|
Objection 1: It would seem that unbelievers may have authority or
dominion over the faithful. For the Apostle says (1 Tim.
6:1): "Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count
their masters worthy of all honor": and it is clear that he is
speaking of unbelievers, since he adds (1 Tim. 6:2): "But
they that have believing masters, let them not despise them."
Moreover it is written (1 Pt. 2:18): "Servants be subject
to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but
also to the froward." Now this command would not be contained in the
apostolic teaching unless unbelievers could have authority over the
faithful. Therefore it seems that unbelievers can have authority over
the faithful.
Objection 2: Further, all the members of a prince's household are
his subjects. Now some of the faithful were members of unbelieving
princes' households, for we read in the Epistle to the Philippians
(4:22): "All the saints salute you, especially they that are
of Caesar's household," referring to Nero, who was an unbeliever.
Therefore unbelievers can have authority over the faithful.
Objection 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Polit. i,
2) a slave is his master's instrument in matters concerning everyday
life, even as a craftsman's laborer is his instrument in matters
concerning the working of his art. Now, in such matters, a believer
can be subject to an unbeliever, for he may work on an unbeliever's
farm. Therefore unbelievers may have authority over the faithful even
as to dominion.
On the contrary, Those who are in authority can pronounce judgment on
those over whom they are placed. But unbelievers cannot pronounce
judgment on the faithful, for the Apostle says (1 Cor. 6:1):
"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged
before the unjust," i.e. unbelievers, "and not before the
saints?" Therefore it seems that unbelievers cannot have authority
over the faithful.
I answer that, That this question may be considered in two ways.
First, we may speak of dominion or authority of unbelievers over the
faithful as of a thing to be established for the first time. This
ought by no means to be allowed, since it would provoke scandal and
endanger the faith, for subjects are easily influenced by their
superiors to comply with their commands, unless the subjects are of
great virtue: moreover unbelievers hold the faith in contempt, if they
see the faithful fall away. Hence the Apostle forbade the faithful to
go to law before an unbelieving judge. And so the Church altogether
forbids unbelievers to acquire dominion over believers, or to have
authority over them in any capacity whatever.
Secondly, we may speak of dominion or authority, as already in
force: and here we must observe that dominion and authority are
institutions of human law, while the distinction between faithful and
unbelievers arises from the Divine law. Now the Divine law which is
the law of grace, does not do away with human law which is the law of
natural reason. Wherefore the distinction between faithful and
unbelievers, considered in itself, does not do away with dominion and
authority of unbelievers over the faithful.
Nevertheless this right of dominion or authority can be justly done
away with by the sentence or ordination of the Church who has the
authority of God: since unbelievers in virtue of their unbelief
deserve to forfeit their power over the faithful who are converted into
children of God.
This the Church does sometimes, and sometimes not. For among those
unbelievers who are subject, even in temporal matters, to the Church
and her members, the Church made the law that if the slave of a Jew
became a Christian, he should forthwith receive his freedom, without
paying any price, if he should be a "vernaculus," i.e. born in
slavery; and likewise if, when yet an unbeliever, he had been bought
for his service: if, however, he had been bought for sale, then he
should be offered for sale within three months. Nor does the Church
harm them in this, because since those Jews themselves are subject to
the Church, she can dispose of their possessions, even as secular
princes have enacted many laws to be observed by their subjects, in
favor of liberty. On the other hand, the Church has not applied the
above law to those unbelievers who are not subject to her or her
members, in temporal matters, although she has the right to do so:
and this, in order to avoid scandal, for as Our Lord showed (Mt.
17:25,26) that He could be excused from paying the tribute,
because "the children are free," yet He ordered the tribute to be
paid in order to avoid giving scandal. Thus Paul too, after saying
that servants should honor their masters, adds, "lest the name of the
Lord and His doctrine be blasphemed."
This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
Reply to Objection 2: The authority of Caesar preceded the
distinction of faithful from unbelievers. Hence it was not cancelled
by the conversion of some to the faith. Moreover it was a good thing
that there should be a few of the faithful in the emperor's household,
that they might defend the rest of the faithful. Thus the Blessed
Sebastian encouraged those whom he saw faltering under torture, and,
the while, remained hidden under the military cloak in the palace of
Diocletian.
Reply to Objection 3: Slaves are subject to their masters for their
whole lifetime, and are subject to their overseers in everything:
whereas the craftsman's laborer is subject to him for certain special
works. Hence it would be more dangerous for unbelievers to have
dominion or authority over the faithful, than that they should be
allowed to employ them in some craft. Wherefore the Church permits
Christians to work on the land of Jews, because this does not entail
their living together with them. Thus Solomon besought the King of
Tyre to send master workmen to hew the trees, as related in 3 Kgs.
5:6. Yet, if there be reason to fear that the faithful will be
perverted by such communications and dealings, they should be
absolutely forbidden.
|
|