|
Objection 1: It would seem that a prince does not so forfeit his
dominion over his subjects, on account of apostasy from the faith,
that they no longer owe him allegiance. For Ambrose [St.
Augustine, Super Ps. 124:3] says that the Emperor Julian,
though an apostate, nevertheless had under him Christian soldiers,
who when he said to them, "Fall into line for the defense of the
republic," were bound to obey. Therefore subjects are not absolved
from their allegiance to their prince on account of his apostasy.
Objection 2: Further, an apostate from the faith is an unbeliever.
Now we find that certain holy men served unbelieving masters; thus
Joseph served Pharaoh, Daniel served Nabuchodonosor, and
Mardochai served Assuerus. Therefore apostasy from the faith does
not release subjects from allegiance to their sovereign.
Objection 3: Further, just as by apostasy from the faith, a man
turns away from God, so does every sin. Consequently if, on account
of apostasy from the faith, princes were to lose their right to command
those of their subjects who are believers, they would equally lose it
on account of other sins: which is evidently not the case. Therefore
we ought not to refuse allegiance to a sovereign on account of his
apostatizing from the faith.
On the contrary, Gregory VII says (Council, Roman V):
"Holding to the institutions of our holy predecessors, we, by our
apostolic authority, absolve from their oath those who through loyalty
or through the sacred bond of an oath owe allegiance to excommunicated
persons: and we absolutely forbid them to continue their allegiance to
such persons, until these shall have made amends." Now apostates
from the faith, like heretics, are excommunicated, according to the
Decretal [Extra, De Haereticis, cap. Ad abolendam].
Therefore princes should not be obeyed when they have apostatized from
the faith.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 10, Article 10),
unbelief, in itself, is not inconsistent with dominion, since
dominion is a device of the law of nations which is a human law:
whereas the distinction between believers and unbelievers is of Divine
right, which does not annul human right. Nevertheless a man who sins
by unbelief may be sentenced to the loss of his right of dominion, as
also, sometimes, on account of other sins.
Now it is not within the competency of the Church to punish unbelief
in those who have never received the faith, according to the saying of
the Apostle (1 Cor. 5:12): "What have I to do to judge
them that are without?" She can, however, pass sentence of
punishment on the unbelief of those who have received the faith: and it
is fitting that they should be punished by being deprived of the
allegiance of their subjects: for this same allegiance might conduce to
great corruption of the faith, since, as was stated above (Article
1, Objection 2), "a man that is an apostate . . . with a
wicked heart deviseth evil, and . . . soweth discord," in order to
sever others from the faith. Consequently, as soon as sentence of
excommunication is passed on a man on account of apostasy from the
faith, his subjects are "ipso facto" absolved from his authority and
from the oath of allegiance whereby they were bound to him.
Reply to Objection 1: At that time the Church was but recently
instituted, and had not, as yet, the power of curbing earthly
princes; and so she allowed the faithful to obey Julian the apostate,
in matters that were not contrary to the faith, in order to avoid
incurring a yet greater danger.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated in the article, it is not a
question of those unbelievers who have never received the faith.
Reply to Objection 3: Apostasy from the faith severs man from God
altogether, as stated above (Article 1), which is not the case in
any other sin.
|
|