Yes, thank you, it does to some degree.
But, telling a white lie AFTER the scandal has occurred seems a little more palatable than knowing full well in advance of the scandalous activity that:
a) It’s 99.9% going to occur;
b) I know (and am condoning) that a venial sin is going to be committed beforehand to try to cover up the almost inevitable mortal sin that is going to occur; and
c) Most likely another venial sin will be occurred at some later date to cover up the fact that I was knowledgeable of the venial sin and the mortal sin that already occurred.
What a complicated web we weave :rolleyes:
And maybe my problem with understanding it all is that I think the scandal and grave sin are one and the same thing, not two separate mortal sins. I acknowledge, however, that my Protestant past may play a part in my being unable to separate the two.
"Grave sin" is any sin that would be considered a “Mortal Sin” if the three conditions are met. The “sin of scandal” is a grave sin (and can be mortal if the three conditions are met), where our actions, example, in-action, opinions, etc. leads others to gravely sin.
My mind still wants to wrap the entire situation into ONE grave sin that the mother should be no participant of (either actively or passively), not two grave ones and two venial ones :shrug:
In my mind, the mother is not actively or passively participating in the grave sin (assuming she’s making it know that she’s disapproves of the fornication). But the mother is participating in the hiding the truth from the young children. I don’t consider this a cover up because the mother is not hiding this from the father. She’s just trying to mediate the scandal. Now, if the mother was hiding this from the father or if the mother was hiding it because she didn’t think it was a big deal, but was hiding from those who disapproved, then she would be participating in a grave sin. But the way this is working out, the mother is only participating in a venial sin.
I’m not saying this is her problem, it’s my problem in understanding, I suppose, not just this situation that was presented on that thread, but anytime something of this magnitude occurs. It’s the premeditation, I guess you could say, that bothers me so.
Each situation is different. As I mentioned above, if the mother was hiding this from the father, then it I think the mom would be participating in a grave sin by enabling the daughter. But in this situation, she’s not enabling… she has tried to stop the daughter and failed. So she’s simply trying to mediate the scandalous fallout via a venial sin. But also, let’s keep in mind that the young children do NOT have a right to the truth in this situation. They don’t need to know the facts.
Sidenote: I find it hilariously funny and ironic that on this week’s Downton Abbey, if anyone is a fan, Mary is sneaking a two week getaway with her beau because the “scandal” would never be tolerated in her family (and she’s an adult widow) :tsktsk: I’m sure this is exactly what would have happened in the 1920’s…children, even adult children, would take great pains to keep any potential scandalous activity to themselves as to not implicate anyone else in their family.
Actually, I think this happened more than you think. Especially with the flappers during the roaring twenties. Also, it would have happened during the 40s too. After World War II, and even into the 80s (Bosom Buddies anyone) there were women’s only apparent buildings where men were not allowed above the lobby. People were very conscience of scandal until the Baby Boomers generation took over