, or if he is vastly her superior in social position, or if the outcome of such an union is likely to be very unhappy $as it will often be%. &one the less, even in these conditions, the betrayer may at times be obliged to furnish other reparation, such as money for her dowry. When no promise of marriage has been given by the seducer and the woman has yielded freely to his solicitations, the only obligation devolving on the man is one which he shares with his paramour, vi'., to care for the fruit of their sin, if there is any. Strictly speaking, he has done no in!ury to her( she has accepted his advances. The only duty therefore which emerges is one that touches, not her, but the possible offspring. t must be observed, however, that if he, by talking about his crime, has brought about the defamation of his partner or her parents, he will be obliged to make good whatever losses they sustain in consequence. Then, however, the immediate source of his responsibility is not his criminal intercourse with her, but the shattering of her and her parents' reputation. Source) http)**www.newadvent.org*cathen*+,-./c.htm

SCANDAL
The meaning and kinds of scandal Scandal is any word, act, or omission which is the occasion of another's committing sin. 0or scandal it is not necessary) $a% that the thing done be really sinful, so long as it has the appearance of evil( $b% that the person scandali'ed be good and innocent( $c% that the person scandali'ed fall into the sin. Scandal is of two kinds) $a% 1irect when the scandal giver expressly intends to lead others astray, as when he counsels or commands what is wrong( $b% indirect when he does not wish to lead others into sin, but does or says what he knows will be an occasion of sin. 2xamples of this latter kind of scandal are) mmodest dressing in women who wish merely to conform to fashion, bad language, neglect of religious duties, and other evil examples on the part of parents and superiors.

The malice of scandal Scandal in itself is an exceedingly grave sin, $a% because it is most in!urious to our neighbor33the murderer kills the body, the scandal giver kills the soul( $b% because it is one of the most far3reaching of sins, continuing from one person to another, even after the scandal giver is long in his grave, e.g., #artin 4uther, 5oltaire, and the like( $c% because the scandal giver, doing the work of Satan, undoes the work of 6hrist. 1readful, therefore, is the malediction pronounced by our 4ord against the scandal giver $#att, xviii. -, .%. The gravity of scandal is greater or less, according to three things) $a% the intention33he who intends scandal is naturally more guilty than he who does not( $b% the position of the scandal giver33 scandal is greater in those whose position of rank or authority obliges them to edify) $c% the evil which results from it. 42SS7&S +. We are not obliged to abstain from good and necessary duties, because others will maliciously take scandal from our actions( but if persons of good faith out of weakness and ignorance take scandal from our good actions, we should omit the actions, if possible or explain their lawfulness. 8. t is sinful to imitate the scandal giver. To preserve ourselves against this we must avoid, $a% all occasions of sin that we can( $b% we must remember that we shall be !udged not by the actions of others, but by our own actions. ,. Those who have given scandal are obliged to make reparation, $a% by removing the cause of the scandal( $b% by doing their best through good example, advice, or other means, to correct the evil done( $c% by praying incessantly for the conversion of those they have scandali'ed. 6ases in which the sin of scandal occurs The question remains) When is there a sin of scandal9 0or it is obvious not all who an occasion of sin to others is thereby guilty. $+% :s a general rule the sin of scandal exists when one directly induces another to do a thing which he cannot do without sin, either formal or material, e.g. by soliciting a person to per!ury, drunkenness, sins of the flesh, etc., even though the person induced to this act is habitually or at the time disposed to commit it. t is otherwise when the thing we ask is good or indifferent( this may be done without scandal and without sin, when there is a !ust cause or serious reason for asking it( even though one foresees that the other will probably sin in granting it( thus for the common weal a !udge may demand an oath even from those who will probably commit per!ury( one who has need of money and who cannot find anyone who will lend to him may have recourse to an usurer although he foresees that the latter will exact exorbitant and un!ust interest, etc. The thing asked must be without sin either formal or material because it is not allowed to profit by the ignorance of another to induce him to commit what is forbidden, to cause a child to utter blasphemies, to induce someone who is unaware of the precept of the 6hurch to eat flesh on a fast day and so on. n fact in all these cases the sin is to be ascribed to the person who endeavors to cause it. This is the general rule, but here the question arises, may one advise another bent on committing a great crime to be satisfied instead with doing something

less evil9 This question is much discussed, but the opinion which considers such a course !ustifiable is probable and may be followed in practice. n fact the advice thus given is not properly speaking advice to do evil but to do a lesser evil or rather not to do the greater evil which a man intends to commit( therefore some writers exact that the words or circumstances must demonstrate that one advises the evil solely as the lesser evil( others, however, consider it sufficient that such be the intention, even when not made manifest, of the person who gives the advice. &evertheless, if a man had decided to do an in!ury to a certain person one could not;unless in exceptional circumstances;induce him to do a lesser in!ury to any other person. $8% <e is guilty of the sin of scandal that without positively pledging or inducing to sin nevertheless performs an act evil in itself which will be an occasion of sin to another. The same must be said when the act is evil only in appearance, unless there be sufficient reason to act and to permit the fault of another Thus those who blaspheme before others when they foresee that their example will cause the latter to blaspheme are guilty of scandal( so also those who attack religion or morals, hold immoral conversation, sing immoral songs or $by their behavior dress, writings etc.% offend against the laws of decency and modesty, when they foresee, as is usual, that those who see, hear, or read will be impelled to sin. $,% To prevent another's sin one may even be bound to forego an act which is sinful neither in it nor in appearance, but which is nevertheless the occasion of sin to another, unless there be sufficient reason to act otherwise. t has already been shown that when there is a !ust cause we may ask of another a thing which he can do without sin although we may foresee that he will not do it without fault. 4ikewise we are not bound to be disturbed by pharisaical scandal, which may follow an action we perform( but we must avoid scandali'ing the weak if we can do so easily. The application of these principles depends on concrete circumstances, which vary with each case( however, the following general rules may be given) To prevent scandali'ing another we must never transgress the negative precepts of the natural law, nor its positive precepts in cases where they truly bind( thus it is not permitted to lie to prevent a mortal sin, neither can one neglect receiving baptism to avoid the blasphemies of one's parents. t is not permitted to pass over any precept whatever in order to prevent pharisaical scandal, but we may and even should, in special cases and for one or two occasions, pass over a precept whether 1ivine or human, to avoid scandali'ing the weak. We should, to avoid scandal, forego good or indifferent works which are not of precept, if we can do so without great inconvenience. 0inally, to prevent the scandal of the weak we are sometimes obliged to sacrifice some temporal good of less importance, but we are not bound to do this when the goods are of greater importance.

Source) http)**catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com*The=8>Sin=8>of=8>Scandal.html http)**www.newadvent.org*cathen*+,?>-d.htm

You might also like