untitled

THE SCANDAL OF RELIGION

But the Church’s problem with Luther was not simply dogmatic. In the Hebrew Bible,
‘‘scandal’’ signifies ‘‘trap,’’ ‘‘tangle,’’ and ‘‘obstacle’’ in both literal and figurative senses;
the word reappears in the New Testament closely associated with the ‘‘stumbling block’’
and signifies a (mostly spiritual) harm done to oneself or another. It receives its most
elaborate formal expression in theSumma Theologicaof Thomas of Aquinas, as ‘‘some-
thing less rightly said or done [dictum vel factum minus rectum] that occasions spiritual
downfall.’’^27 Aquinas worked in the wake of Augustine and the early canonists, who trans-
formed the ambiguous biblical image of scandal into a moral concept, signifying a grave
transgression againstcaritas, which, as Ludwig Buisson argues in his studyPotestas und
Caritas, formed the legal basis for the strengthening of papal power from the twelfth to
the fifteenth centuries.^28
Relying on a long tradition established by interpreters and legal scholars, Aquinas
elaborates the notion of scandal in order to establish what became the classic distinctions
in the idea. Aquinas’s ‘‘scandal’’ (‘‘something less rightly said or done’’) defines action
and speech deviating from rectitude (a moral ideal of the right way of acting); both action
and speech are seen as interpersonal, social, and public. He also sought to define action’s
complex relation to intention and to others in society. The first important distinction he
introduces is between ‘‘active’’ and ‘‘passive’’ scandals. Active scandal (‘‘scandal given’’)
can be intentional (‘‘demonic’’) if one wants to do evil, or it can be unintentional if one’s
actions or words lead to scandal without meaning to. Passive scandal (‘‘scandal taken’’)
can arise out of spiritual weakness, which involves no scandal given, when the other’s
actions are impeccable (‘‘scandal of the weak’’). Passive scandal can also arise out of the
malice of the taker (‘‘scandal of the Pharisees’’). The gravity of the transgression differs
according to these four basic distinctions, but a scandal is always a transgression, always
‘‘less right.’’
Scandal is a public matter; in this it differs from sin, for the mere appearance of sin
is enough for scandal. Thus, it always and by necessity involves recognition by a person
other than the acting or speaking subject; mere desire to act in a certain way that remains
inaccessible to others cannot constitute a scandal, nor can actions that remain entirely
concealed. Aquinas relies on the Augustinian understanding of the importance ofbona
famafor conduct: Christian love commandsfamae bonae curaand the avoidance of scan-
dal.^29 This public aspect of the theological notion of scandal is the link between this
notion and the vernacular and secular use of the word. In Romance languages, from the
fourteenth or fifteenth century on, the formesclandre(the etymological root of modern
Englishslander) and its variants (OFescandele,escandle,eschandele,escanle,escandre,es-
claundre, etc.; MFesclandre)^30 designated verbal injury and hostile or polemical language
(insult, slander, dispute, quarrel, anger, bad example, public quarrel, divulging of defama-
tory information, dishonoring somebody, spreading of malicious rumor, etc.). Medieval
popular morality requires the public eye and the interpretation of others in society. In
this, it imitates and reproduces the all-pervasive authority of the Church, the guarantor
of social order, unity, and justice, diffused into the realm of everyday life. Since Paul’s

PAGE 129

129

.................16224$ $CH4 10-13-06 12:34:34 PS