|
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, sedition is a kind of discord, as stated
above (Article 1, ad 3). Now discord can be without mortal sin,
and sometimes without any sin at all. Therefore sedition can be also.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, The Apostle forbids seditions together with other
things that are mortal sins (2 Cor. 12:20).
I answer that, As stated above (Article 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.
Accordingly 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).
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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. Indeed 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.
|
|