[II-II.q.42.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that sedition is not a special sin distinct from other sins. For, according to Isidore (Etym. x), \"a seditious man is one who sows dissent among minds, and begets discord.\" Now, by provoking the commission of a sin, a man sins by no other kind of sin than that which he provoked. Therefore it seems that sedition is not a special sin distinct from discord.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod Christus non solum Judæis, sed etiam Gentilibus debuerit prædicare. Dicitur enim Isa., xlix, 6: Parum est ut sis mihi servus ad suscitandas tribus Israel, et fæces Jacob convertendas: dedi te in lucem gentium, ut sis salus mea usque ad extremum terræ. Sed lumen et salutem Christus præbuit per suam doctrinam. Ergo videtur parum fuisse, si solum Judæis et non Gentilibus prædicavit.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.arg.2] Further, sedition denotes a kind of division. Now schism takes its name from scission, as stated above (Question 39, Article 1). Therefore, seemingly, the sin of sedition is not distinct from that of schism.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sicut dicit Matth., vii, 29, Erat docens eos, sicut potestatem habens. Sed major potestas doctrinæ ostenditur in instructione illorum qui penitus nihil audierant, quales erant Gentiles: unde Apostolus dicit Rom., xv, 20: Sic prædicavi Evangelium hoc, non ubi nominatus est Christus, ne super alienum fundamentum ædificarem. Ergo multo magis Christum prædicare debuit Gentilibus quam Judæis.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.arg.3] Further, every special sin that is distinct from other sins, is either a capital vice, or arises from some capital vice. Now sedition is reckoned neither among the capital vices, nor among those vices which arise from them, as appears from Moral. xxxi, 45, where both kinds of vice are enumerated. Therefore sedition is not a special sin, distinct from other sins.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, utilior est instructio multorum quam unius. Sed Christus aliquos Gentilibium instruxit, sicut mulierem Samaritanam, Joan., iv, et Chananæam, Matth., xv. Ergo videtur quod multo fortius Christus debuerit multitudini gen-tium prædicare. S. Cyprianus arbitratur Christi translationem fuisse imaginariam, non realem; et idem de ostensione omnium regnorum mundi asserendum esse judicat.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.sc] Seditions are mentioned as distinct from other sins (2 Corinthians 12:20).
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Dominus dicit Matth., xv, 24: Non sum missus nisi ad oves, quæ perierunt domus Israel. Sed Rom., x, 15, dicitur: Quomodo prædicabunt, nisi mittantur? Ergo Christus non debuit prædicare 1 gentibus.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.co] Sedition is a special sin, having something in common with war and strife, and differing somewhat from them. It has something in common with them, in so far as it implies a certain antagonism, and it differs from them in two points. First, because war and strife denote actual aggression on either side, whereas sedition may be said to denote either actual aggression, or the preparation for such aggression. Hence a gloss on 2 Corinthians 12:20 says that \"seditions are tumults tending to fight,\" when, to wit, a number of people make preparations with the intention of fighting. Secondly, they differ in that war is, properly speaking, carried on against external foes, being as it were between one people and another, whereas strife is between one individual and another, or between few people on one side and few on the other side, while sedition, in its proper sense, is between mutually dissentient parts of one people, as when one part of the state rises in tumult against another part. Wherefore, since sedition is opposed to a special kind of good, namely the unity and peace of a people, it is a special kind of sin.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod conveniens fuit prædicationem Christi tam per ipsum quam per Apostolos a principio solis Judæis exhiberi. Primo quidem ut ostenderet per suum adventum impleri promissiones antiquitus factas Judæis, non autem Gentilibus. Unde Apostolus dicit Rom., xv, 8: Dico Christum Jesum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis, id est, apostolum et prædicatorem Judæorum propter veritatem Dei, ad confirmandas promissiones patrum. Secundo, ut ejus adventus ostenderetur esse a Deo. Quæ enim sunt, a Deo ordinatæ sunt, ut dicitur Rom., xiii, 1. Hoc autem debitus ordo exigebat, ut Judæis, qui Deo erant propinquiores per fidem et cultum unius Dei, prius doctrina Christi proponeretur, et per eos transmitteretur ad gentes; sicut etiam in cælesti hierarchia per superiores angelos ad inferiores divinæ illuminationes deveniunt. Unde Super illud Matth., xv: Non sum missus, nisi ad oves, quæ perierunt, domus Israel, dicit Hieronymus, col. 140, t. 7: «Non hoc dicit, quin et ad gentes missus sit, sed quod primum ad Israel missus est. » Unde Isa., ult., 19, dicitur: Mittam ex eis quis salvati fuerunt, scilicet ex Judæis, ad gentes, et annuntiabunt gloriam meam gentibus…… Tertio, ut Judæis auferret calumniandi materiam: unde Super illud Matth., x, 5, In viam gentium ne abieritis, dicit Hieronymus, col. 62, t. 7: «Oportebat primum adventum Christi nuntiari Judæis, ne justam haberent excusationem, dicentes, ideo se Dominum rejecisse, quia ad gentes et Samaritanos apostolos miserit. » Quarto, quia Christus per crucis victoriam meruit potestatem et victoriam 2 et dominium super gentes: unde dicitur Apocalyps., ii, 26: Qui vicerit dabo illi potestatem super gentes…, sicut et ego accepi a Patre meo; et Philipp., ii, 8, dicitur quod quia factus est obediens usque ad mortem crucis, Deus exaltavit illum, ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur, et omnis lingua ei confiteatur, et ideo ante passionem suam noluit gentibus prædicari suam doctrinam, sed post passionem dixit discipulis Matth., ult., 19: Euntes docete omnes gentes. Propter quod, ut legitur Joan., xii, 24, cum imminente passione quidam Gentiles vellent Jesum videre, respondit: «Nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet: si autem mortuum fuerit, multum fructum affert: » et sicut Augustinus dicit ibidem, Tract. lii in Joan., §9, col. 1766, t. 3, « se dicebat granum mortificandum infidelitate Judæorum, et multiplicandum fide omnium populorum. »
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.ad.1] A seditious man is one who incites others to sedition, and since sedition denotes a kind of discord, it follows that a seditious man is one who creates discord, not of any kind, but between the parts of a multitude. And the sin of sedition is not only in him who sows discord, but also in those who dissent from one another inordinately.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Christus fuit in lumen et salutem gentium per discipulos suos quos ad prædicandum gentibus misit.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.ad.2] Sedition differs from schism in two respects. First, because schism is opposed to the spiritual unity of the multitude, viz. ecclesiastical unity, whereas sedition is contrary to the temporal or secular unity of the multitude, for instance of a city or kingdom. Secondly, schism does not imply any preparation for a material fight as sedition does, but only for a spiritual dissent.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod non est minoris potestatis sed majoris facere aliquid per alios quam per seipsum. Et ideo in hoc maxime potestas divina in Christo monstrata est, quod discipulis suis tantam virtutem contulit in docendo, ut gentes, quæ nihil de Christo audierant, converterent ad ipsum. Potestas autem Christi in docendo attenditur et quantum ad miracula, per quæ doctrinam suam confirmabat, et quantum ad efficaciam persuadendi, et quantum ad auctoritatem loquentis; quia loquebatur quasi dominium habens super legem, cum diceret: Ego autem dico vobis; et etiam quantum ad virtutem rectitudinis, quam in sua conversatione monstrabat, sine peccato vivendo.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.ad.3] Sedition, like schism, is contained under discord, since each is a kind of discord, not between individuals, but between the parts of a multitude.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod sicut Christus non debuit a principio indifferenter Gentilibus suam doctrinam communicare, ut Judæis tamquam primogenito populo deditus observaret; ita etiam non debuit Gentiles omnino repellere, ne spes salutis eis præcluderet. Et propter hoc aliqui Gentilium particulariter sunt admissi propter excellentiam fidei et devotionis eorum.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that sedition is not always a mortal sin. For sedition denotes \"a tumult tending to fight,\" according to the gloss quoted above (Article 1). But fighting is not always a mortal sin, indeed it is sometimes just and lawful, as stated above (Question 40, Article 1). Much more, therefore, can sedition be without a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod seditio non semper sit peccatum mortale. Seditio enim importat tumultum ad pugnam, ut patet per Glossam supra inductam. Sed pugna non semper est peccatum mortale, sed quando est justa et licita, ut supra habitum est. Ergo multo magis seditio potest esse sine peccato mortali.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.arg.2] Further, sedition is a kind of discord, as stated above (1, ad 3). Now discord can be without mortal sin, and sometimes without any sin at all. Therefore sedition can be also.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, nullus sapiens debet facere, unde effectum sui operis impediat. Sed per hoc quod sua doctrina Christus Judæos turbavit, impediebatur effectus ejus doctrinæ: dicitur enim Luc., xi, 53, quod cum Dominus Pharisæos et Scribas reprehenderet, cæperunt graviter insistere; et os ejus opprimere de multis, insidiantes ei, et quærentes aliquid capere de ore ejus, ut accusarent eum. Non ergo videtur conveniens fuisse quod eos in sua doctrina offenderet.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.arg.3] Further, it is praiseworthy to deliver a multitude from a tyrannical rule. Yet this cannot easily be done without some dissension in the multitude, if one part of the multitude seeks to retain the tyrant, while the rest strive to dethrone him. Therefore there can be sedition without mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Apostolus dicit I ad Timoth., v, 1: Seniorem ne increpaveris, sed obsecra ut patrem. Sed sacerdotes et principes Judæorum erant illius populi seniores. Ergo videtur quod non fuerint duris increpationibus arguendi.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.sc] The Apostle forbids seditions together with other things that are mortal sins (2 Corinthians 12:20).
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod Isai., viii, 14, fuerat prophetizatum quod Christus esset in lapidem offensionis et petram scandali duabus domibus Israel.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.co] As stated above (1, ad 2), sedition is contrary to the unity of the multitude, viz. the people of a city or kingdom. Now Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21) that \"wise men understand the word people to designate not any crowd of persons, but the assembly of those who are united together in fellowship recognized by law and for the common good.\" Wherefore it is evident that the unity to which sedition is opposed is the unity of law and common good: whence it follows manifestly that sedition is opposed to justice and the common good. Therefore by reason of its genus it is a mortal sin, and its gravity will be all the greater according as the common good which it assails surpasses the private good which is assailed by strife.
\nAccordingly the sin of sedition is first and chiefly in its authors, who sin most grievously; and secondly it is in those who are led by them to disturb the common good. Those, however, who defend the common good, and withstand the seditious party, are not themselves seditious, even as neither is a man to be called quarrelsome because he defends himself, as stated above (Question 41, Article 1).
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod salus multitudinis est præferenda paci quorum-cumque singularium hominum. Et ideo quando aliqui sua perversitate multitudinis salutem impediunt, non est timenda eorum offensio a prædicatore vel doctore, ad hoc quod multitudinis saluti provideat. Scribæ autem et Pharisæi, et principes Judæorum sua malitia plurimum impediebant populi salutem, tum quia repugnabant Christi doctrinæ, per quam solam poterat esse salus, tum etiam quia pravis suis moribus vitam populi corrumpebant. Et ideo Dominus non obstante offensione eorum, publice veritatem docebat, quam illi oderant, et eorum vitia arguebat. Et ideo dicitur Matth., xv, 12, quod discipulis Domino dicentibus: Scis quia Judæi* audito verbo hoc, scandalizati sunt? respondit: Sinite illos, cæci sunt et duces cæcorum: cæcus autem si cæco ducatum præstet, ambo in foveam cadunt.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.ad.1] It is lawful to fight, provided it be for the common good, as stated above (Question 40, Article 1). But sedition runs counter to the common good of the multitude, so that it is always a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod homo sic debet esse sine offensione omnibus, ut nulli det suo facto vel dicto minus recto occasionem ruinæ; sed « cum de veritate scandalum oritur, magis est sustinendum scandalum, quam veritas relinquatur, » ut Gregorius, dicit, Hom. vii in Ezech., § 5, col. 842, t. 2.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.ad.2] Discord from what is not evidently good, may be without sin, but discord from what is evidently good, cannot be without sin: and sedition is discord of this kind, for it is contrary to the unity of the multitude, which is a manifest good.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod per hoc quod Christus publice Scribas et Pharisæos arguebat, non impedivit, sed magis promovit effectum suæ doctrinæ; quia cum eorum vitia populo innotescebant, minus avertebatur a Christo propter verba Scribarum et Pharisæorum, qui semper doctrinæ Christi obsistebant.
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.ad.3] A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government. Ondeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.
\nThe Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
\n[II-II.q.42.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod illud verbum Apostoli est intelligendum de illis senioribus qui non solum ætate vel auctoritate, sed etiam honestate sunt senes, secundum illud Num., xi, 16: Congrega mihi septuaginta viros, de senibus Israel, quos tu nosti, quod senes populi sint. Si autem auctoritatem senectutis in instrumentum malitiæ vertant publice peccando, sunt manifeste et acriter arguendi: sicut et Daniel dixit Dan., xiii, 52: Inveterate dierum malorum, etc.
\n