Aaaah! The thoughtful post on "scandal" I was looking for

The Catholic Church does not think of scandal in the same way that the world does. I have been wondering when someone would write about this. Today Rod Dreher has.

First he quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible." This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"

He goes on:

You can see how even well-meaning bishops and others would think that it's so important to protect the image of the Church in the eyes of the people that they would try to conceal this dirty business. But that ethic led to gross corruption. As a friend of mine put it to me, "Only God knows how many lives have been ruined by fear of giving scandal." That friend also said, "If an institution stands to be ruined by the revelation of the truth, then it probably doesn't deserve to exist."

Do you think there's a good general rule, or set of rules, for deciding when one shouldn't reveal something out of a justified fear of giving scandal, and when it is a greater risk to harm by keeping quiet about it? Not everything should be disclosed, but how do you know when withholding information protects not the common good, but scoundrels?

UPDATE: Let me clarify my point here, because comments suggest that at least some aren't getting me. I don't intend for this thread to be another discussion of the Catholic Church's problems. Rather, I'm using that as a jumping off point to discuss the idea of scandal, and the virtues of keeping silent about something that's true but scandalous, versus making it known.

-snip-

Journalists deal with this all the time. I think many in the public assume that reporters are dying to reveal embarrassing information about public figures and institutions. It's just not true. I've seen it happen on more than one occasion that a decision was made not to reveal something the reporter knew was true, because the judgment was made, in consultation with editors, that it would be more harmful to reveal the information than to keep it secret. I have done this myself, and wondered later if I'd made the right decision. It's a difficult thing, and the Church is not wrong to call giving scandal a sin.

The question, though, is just what constitutes a sinful giving of scandal. In the case of the RC Church's sex abuse situation, it is clear now that far worse evil was done by covering up the evil in the name of avoiding scandal.

This is interesting. In a conversation with a veteran journalist about the recent feeding frenzy concerning Rahim Jaffer, I was reminded that there are many, many things journalists know about the private lives of politicians in Ottawa that they do not put in the news.

Actually, I'm not so sure the "covering up" of the evil was the worse evil. It's not worse than child abuse itself. What was worse was that abusers were allowed to continue abusing sometimes for years and years, shuffled from parish to parish or sent to other dioceses or countries. If they had been dealt with promptly and steps had been taken to ensure they never were allowed to be in contact with children or vulnerable teens or adults again, I don't think we'd be too concerned about cover up, as long as the victims were treated humanely and the perpetrators put out of business.