Almost anything we do or produce could be an occasion of another’s sin. When we do this culpably we incur the sin of ‘scandal’. The painting of portraits used for the purpose of initiating and sustaining illicit relationships was therefore suspect of scandal. The late scholastics attempted to determine the level of burden that painters should be ready to shoulder in order not to furnish an occasion of sin. In these controversies, we witness increasingly lenient views on the excuses available to portraitists painting women at the behest of lovers. Francés de Urrutigoyti sought to show that these portraits are, however, inexcusable He argued that because lustful deeds and thoughts are only indirectly voluntary, it makes sense to say that the painter is not merely giving an occasion of sin but co-inducing it. The controversy about portraits provides a good illustration of the fact that, on the one hand, the doctrine of scandal imposed heavy burdens on moral agents, but, on the other hand, gave significant leeway for excusing the producing or selling of things foreknown to result in others’ self-harmful sins.