|
Objection 1: It would seem that discord is not a sin. For to
disaccord with man is to sever oneself from another's will. But this
does not seem to be a sin, because God's will alone, and not our
neighbor's, is the rule of our own will. Therefore discord is not a
sin.
Objection 2: Further, whoever induces another to sin, sins also
himself. But it appears not to be a sin to incite others to discord,
for it is written (Acts 23:6) that Paul, knowing that the one
part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, cried out in the
council: "Men brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees,
concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in
question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between
the Pharisees and the Sadducees." Therefore discord is not a sin.
Objection 3: Further, sin, especially mortal sin, is not to be
found in a holy man. But discord is to be found even among holy men,
for it is written (Acts 15:39): "There arose a dissension"
between Paul and Barnabas, "so that they departed one from
another." Therefore discord is not a sin. and least of all a mortal
sin.
On the contrary, "Dissensions," that is, discords, are reckoned
among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), of which it is said
afterwards (Gal. 5:21) that "they who do such things shall not
obtain the kingdom of God." Now nothing, save mortal sin, excludes
man from the kingdom of God. Therefore discord is a mortal sin.
I answer that, Discord is opposed to concord. Now, as stated above
(Question 29, Articles 1,3) concord results from charity, in
as much as charity directs many hearts together to one thing, which is
chiefly the Divine good, secondarily, the good of our neighbor.
Wherefore discord is a sin, in so far as it is opposed to this
concord.
But it must be observed that this concord is destroyed by discord in
two ways: first, directly; secondly, accidentally. Now, human
acts and movements are said to be direct when they are according to
one's intention. Wherefore a man directly disaccords with his
neighbor, when he knowingly and intentionally dissents from the Divine
good and his neighbor's good, to which he ought to consent. This is
a mortal sin in respect of its genus, because it is contrary to
charity, although the first movements of such discord are venial sins
by reason of their being imperfect acts.
The accidental in human acts is that which occurs beside the
intention. Hence when several intend a good pertaining to God's
honor, or our neighbor's profit, while one deems a certain thing
good, and another thinks contrariwise, the discord is in this case
accidentally contrary to the Divine good or that of our neighbor.
Such like discord is neither sinful nor against charity, unless it be
accompanied by an error about things necessary to salvation, or by
undue obstinacy, since it has also been stated above (Question 29,
Articles 1,3, ad 2) that the concord which is an effect of
charity, is union of wills not of opinions. It follows from this that
discord is sometimes the sin of one party only, for instance, when one
wills a good which the other knowingly resists; while sometimes it
implies sin in both parties, as when each dissents from the other's
good, and loves his own.
Reply to Objection 1: One man's will considered in itself is not
the rule of another man's will; but in so far as our neighbor's will
adheres to God's will, it becomes in consequence, a rule regulated
according to its proper measure. Wherefore it is a sin to disaccord
with such a will, because by that very fact one disaccords with the
Divine rule.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as a man's will that adheres to God is
a right rule, to disaccord with which is a sin, so too a man's will
that is opposed to God is a perverse rule, to disaccord with which is
good. Hence to cause a discord, whereby a good concord resulting from
charity is destroyed, is a grave sin: wherefore it is written
(Prov. 6:16): "Six things there are, which the Lord
hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth," which seventh is stated
(Prov. 6:19) to be "him that soweth discord among brethren."
On the other hand, to arouse a discord whereby an evil concord
(i.e. concord in an evil will) is destroyed, is praiseworthy. In
this way Paul was to be commended for sowing discord among those who
concorded together in evil, because Our Lord also said of Himself
(Mt. 10:34): "I came not to send peace, but the sword."
Reply to Objection 3: The discord between Paul and Barnabas was
accidental and not direct: because each intended some good, yet the
one thought one thing good, while the other thought something else,
which was owing to human deficiency: for that controversy was not about
things necessary to salvation. Moreover all this was ordained by
Divine providence, on account of the good which would ensue.
|
|