Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 66 (1/2)
Obj. 2: Further, a man is apparently a schismatic if he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man disobey the commandments of the Church, because sin, according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) ”is disobedience against the heavenly commandments.” Therefore every sin is a schism.
Obj. 3: Further, heresy also divides a man from the unity of faith.
If, therefore, the word schism denotes a division, it would seem not to differ, as a special sin, from the sin of unbelief.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Contra Faust. xx, 3; Contra Crescon.
ii, 4) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for he says that a ”schismatic is one who holds the same faith, and practises the same wors.h.i.+p, as others, and takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community, whereas a heretic is one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church.” Therefore schism is not a generic sin.
_I answer that,_ As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name ”from being a scission of minds,” and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not const.i.tuted by that which is accidental.
Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental.
Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.
Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Col. 2:18, 19: ”Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of G.o.d.” Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.
Reply Obj. 1: The division between man and G.o.d that results from sin is not intended by the sinner: it happens beside his intention as a result of his turning inordinately to a mutable good, and so it is not schism properly so called.
Reply Obj. 2: The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say ”rebelliously,” since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to submit to her judgment. But every sinner does not do this, wherefore not every sin is a schism.
Reply Obj. 3: Heresy and schism are distinguished in respect of those things to which each is opposed essentially and directly. For heresy is essentially opposed to faith, while schism is essentially opposed to the unity of ecclesiastical charity. Wherefore just as faith and charity are different virtues, although whoever lacks faith lacks charity, so too schism and heresy are different vices, although whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but not conversely. This is what Jerome says in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [*In Ep. ad t.i.t. iii, 10]: ”I consider the difference between schism and heresy to be that heresy holds false doctrine while schism severs a man from the Church.” Nevertheless, just as the loss of charity is the road to the loss of faith, according to 1 Tim. 1:6: ”From which things,” i.e. charity and the like, ”some going astray, are turned aside into vain babbling,” so too, schism is the road to heresy.
Wherefore Jerome adds (In Ep. ad t.i.t. iii, 10) that ”at the outset it is possible, in a certain respect, to find a difference between schism and heresy: yet there is no schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a reason for separating from the Church.”
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 39, Art. 2]
Whether Schism Is a Graver Sin Than Unbelief?
Objection 1: It would seem that schism is a graver sin than unbelief.
For the graver sin meets with a graver punishment, according to Deut.
25:2: ”According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be.” Now we find the sin of schism punished more severely than even the sin of unbelief or idolatry: for we read (Ex. 32:28) that some were slain by the swords of their fellow men on account of idolatry: whereas of the sin of schism we read (Num. 16:30): ”If the Lord do a new thing, and the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, and all things that belong to them, and they go down alive into h.e.l.l, you shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord G.o.d.”
Moreover the ten tribes who were guilty of schism in revolting from the rule of David were most severely punished (4 Kings 17). Therefore the sin of schism is graver than the sin of unbelief.
Obj. 2: Further, ”The good of the mult.i.tude is greater and more G.o.dlike than the good of the individual,” as the Philosopher states (Ethic. i, 2). Now schism is opposed to the good of the mult.i.tude, namely, ecclesiastical unity, whereas unbelief is contrary to the particular good of one man, namely the faith of an individual.
Therefore it seems that schism is a graver sin than unbelief.
Obj. 3: Further, a greater good is opposed to a greater evil, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 10). Now schism is opposed to charity, which is a greater virtue than faith to which unbelief is opposed, as shown above (Q. 10, A. 2; Q. 23, A. 6). Therefore schism is a graver sin than unbelief.
_On the contrary,_ That which results from an addition to something else surpa.s.ses that thing either in good or in evil. Now heresy results from something being added to schism, for it adds corrupt doctrine, as Jerome declares in the pa.s.sage quoted above (A. 1, ad 3). Therefore schism is a less grievous sin than unbelief.
_I answer that,_ The gravity of a sin can be considered in two ways: first, according to the species of that sin, secondly, according to its circ.u.mstances. And since particular circ.u.mstances are infinite in number, so too they can be varied in an infinite number of ways: wherefore if one were to ask in general which of two sins is the graver, the question must be understood to refer to the gravity derived from the sin's genus. Now the genus or species of a sin is taken from its object, as shown above (I-II, Q. 72, A. 1; I-II, Q.
73, A. 3). Wherefore the sin which is opposed to the greater good is, in respect of its genus, more grievous, for instance a sin committed against G.o.d is graver than a sin committed against one's neighbor.
Now it is evident that unbelief is a sin committed against G.o.d Himself, according as He is Himself the First Truth, on which faith is founded; whereas schism is opposed to ecclesiastical unity, which is a partic.i.p.ated good, and a lesser good than G.o.d Himself. Wherefore it is manifest that the sin of unbelief is generically more grievous than the sin of schism, although it may happen that a particular schismatic sins more grievously than a particular unbeliever, either because his contempt is greater, or because his sin is a source of greater danger, or for some similar reason.
Reply Obj. 1: It had already been declared to that people by the law which they had received that there was one G.o.d, and that no other G.o.d was to be wors.h.i.+pped by them; and the same had been confirmed among them by many kinds of signs. Consequently there was no need for those who sinned against this faith by falling into idolatry, to be punished in an unwonted manner: it was enough that they should be punished in the usual way. On the other hand, it was not so well known among them that Moses was always to be their ruler, and so it behooved those who rebelled against his authority to be punished in a miraculous and unwonted manner.
We may also reply by saying that the sin of schism was sometimes more severely punished in that people, because they were inclined to seditions and schisms. For it is written (1 Esdra 4:15): ”This city since days gone by has rebelled against its kings: and seditions and wars were raised therein [*Vulg.: 'This city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to the kings and provinces, and ... wars were raised therein of old'].” Now sometimes a more severe punishment is inflicted for an habitual sin (as stated above, I-II, Q. 105, A. 2, ad 9), because punishments are medicines intended to keep man away from sin: so that where there is greater p.r.o.neness to sin, a more severe punishment ought to be inflicted. As regards the ten tribes, they were punished not only for the sin of schism, but also for that of idolatry as stated in the pa.s.sage quoted.
Reply Obj. 2: Just as the good of the mult.i.tude is greater than the good of a unit in that mult.i.tude, so is it less than the extrinsic good to which that mult.i.tude is directed, even as the good of a rank in the army is less than the good of the commander-in-chief. In like manner the good of ecclesiastical unity, to which schism is opposed, is less than the good of Divine truth, to which unbelief is opposed.